Page images
PDF
EPUB

Otherwise they might have rules thrust upon them by an official who had never perused an abstract in his life, and the responsibility would be thrown on the unfortunate solicitors who were trying to carry out a machine which from the first was constructed not to work. The most interesting question to solicitors, in one way, was their position under the Bill. Under the Act of 1875 the position of solicitors was very distinctly preserved, and under the rules it was preserved in the same way. He did not think for one moment that the Lord Chancellor had any intention of acting unfairly to the body of solicitors and of altering the position they now occupied. Of course, his lordship was aware that, as a consequence of the exclusive privilege of conveyancing which was intrusted to solicitors, they were under extremely stringent regulations both as regarded education, conduct, and professional status, and in many other ways, so that the public had the advantage of having a body of men specially trained for the work, and who were under special responsibilities, and every possible inducement, apart from professional honour, to carry out to the best of their ability whatever work they were intrusted with. That had worked, as a whole, to the satisfaction of the public and of clients. They must press very earnestly that solicitors must not be interfered with by this new system. He thought the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that solicitors, as a body, were not opposed to a system of registration per se. He did not think the present system was sufficiently thought out, but it was possible that there might be a system which, without being compulsory, might offer such advantages that it might be accepted. But what they had to do was to make any Act which was put upon them as beneficial for the public as they possibly could. Therefore, they must criticize the Act before it had become law so as to point out on what principles they could work it. In the event of its not passing into law this year, which it probably would not, he thought they should have the opportunity of an inquiry, so that next year the Lord Chancellor might see that it had received the general assent of both branches of the profession. The council had made sixteen recommendations, which he would move, as follows:

1. That compulsory registration is unjust to landowners, and, if the system were made workable and inexpensive, would be unnecessary. 2. That, whether compulsory or not, a system of guaranteed title is preferable to that of an indefeasible title as contemplated by the Bill. 3. That the Land Transfer Board should be selected from barristers and solicitors, and be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, or someone of equal position and authority.

4. That the outlines of the arrangement for branch offices and land transfer districts should be defined in the Bill.

5. That an interval of not less than six months should be allowed between the issue of the rules and the creation of any land transfer district involving compulsory registration.

6. That the duty of registration should be thrown on the grantee, and not, as at present proposed, on the grantor.

7. That provision should be made to relieve a purchaser or other grantee from being affected with notice of the trusts of any settlement of the existence of which he will, by the fact of the proprietor appearing as tenant for life, necessarily become aware.

8. That the proposed confirmation of a possessory or qualified title after five years' advertisement would be open to grave danger and be of little practical use.

9. That the provisions for determining boundaries would give rise to much discussion, if not litigation, between neighbours, and would be seldom taken advantage of. 10. That inasmuch as landowners are compelled to register, and therefore to incur a risk which, as the Bill assumes, they would not incur voluntarily, the cost of insurance against that risk should not be thrown on them, but on the country. 11. That the enforced contribution to an insurance fund will largely add to the cost of registration, and would, if registration were optional, be unnecessary.

12. That if an insurance fund be established, the remedy of an aggrieved proprietor should be against the fund directly without the necessity of preliminary proceedings against the person (if any) liable for the wrong, the Land Transfer Board having the right, if deemed worth having, to take proceedings on their own account.

13. That the right of an aggrieved proprietor should be to full compensation, and not merely to the cost of the land irrespective of buildings or other improvements.

14. That the power to make rules should not be vested in the Lord Chancellor alone, but that rules should be framed by the Land Transfer Board and be issued by the Lord Chancellor on their advice.

15. That the devolution, on death, of real and personal estates should either be left as at present or be assimilated for all purposes.

16 That without limiting the right of any proprietor to transact in person his own business, the conduct, for fee or reward, of legal business connected with land should, as heretofore, be intrusted to solicitors. If these were adopted by the meeting they would have much greater weight. The VICE-PRESIDENT seconded the motion.

Mr. BERNARD WAKE (Sheffield) had come to the conclusion that the drift was in the direction of making the transfer of land and of Consols alike, so that at a very early date it must be assimilated. The shortest way to end this drift was, in his opinion, to make land personal property for the purpose of legal devolution. But the first question was to make land marketable as easily as possible, and he would free land from all obligations to see to trusts. In exchange for this great weight taken off land he would place upon it the small weight of registration of all deeds. There would, no doubt, be a little cost, but not at all equivalent to the cost now incurred in looking into trusts. If a system of registration

were adopted, and every county had its registry office, every man recording his own title in his own language and his own plan, at the end of ten years there would practically be the groundwork on which, if they liked, they could build registration of title. But what would be the effect of making all land pass to an executor for the payment of debts and legacies? All your difficulties and your records of pedigrees upon long deeds would be done away with, and there would be a register with maps in the course of about ten years.

Mr. BLYTH (London) suggested that a special meeting should be called for the consideration of the subject. He agreed very cordially with the council that an indefeasible title should not be attempted such as was required under Lord Westbury's Act, which led to much trouble, delay, and expense, and the Act was practically dead.

Mr. J. J. COULTON (Lynn) suggested that printed information should be sent round to the profession so that their opinion might be obtained. The PRESIDENT said this had already been done, and answers had been received from the country law societies.

Mr. SHACKLES (Hull) said it seemed to him the meeting was drifting into details and losing sight of principles. One principle was to settle whether they were to have a registration of titles or a registration of deeds, and another to approach the legislators upon that question. The registration of titles was out of the question, and the public would revolt against it. The extension of the Yorkshire Registries to every county would give them practically what they wanted.

[ocr errors]

Mr. W. M. WALTERS (London) said the Bill would be in committee next week, and they had to consider a Bill which had gone through its second reading in the House of Lords. The y had to accept it and to do their best to mould it into shape. Registration of deeds would not meet with support in either House of Parliament. Their Yorkshire friends were enamou red of their registries, but at the provincial meeting at Yorkshire a resolution had been carried condemning them, and the president of the Yorkshire Law Society, Mr. Walker, had voted in the majority. They had to deal with a system of registration of title, and it was for them to make it as innocuous as possible. Mr. Blyth had told them that they ought not merely to object to an indefeasible title scheme, but also to a guaranteed title. They were bound to put forward a system of guaranteed title themselves, and they said that, if, instead of aiming at an absolute and indefeasible title, the principle of a guaranteed title were accomplished, many difficulties would disappear.

Mr. ELLETT (Cirencester) said that several speakers had referred to the discussion as if it were a question of the adoption of a report just before circulated. He was speaking for a class who had come some hundreds of miles to attend the meeting, and he hoped they would at least be practical, and that they would, if unable to deal with the questions of detail, deal with the few leading and important points and principles upon which all of them must already have made up their minds, or ought to have done so before this. The country law societies had had a series of questions, raising practically the same points as those Mr. Lake had touched upon, put before them by the council, and he believed every law society had considered these questions and sent in replies. The gentlemen present were representatives of the country law societies, and had taken part in the discussion of these questions locally, and were, he was sure, prepared to express an opinion. It would very much facilitate the discussion if it were limited for the moment to each point in the order in which it was stated, and the vote taken upon it. The first was the question whether or not registration should be compulsory. Surely it was a principle upon which every practitioner in the room must by this time have made up his mind. He had long ago determined to say no, because he believed that if any system of registration was worth having it would be found to recommend itself by its merits. There had been attending the meeting as a visitor, introduced by the president of the Bristol Law Society a gentleman who had practised in the colony of Victoria, and he had told him that the system of registration in that colony was a voluntary system, and that, as a matter of fact, it was very much prized; and he had told him also that he and his brethren in Melbourne found it perfectly possible even under the system of registration to make such a bill of costs in relation to the transfer of land as was remunerative. He (Mr. Ellett) was entirely in favour of the first resolution.

Mr. LAKE proposed that each paragraph should be taken seriatim, and the general resolution of approval put at the end.

This was agreed to, and No. 1 was put to the meeting and adopted. Recommendation No. 2 as follows was then carried:-"That, whether compulsory or not, a system of guaranteed title is preferable to that of an indefeasible title as contemplated by the Bill."

Mr. ADAMS WILLIAMS (Newport) hoped it would not be carried out, as it would entail great expense upon small land owners.

[ocr errors]

Mr. T. H. DEVONSHIRE (London) asked the meeting to say that they approved of what the council had done, and that they should continue in the same direction. He would move, That this meeting approves generally of the conclusions at which the council have arrived with regard to the Land Transfer Bill, and requests them to continue their efforts in the direction indicated."

Mr. LAKE said he was very pleased to accept the motion.

Mr. HUNTER (London) said that, under the indefeasible title, it was proposed to give to the person on the register an absolute title to the property and leave everybody who had been ousted by any fraud or error to be compensated. The result would be that the officials would probably feel themselves bound to make a very strict investigation before they could grant such an indefeasible title, and the effect of it would be to take away from innocent persons something that they had previously got, and to force upon them a money compensation in lieu of rights which they had been deprived of. The official guarantee, on the other hand, was that if a person got upon the register as the official owner of anything that belonged to someone else, the

rightful owner should have the property restored to him, and the man on the register should have pecuniary compensation. The result was that the man coming on the register made no investigation, and, if there was any blunder, nine times out of ten it would be owing to his want of care or want of information, and he would be the person to suffer. It would certainly make a very material difference in the amount of care which would have to be exercised in placing on the register.

Mr. LEWIS (Walsall) said the Bill would altogether revolutionise the mortgage system, because, if anyone borrowed money, it would be made known in the registers of trade protection societies.

Mr. LAKE pointed out that a section of the Act of 1875 which had not been repealed guarded against this.

After some further discussion, the motion was carried unanimously.

THE SITTINGS OF THE LAW COURTS.

Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) read an interesting and lively paper on this subject, in which, after describing the existing state of confusion and uncertainty with regard to Nisi Prius trials and cases before the divisional courts, he said that the uncertainty as to the time of trial on the common law side is completely put into the shade by the extraordinary state of things in the Chancery Division. Although the number of causes for hearing has largely increased, and the interlocutory work too, the old system survives of giving only intermediate days for trials, so that, however many witnesses one may drag up from the country, there are frequent breaks, during which these unhappy people have to return or waste their time in town. It is notorious that in some of the Chancery Courts no substantial progress in the trial of witness causes has been made for many months, owing to the choked condition of the court from other and more immediately pressing matter, such as motions, petitions, adjourned summonses, and the like. Almost every branch of interlocutory work, including chamber appeals (by no means an unimportant list) is now dealt with somewhat hurriedly from the limited time allotted, and everybody who is familiar with the Chancery Division on a day set apart for miscellaneous work will bear me out. As to chamber appeals, nobody will deny that the time has come for specific days being absolutely set apart to hear summonses and applications adjourned by the chief clerks; and in conclusion he made the following practical suggestions:-1. Chancery Division.-That all witness and other causes should be entirely separated from interlocutory business, and be taken de die in diem by independent judges sitting for that purpose only. 2. That cases of an administrative character (if a judge so directs) should form the subject of an entirely separate list to be separately dealt with.

3. That all original motions and petitions, and every other application (in cases wherein there has been no previous intervention of a particular court), should be put into a separate list, and be dealt with by one judge, sitting for the time being for such purpose only, instead of several judges taking such work to the obstruction and disorganisation of other business.

4. That one or more judges should sit in chambers for one or more entire days every week to hear adjourned summonses. 5. Common Law Division.-That the cause lists should be more completely separated into (a) special juries; (b) common juries; (c) causes without juries; (d) causes standing over sine die.

6. That special jury cases should be heard in the order in which they are marked as such, and not be placed between other special juries already so marked.

7. That, (say) on every Friday evening, the judge, who is progressing with a very long list, should announce that he will not go beyond such and such a case during the coming week (a good margin being allowed for contigencies), it being suggested that it would be better even for a judge to be left at leisure for twenty-four hours once in a way (in case of extraordinary and unprecedented collapse) than that hundreds of people should be constantly kept anxious, and expensive preparations be made, frequently to no purpose.

8. That, to avoid needless changes, no cause within the compass of the ensuing week's estimate should be postponed' without the judge's express

consent.

9. That at least one day before the conclusion of every sitting there should be an announcement of the intended programme for the following sitting (emergencies excepted), it being submitted that the dates of the assizes and other known work ought to be fixed with a fairly long notice to the profession; and especially that it should be stated approximately how many courts are to be devoted to a particular list.

10. Lastly, I suggest that the sittings of the law courts form a subject that might alone well employ the time and consideration of a special committee of practical men, the bar to be largely represented thereon (their interests and wishes being of the gravest moment), one and all of us bearing in mind that the administration of the law is only next in importance to the law itself.

Mr. WAKE (Sheffield) moved: "That the continuous sitting in public of a court to deal exclusively with contentious, as contrasted with administrative work, is essentially necessary to the due conduct of the business of the country; and that the want of such a court entails the very serious evils of expense and delay, and the still greater evil of a denial of justice by the enforced reference or compromise of cases, many of which can only be dealt with by the examination and decision of the courts of justice."

This was agreed to.

Mr. BLYTH (London) moved, as a substantive resolution: "That this meeting recommends that the paper read by Mr. Munton on the sittings of the law courts, and the general question of legal delays which is involved in

it, should be taken into consideration by the council with a view to action thereon." Mr. Devonshire (London) seconded the resolution, which was carried. THE CLAIMS OF THE PROFESSION.

Mr. W. C. AUTY (Sheffield) read a paper on this subject in which, after discussing the relations of solicitors to each other, their clients, and the public, he said: Apart from the usual liabilities of his profession, and the tax which burdens his right to practise, the solicitor has to withstand not only the competition within the profession, but also the attacks of those outside. It would be acceptable if assistance were tendered to some of us as to the attitude which should be taken towards chartered accountants, especially as encouragement is given to this new institution by some of our senior members. Drawing agreements, giving advice, requesting interviews with themselves and their "clients," and writing letters couched in legal phraseology, surely seem to infringe upon our just claims. He concluded by saying: Consistent with the duty of a solicitor to do his best for his client, there are many opportunities, as between the solicitors concerned, of minimizing the adverse feeling which constantly arises. It is to the honour of the profession that good faith, courtesy, and consideration in their mutual business relations are the rule. The exceptions show an attempt to carry matters with a high hand, and an inclination to look upon solicitors as being of dubious standing, and as hardly entitled to legitimate costs. It will not be disputed that it is equally unfair for a solicitor to depreciate professional brethren to his client, particularly as to the question of costs. The facts of the case are rarely explained by the client, and it is a matter of honour to withstand any attempt on the client's part to injure the character of the absent party. On the bright side of the account we find candid dealing between solicitors, resulting benefit to clients, and the many mutual obligations which build up the strong and useful fabric of the profession. The political relations, which are so frequent between solicitors, require forbearance, particularly where the parties are actively opposed. In politics, municipal and social matters of importance the profession is well represented, and is by no means behindhand as a powerful and beneficial influence. Energy, perseverance, and liberal views are characteristic of many lawyers, individual instances will suggest themselves, and it cannot be doubted that these qualities have afforded valuable assistance in the great task of the recent purification of the law. United we stand, divided we fall. A closer unity in the profession is to be desired. It is matter for regret that every solicitor is not a member of the society; the council would then be entitled to speak for the whole of the profession. The admission to our debates of solicitors not yet members, and articled clerks, is but a small instalment of what is due. Surely some means can be devised by which all those who have qualified by examination can be inrolled as members of a society of which the profession has every reason to be proud. Could not articled clerks who have passed the intermediate become associate members? The interests of solicitors demand wacthful care, quite beyond the scope of individual effort; the attitude and claims of the profession have considerably changed of late under the pressure of the general spread of education, as well as the marked tendency of legal reform to cast away the husks and get at the justice of the matter. It is now more than ever necessary that provincial solicitors should feel that in London there is a society safeguarding their interests, the exponent of wide views, and a counteracting influence to the effect of local prejudice. May we not with hope look to an extended and honourable future for the profession? The claims for fulfilment of that hope will be higher than in the past in consequence of the present clearer view of right. The influence wielded by solicitors is a powerful influence, and the way in which it is and will be exercised is of the utmost consequence, not only to clients, but to the general public. Mr. JOHN JAMES COULTON (Lynn) read a paper on

THE LAW OF RATING,

in which, after referring to the cases of R. v. Chaplin (1 B. & Ad. 926), and Hayward v. Overseers of Brinkworth (10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 608), he said: The principle established by these cases is intelligible and reasonable. Real estate, like everything else, is worth what it will fetch, and the best guide to the rent at which a holding may reasonably be expected to let is that at which it does actually let, unless there is evidence that the rent is not the value, or ground for inferring it-such as relationship between landlord and tenant, stipulations that tenant shall deal with landlord, or do landlord's repairs, and the like. In such cases the rent criterion fails, and the value (as in cases where there is no letting) must be estimated as best it can. But this principle, although dictated by common sense, and established by law, is systematically ignored by some assessment committees, who disregard the rent, and estimate the value on a principle of their own, usually a valuation of the parish or union by a paid valuer, often made years previously. No valuer, however competent, can know all the circumstances which affect the present letting value of a holding, still less can he predict its value a few years hence. From the decision of the committee there is practically no appeal. There is nominally an appeal to a special petty session, and from it to the quarter sessions, but the justices who compose these tribunals are often members of assessment committees, and usually uphold their decisions. The rent criterion has this defect, that when the assessment exceeds the rent the tenant complains, but when the rent exceeds the assessment the overseers and assessment committee have no sufficient means of ascertaining the fact, nor can they guard against the rent being raised after the assessment is reduced. Moreover, the Acts themselves have two defects: 1. Many holdings are not in practice, and cannot be advantageously, let from year to year. 2. The cost to the landord of repairs, &c., does not affect the letting value, and therefore ought not to be deducted. He suggested that

the following alterations of the law would be found useful:-1. Contracts of letting, and assignments thereof, and alterations therein to be in writing, and produced within a prescribed time to the assessment committee for registration. In default to be void. 2. The appeal to be to the county court, and, in important cases, from it to the Queen's Bench Division; or, by consent, to Queen's Bench direct; Queen's Bench to be final. 3. The assessment to be the rent at which the holding might be expected to let for the term for which it actually is let, or the unexpired residue thereof, and, where there is no letting, for the term for which similar holdings usually are let. 4. The gross estimated rental to be the rateable value. 5. The poor rate assessment to serve for all other rates upon value, including the property tax, the surveyor having the same appeal as a person assessed.

Mr. PAYNE (Milverton) addressed the meeting, stating that he differed altogether from the conclusions arrived at in the paper.

THE NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION QUESTIONS.

more legal right to the wife's property than a stranger, and yet it is doubtful to what, if any, extent his sole liability is affected. Responsibility should go with the property. A husband is now fairly entitled to ask for such a revision of the law as will equitably divide obligations that it was reasonable enough he alone should bear when he alone possessed everything. When the claims of third persons are considered, the matter is far more serious. Creditors have been prejudiced by the new Acts, and that most seriously. Formerly, a creditor who had supplied necessaries to a man's household was fairly safe in suing the husband; and, in view of the wife's legal incapacity to contract, it was only in wholly exceptional cases that he was able to escape the liability. But now, by reason of the recent legislation, it is easier and commoner for a husband to allege, as a defence, that credit was given to the wife, and not to him. If, on the other hand, the creditor sues the wife, the answer may be that she contracted as agent for the husband, or that she has no separate property. Doubtless, in the professional experience of most of us, we have at times been asked to advise as to whether a husband or wife, or both, should be sued for a particular debt. No ques

Mr. BERNARD LEWIS (Wrexham) read a paper on this subject, in which he tion should be more simple to answer; but, in fact, no question is now advanced the following proposals:

1. That nationality should be derived from descent.

2. That the period of residence prior to naturalisation should be increased and the fees raised; and Professor Leone Levi's recommendation on p. 141 of the Appendix to the Report of Naturalisation Commission should be adopted-viz., "ten years' residence in this country, satisfactory evidence as to character and respectability" being necessary.

3. That more publicity should be given to naturalisation in England; and the registration of naturalised voters should be placed on a more satisfactory basis by adoption of the American system, as previously stated.

4. That the naturalisation of persons attached to the diplomatic bodies might be vested in the Foreign Office. In London, in the Lord Mayor's Court, and in all other cases (as previously recommended at Liverpool) in the clerks of the peace of each county or borough, and the oath administered by the chairman or deputy-chairman in open court of quarter sessions, and annual returns made to the Home Office and published.

5. That in view of the great alterations impending in our land system, foreigners should not hold real property (saving rights of those who have taken advantage of second section of Naturalisation Act) without making a primary declaration to become naturalised, and then pay a portion of the fees, but hold leaseholds as formerly.

THE AMENDMENTS IN THE LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE NECESSITATED BY RECENT LEGISLATION.

Mr. J. S. RUBINSTEIN (London) read the following paper on this subject:-There is, perhaps, no question upon which public opinion has within our own time more rapidly advanced than the question as to the proper status of a married woman, particularly with regard to the holding of property, of which alone this paper treats. Before 1870 it was considered subversive of our common law, and opposed to all principles of expediency and reason, to allow that a married woman could have an individuality apart from her husband, and be allowed to hold any property, unless, indeed, fenced round with the cumbersome machinery of trustees and settlements. Husband and wife were one, but the husband was that one. Equity, it is true, had centuries back created the doctrine of separate property for the protection of married women; but common law wholly ignored the wife as an independent individual. The husband, in taking a wife, took also her property and her liabilities. He could be arrested for her ante-nuptial debts, although he did not acquire a penny of property by his marriage. The support of the wife and children fell upon him. The wife had implied authority to pledge his credit for necessaries for herself and household, on the principle that the relationship of husband and wife, at least when living together, carried with it the implied relationship of principal and agent. With what appears, however, to be an undue leaning towards the husband, the law, it is true, allowed him, and still allows him, to rebut this implied relationship by evidence that the implied authority to pledge his credit had been withdrawn, and that, it may be, without the knowledge of any third person. In 1870 the Legislature for the first time sanctioned the principle that married women might hold property in their own right, but this privilege was restricted to their own earnings and small legacies. Only twelve years later the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, completely revolutionized the status of married women, and recognized to the full their right to hold property, and to contract as independent individuals. The further change in the law, proposed by the present Government in the Land Transfer Bill now before Parliament, marks the crowning step in the progress of public opinion. The Bill deals out the same treatment to both husband and wife. On the death of the husband intestate, his widow is given a life interest in the whole of his real estate. This is also the extent of the interest given to the husband on the wife dying intestate. The changes so made go nearly to the whole extent of placing married women upon precisely the same footing as men. The principle is conceded. The removal of the few remaining inequalities is a mere question of time. The law has declared in favour of equality. With equality should come due responsibility. As yet, the responsibilities have not been apportioned. How to secure a fair apportionment of responsibility, by what amendments to place on a plain and practical footing the law of husband and wife, with regard to both the holding of property and the devolution of property, it is the aim of this paper to answer.

The Holding of Property. The law that in former times gave the husband all the property of the wife, although, undoubtedly, operating most harshly against the woman, rested at least on an intelligible basis. The husband took the gains. He could not, therefore, reasonably complain of his sole liability to bear the burdens. Now, however, he has no

little less than the debt itself.

more difficult. Take the case of a builder, who, on the orders of the but from which the husband was absent at the time. The husband, when wife, repairs a house in which the husband, wife, and family reside, applied to, can allege that the contract was made with the wife, and that he, therefore, is not liable; and the wife, on her part, can assert that she simply contracted as agent for her husband, and that he, and not she, must therefore pay. The unfortunate builder could, it is true, dismissed against one of the parties, and having to pay costs perhaps sue both husband and wife, but only at the risk of having his action occurring. A husband may keep up an expensive establishment. When, Cases of hardship are constantly however, a creditor seeks to enforce a judgment, the wife comes forward and claims everything. Such cases were formerly, it is true, not unknown, but they are now greatly on the increase. In former times it was necessary for third parties-trustees-to put the claim forward, and in and they made the claim at the risk of having to pay costs personally. practice to produce some deed or document upon which it was founded, Thus, there were certain guarantees for the bona fides of the claim. Now, however, the wife simply puts forward the claim in her own name, and, as there is no necessity for any document of title to be produced, it is in such cases, in the absence of any special facts not likely to be known to an ordinary creditor, most difficult, if not impossible, to contest the claim so made. In justice, therefore, to creditors as well as to the husband, the law should be so amended as to remove the difficulties and anomalies that now exist. The remedy appears to be a very simple one. Both the husband and wife are jointly interested in starting and keeping up a proper establishment, and justice requires that they should be jointly responsible for the liabilities incurred in consequence. For the purpose of maintaining the joint establishment they are, in fact, partners. As partners they should be treated in so far as liabilities for necessaries incurred for themselves or their household are concerned. Thus a creditor for necessaries would no longer be left to the present risks and dangers of deciding conflicting claims, or be without a remedy in cases where all the property belongs to the one at present not legally liable to pay the debt. One material distinction between an ordinary partnership and the relationship of husband and wife is that the former is capable of being determined at any time, and the liability of one partner for another can thus be brought to an end. It may be desirable to introduce some means of limiting the liability of husband or wife by registration or otherwise. These caces might be met by a public notification in the official gazette. A person who gives credit without making proper inquiries has only himself to blame if he loses his money. Most creditors do, in fact, before giving credit, learn what they can from trade gazettes, based on the records of the Bills of Sale Office and the Bankruptcy Court, and, at times, local inquiries. Another anomaly in the existing law is that, although a married woman has now the same right to hold property as a feme sole, the creditor's remedies against the wife are subject to exceptional limitations, and especially judgment cannot be obtained against her personally, but only against her separate property. All exceptional limitations should be swept away. This is the only logical course. The dangers these limitations were, it is assumed, intended to guard against are far more imaginary than real. As to the Devolution of Property.-Now if once it is conceded that equality should govern the ownership of property in the case of husband and wife, little, if anything, need be said in favour of the same principle applying on the devolution of property. At present a material distinction is made between real and personal property. In the case of realty a husband takes a life estate in his wife's freehold once a child had been born capable of inheriting. A wife, on the other hand, is only entitled to her dower, or one-third of the income, for her life. In view of declarations in bar of dower, contained in so many conveyances, the wife's claim is frequently wholly illusory. The Land Transfer Bill now before Parliament adopts the rational principle of placing the husband and wife on the same footing, and giving to each a life estate in the other's freeholds. With regard to personal property, however, the husband takes the whole of the wife's property on her intestacy. But the wife on her side is only entitled to one-third of the husband's property, if there are children, and one-half if there is no child. In the former case the children take the remaining two-thirds; in the latter the remaining half goes to the husband's next of kin, or, in default, to the Crown. If the matter were regulated upon the lines of strict equality, the wife would be entitled, children or no children, to the whole of the husband's personal property. It is doubtful, however, if such a change is desirable. In any case, it may be assumed, public opinion is not yet sufficiently advanced to sanction it. Indeed, strong arguments may be urged in

street, on Thursday the 2nd inst., the following being present-viz., Mr. Boodle (chairman), and Messrs. Bolton, Collisson, Cronin, Desborough, jun., Hine-Haycock, Lucas, Nisbet, Sawtell, Sidney Smith, Walmisley, and Arthur Carpenter (secretary), grants amounting to £1,315 were made to the widows and families of thirty-one members and £165 to the widows and daughters of eleven non-members. One new member was elected, and the ordinary general business was transacted.

favour of the converse remedy of cutting down the husband's right to the whole where there are children. In such cases the law might, perhaps, with advantage, be made uniform, and like the laws of most civilized countries, by giving in each case a proper proportion to the children. In cases, however, where there are no children, why should not the same law apply to the wife as to the husband? The next of kin may be very deserving objects, but, on the other hand, they may not be. If the husband omits to make provision for them, why should the law do this for him? The hardship upon the widow appears, perhaps, greater where there are no next of kin. In that case the Crown claims the half. The present rights of the next of kin and the Crown might well be taken away in favour of the widow, so as to place her, in this case at least, upon THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY ON THE LAND the same footing as the husband. Although the Land Transfer Bill goes a long way towards assimilating the law of real and personal property in the case of intestacy, and treats the wife with equal fairness, it is, perhaps, to be regretted that the same rules of distribution should not apply to freeholds as to personalty. This last point will not unlikely be dealt with in the usual way by some amending Act. With the view of eliciting the opinions of this meeting upon the matters referred to, I venture to conclude by moving that the council be recommended to support the amendments in the law of husband and wife suggested in this paper, and embodied in the following resolutions :

1. That husband and wife should, subject to proper safeguards, be made jointly and severally liable, as partners, for necessaries supplied to themselves and household while living together.

2. That all existing limitations on creditors' remedies against the wife should be swept away.

3. That on the husband dying intestate, without children, the wife should be entitled to the whole of his personal property.

4. That husband and wife should be placed on the same footing, with regard to the devolution of real property on intestacy, as proposed by the Land Transfer Bill now before Parliament.

If the law of husband and wife be amended as suggested, I venture to think that a branch of law that has perhaps given rise to more hardship and litigation than any other will at length have been placed upon a sound, a satisfactory, and a rational basis.

He concluded by moving the resolutions contained therein.

Mr. DODD (London) expressed an opinion that the paper was one of the most important that had been read to the meeting, but he was not prepared to adopt all its suggested amendments.

Mr. WHITE (London) said that to adopt the suggestions would be to alter not only the law of husband and wife, but that of agency generally. Mr. T. K. CROSSFIELD (London) remarked that if the husband could pledge his wife's credit her separate estate was gone. Mr. W. J. M'LELLAN (Rochester) thought the wife should be able to claim in her husband's bankruptcy for money lent to him by her. Mr. J. A. ROSE (London) and Mr. COULTON (Lynn) also took part in

the discussion.

Mr. J. ADDISON (London) moved, as an amendment to Mr. Rubinstein's motion: That this meeting recognises the importance of the topics dealt with in his paper and recommends the council to have regard to the matter when opportunity occurs in the progress of future legislation. Mr. HOWLETT (Brighton) seconded the amendment. Mr. Rubinstein accepted the amendment, which was carried.

VOTES OF THANKS.

Mr. KENION (president of the Liverpool Law Society) moved a vote of thanks to the president, vice-president, and council, and to Mr. C. O. Humphreys, vice-chairman of the executive committee, and to the executive committee for the excellent arrangements made for the convenience and comfort of the provincial members, speaking in glowing terms of the reception with which they had met.

Mr. C. E. MATTHEWS (Birmingham) spoke in support, and the motion was carried with acclamation.

The PRESIDENT, who was received with loud cheers, briefly returned thanks, observing that the success of the entertainment was due to the executive committee and to the secretary (Mr. Williamson) and his staff. Without the almost superhuman exertions of Mr. Williamson the meeting could not have been carried out as had been the case.

The VICE-PRESIDENT and Mr. C. O. HUMPHREYS having responded, The SECRETARY, who was loudly applauded, said that he and his colleagues, the assistant secretary, and the staff, had been actuated but by one desire namely, that the members should have a happy time during their visit. He had been sometimes asked by the curious,What are the duties of the secretary of the Law Society?" The experience of the last few weeks enabled him to answer the question. In the first place, he was proud to say he was a solicitor. In the second, he frequently acted as a Parliamentary agent. He was clerk to a board which met once a week, and generally once a day. He was a species of public prosecutor, a carpenter, a gasfitter, a florist, and universal provider. He thought, in all probability, if times were bad, he might eventually become a dancing master. There was one other qualification. He would like to be a setter of good examples, and not to occupy their time one minute more than was necessary. He would therefore conclude by thanking them, and saying what extreme gratification it gave him to see so many pleasant faces, and to hear so many pleasant things which had been said with reference to himself.

Mr. DAY moved a vote of thanks to the readers of papers, which was carried unanimously.

LAW ASSOCIATION.

TRANSFER BILL, 1887.

THE following is the report of the committee on the Bill as reprinted :In consequence of the numerous suggestions made to the Lord Chancellor from various quarters, the Bill has been considerably revised, and is to be considered in committee of the House of Lords when that House re-assembles after the Whitsuntide vacation. In view of this consideration, the committee submit to the council a further report upon the provisions of the Bill, and for convenience of reference, as well as for general information, should this report be generally circulated, they have practically embodied most of their former observations. The general scheme of the Bill remains unaltered; registration under it is still made compulsory, and the principle of an indefeasible, as opposed to a guaranteed, title is adhered to. But, as will be seen on going through the Bill, many of the suggestions which the council made have been adopted either entirely or to a considerable extent. The Bill, however, is only supplemental to the Land Transfer Act, 1875, and it is absolutely necessary that, before the system can be properly worked, there should be a consolidation of the two statutes, so as to remove the unavoidable confusion inherent in an attempt to graft a system of compulsory registration upon one which was merely optional. The committee adhere to the view expressed in their previous report that compulsion is unjust and should be unnecessary, and they retain the belief that, if a system of registration cannot be worked except by pressure of compulsion, it will be because it has not been made suitable to the requirements of the country, and will hamper, instead of facilitate, the dealings with real estate. They refer, on this point, to the arguments advanced in their report, and to the following more detailed observations :-The main object proposed to be attained by registration of title is to make dealings with land, especially sales and mortgages, cheap and easy. The committee believe that, under the existing and recently much-improved system of conveyancing, sales and mortgages are now effected with cheapness and ease. But, assuming this to be a disputable proposition, they make the following remarks on the Bill as reprinted :-The economy is to be effected by putting an end to periodical investigations of title. On the other hand, new expense will be rendered necessary-viz., fees or percentage for the maintenance of the registry, and percentage for the insurance fund. The facility is to be obtained by the transfer of a great part of the business from private practitioners to the Land Transfer Office. Experience alone show whether the Land Transfer Office will fulfil the promise of cheapness and ease which leads to its establishment; whether the saving of part of the cost now incurred will, or will not, be outweighed by the new expense imposed by the proposed scheme; whether facility will or will not be afforded by the transfer of business from private hands to a public office; in short, whether it will be cheaper and easier to deal with land under the system intended to be established by the Bill than under the present system. Dealers in land ought, in the judgment of the committee, to be left free to avail themselves of the teachings of experience, and to be at liberty to register their land or to leave it unregistered as they may find most conducive to free and unrestricted dealing. There are a multitude of small transactions which take place very frequently in England, in which the business of conveying land is now transacted without investigation of title at very small cost and with great despatch. In such cases the scheme of registration proposed would probably increase cost and cause delay. [On this point the committee quote the evidence which Lord Cairns, while Lord Chancellor, gave on April 28, 1879, before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on land transfer.]

can

The scheme of compulsory registration of title affects not only the dealers in land. It applies also to the landowner who wishes neither to sell nor to mortgage, but desires to maintain his estate during his life, and to hand it down at his death to his successor unimpaired. If the proposed scheme were to become law, such a landowner must cause himself to be registered as proprietor of his land. He would be advised, we may assume, to choose the least expensive mode of complying with the requirements of the law, and to register himself with a possessory title.

According to the system now in force under the Land Transfer Act, 1875, the course would be as follows:

The landowner would have to produce to the registry and leave there the last settlement or other deed under which he held his estate, and also each document under which he had acquired land by purchase or exchange; and a description of his estate by map and schedule, with evidence by statutory declaration or otherwise to show that he was in possession of the estate as owner under the documents produced. If the landowner did not possess a map of his estate, showing with accuracy its boundaries, divisions, and other particulars, and a schedule corresponding to it, it would be necessary to take the ordnance map, if it had been completed for the district in question, and if not, the tithe map, or such other public map as might be in existence, and to compare it with the rental or schedule of the estate, so as to mark upon it the farms and lands belonging to the landowner, to make such corrections as the changes in the face of the land since the preparation of the map might render necessary, and to correct the boundaries where the estate adjoined the

At a meeting of the directors, held at the Hall of Clifford's-inn, Fleet- land of other proprietors. This last point would require special care,

because it happens seldom, if ever, that the existing public maps have been prepared with a view to defining boundaries between adjoining owners, or that the persons preparing them have had the means of ascertaining such boundaries. The business of preparing an accurate map and schedule would be similar to the business of preparing a particular and map of an estate which is to be offered for sale by auction, and would be not less expensive. The map and schedule having been either ready in the hands of the landowner, or prepared for the purpose of registration, a fair copy would be made and carried into the registry. The map and schedule would there be examined by the proper officer in connection with the documents of title and the declaration of title, and if found correct they would be engrossed, so as to form part of the register, the map for the register being prepared by the Land Commissioners from the best public map at their command. The land would then be registered, and the Land Transfer Board would deliver to the registered proprietor of the land the proper certificate (clause 28). For this business the landowner would have to pay :

The charges of his solicitor;

The charges of his land agent or surveyor; and

The fees of the Registry, which would probably be calculated on a percentage on the capital value of the estate. The total amount would vary with the size of the estate and the circumstances of each case. It would probably be least in the case of an estate of agricultural land; but even in that case, with an estate of ordinary dimensions, it could not fail to be large. Landowners now find considerable difficulty in meeting their present obligations. An additional burden would be felt to be oppressive. The benefit promised by the scheme of registration of title is increased facility of selling or mortgaging, but this benefit is of little or no advantage to the landowner who wishes only to maintain and improve his estate. The committee are of opinion that if instead of aiming at an absolute or indefeasible title (which is unattainable since if by any accident or oversight two persons are, as has already happened, registered as proprietors with an absolute title to the same land, one or other must be ejected and his title be defeated), the principle of a guaranteed title, as in the case of the Australian statutes, were adopted, many of the difficulties which have rendered landowners reluctant to place their land on the register would disappear or be greatly diminished. For, if the principle were accepted, that registration of title should not prejudice or defeat prior existing estates or interests, but that the registered proprietor, if a purchaser for value without notice, should, if ejected or damnified, receive compensation from the insurance fund, the registrar could go much further in accepting less than an absolutely perfect title than he does (in practice) now, under the powers given him by section 17, sub-section 3, of the Act, and might act on the investigation and certificate of solicitors acquainted with the applicant's title, and need not insist on much (if any) publicity. He could, in fact, act as the solicitor for a purchaser acts at present, secure in the knowledge that his action could not prejudice any rightful owner, and that the chance of any interference by an undiscovered claimant would be exactly the same as at present; while, moreover, if any such interference were successful, the registered owner would be indemnified. If the process of registration were thus facilitated, and the needless challenging of objections and perhaps of litigation were removed, the committee consider that the cost of registration would be greatly reduced, and the subsequent dealings with registered land be much simplified. They believe that under such a system landowners would readily avail themselves of the many advantages incident to registration, and that, as in the case of the Australian Colonies, it would be found unnecessary to resort to compulsion. The Bill as at present framed follows the plan of the Act, and is based upon the principle that title is to be or to become absolute and indefeasible; for although by clause 16 the High Court may, in case of forgery, fraud, or error, either direct payment of compensation or restoration of the land according as the court may think equitable under the circumstances, no principle is laid down to govern the exercise of this discretion, which apparently is not to extend to cases of first registration in which an absolute or qualified title has been registered. In the opinion of the committee the rightful owner should be reinstated, at least in cases of first registration, and not merely left to make out a case; while, of course, the proprietor, who has been wrongfully placed on the register, should, if innocent of the fraud or error, be indemnified out of the insurance fund to which he will have contributed. Whether the Lord Chancellor adopt the foregoing suggestions or not, the committee are satisfied that solicitors, as a body, will do what lies in their power to assist in carrying out any system which Parliament may determine to be most for the public benefit, and the suggestions in this and the former report have been framed in this spirit. Perhaps the committeee may be permitted in this connection to quote the report of the Land Transfer Commission of 1870, which, speaking of solicitors, says: "These gentlemen were not hostile to the plan of registration; on the contrary, they came into the office seriously intending to use its machinery for the benefit of their clients." With these prefatory observations, the committee proceed to the details of Constitution of Land Transfer Office.-The machinery provided by the Act consisted of a land registry with the necessary staff. This is to be abolished, and in its stead the Bill proposes to create a land transfer board, with a principal office in London, and district offices, to each of which a land transfer district is to be from time to time attached by Order in Council. Notwithstanding the statement in the memorandum prefixed to the Bill that the board is to comprise "persons of experience in organisation and administration as well as in conveyancing," the land transfer board is really the office of land registry under another name, for the land transfer board is to consist of a registrar-general, a chief examiner of titles, and an assistant registrar. To this board, which is to be from time to time appointed by the Lord Chancellor, are to be attached such officers as the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, may from time to time assign. Great and well-founded dissatisfaction is felt with this arrangement, and with the

the Bill.

absence of any prescribed qualification. The committee cannot too strongly urge that the board, which will be at the head of so new and comparatively untried system of conveyancing, should be composed of persons conversant with, and practically versed in, the law and practice of conveyancing, and should therefore, as was required by section 106 of the Act, which section the Bill proposes to repeal, be selected from practising barristers and solicitors, and should be presided over by a judge of the supreme court, or some one of equal position and authority. The committee are satisfied that not only should the board consist exclusively of trained lawyers, but that the position of a member of the board should be made sufficiently attractive to secure the services of the very best men in the profession. The working of the Act will depend very much upon the branch offices, but the Bill does not define what are to be the duties of the branch offices, nor what is to be the qualification of the district registrars, nor on what principle the district of each branch office is to be formed. Unless these matters are explained it is impossible to form a trustworthy judgment as to the probable success of the measure, and the committee suggest that the outlines of the arrangement proposed for branch offices and land transfer districts should be explained in the Bill, and settled by Parliament.

Compulsory Registration. The right to apply for registration, which by the Act was strictly limited, is by the Bill (clause 4) extended to "any person appearing to the Land Transfer Board to be interested in the land, and to be capable of showing a title to or a right to convey the fee simple of or the first estate of freehold or the whole interest in the land, whether with or without consent, and whether for his own benefit or not, and whether subject or not to incumbrances," and as the Bill proposes to put leasehold land on a similar footing in all respects with respect to registration to freehold land, all land capable of registration may be registered with an absolute, qualified, or possessory title, and the right to mines or minerals may be separately registered. The Bill aims at making registration of title compulsory but gradual, the introduction of registration in any particular district being left to orders in council, so that the system may be tried at first in selected districts to be from time to time enlarged or supplemented, and may eventually become universal. The effect of an order in council declaring that registration is to be compulsory in a land transfer district is to be (clause 2) that from and after a day to be specified in the order every person in possession of any land in the district capable of registration must before selling, settling, mortgaging, or leasing for more than twenty-one years such land be registered as a proprietor of the land, or have a proprietor registered on his behalf, and until a proprietor of the land has been registered a conveyance or lease executed after the specified day will have even less operation than a contract now has. The committee suggest that the several orders in council should always allow an interval of not less than six months between the creation of the land transfer district and the date after which registration is to become compulsory, in order to enable intending vendors, lessors, &c., to prepare for and complete registration. For, if registration is to be made compulsory, as is at present the scheme of the Bill, it is evident that when the compulsory clause first comes into operation there will necessarily be an enormous number of applications poured into the register office, and, unless ample time is given for preparation and organisation, the conveyancing work of the district will fall heavily into arrears, and the system at once acquire a bad name, which will not easily be lost. The Bill as revised retains the principle of registration by the grantor, and not necessarily by the grantee, and will therefore necessitate, as a general rule, a double registration, the advantages of which the committee fail to appreciate. The committee desire to repeat their opinion, which is shared by most of the country societies, that registration, if made compulsory, should be enforced on the first dealing with land after the establishment of the land district in which it is situate, and that the duty of registration should be thrown on the grantee, and not on the grantor. Take, for example, the case of the sale of a small piece of land, part of a large estate. If the scheme proposed by the Bill be adopted, the owner of the large estate would probably be advised not to begin under the new system by registering himself as proprietor of the fragment proposed to be sold, but to comply with the requirements of the Act as to his whole estate; and this seems to be in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Bill. In that case the sale of the small piece would either be delayed until the large estate had been registered, or it would be abandoned by the vendor from dread of the trouble and expense of registration. The double registration seems, however, to be deliberately intended. For the proviso now added to clause 2 removes the need of registration before conveyance in specified cases when the proprietor is not a party to the conveyance, and in those cases throws the duty of registration on the grantee. If, however, the words "on his behalf" (Clause 2, line 10) were omitted, it would be possible for a proprietor, on applying for registration, to have the grantee registered in his stead; and clauses 4 and 7 are framed at if this view had been in the mind of the draftsman, though, if so, it is certainly not carried out. Or the objection could be met by allowing a conveyance prior to the registration of a proprietor of the land, or a contract made subsequently to confer a right to obtain registration (as in clause 2, sub-section b). Sub-sections (a) and (b) of this clause have been revised so as to meet the difficulties pointed out by the council, and a conveyance executed before registration does not incapacitate the grantee from taking any benefit in the land conveyed. A person succeeding under the will, or on the intestacy of a proprietor dying before registration, is apparently intended to have the right to obtain registration, and, on registration being complete, his rights in the land are to take effect as from the date at which they would have otherwise accrued. The Committee, however, think it doubtful whether such a person would be qualified to apply for registration under clause 4, sub-section 1, unless that sub-section is enlarged.

The suggestion made by the council, that in the case of settled lands the tenant for life should be entered as registered proprietor, has been adopted

« PreviousContinue »