cases as yet unprovided for, and the conflicting decisions would necessarily be reconciled by the enunciation of a general proposition covering the class of cases to which they belonged. In this way the codification of the law would lead to its becoming more perfect and more consistent, as well as more concise and intelligible.

66

I do not lose sight of the great difficulty of framing a good and useful code. The enormous mass of materials out of which it would have to be compiled is sufficient evidence of the labour involved. The process of reducing this mass of materials to an orderly and comprehensive shape, by a concise statement of the general principles contained in it, must of course be a gradual one. It would not suffice simply to embody the various separate decisions in an Act of Parliament, and to call this a code; though, if a digest were thus made of each of the several branches of the law, it would no doubt be a most useful means of exposing conflicts and anomalies, and thus paving the way for a more condensed summary. But whatever be the form of the work, whether digest or code, it would be necessary to deal exhaustively with the whole of the existing law reports and statute books, and, by discarding that portion which is no longer of value, and condensing what remained, to extract and retain the essence of them. The present condition of these materials is thus described by the commissioners, who, in 1867, reported upon the utility of digesting and codifying the law:The judicial decisions and dicta are dispersed through upwards of 1,300 volumes, comprising, as we estimate, about 100,000 cases, exclusive of about 150 volumes of Irish Reports, which deal to a great extent with law common to England and Ireland. A large proportion of these cases are of no real value as sources or expositions of law at the present day. Many of them are obsolete; many of them have been made useless by subsequent statutes, by amendment of the law, by repeal of the statutes on which the cases were decided, or otherwise. Some have been reversed on appeal, or overruled in principle; some are inconsistent with or contradictory to others; many are limited to particular facts or states of circumstances furnishing no general rule, and many do no more than put a meaning on mere singu. larities of expression or particular written instruments, or exhibit the application in particular instances of established A considerable number of cases are reported many times over in different publications, and there often exist, especially in earlier times, partial reports of the same case in different stages, involving much repetition. But all this matter remains, incumbering the books of reports. The cases are not arranged on any system, and their number receives large yearly accessions, also necessarily destitute of order; so that the volumes constitute what can hardly be described, but may be denominated, a great chaos of judicial legislation. At present the practitioner, in order to form an opinion on any point of law not of ordinary occurrence, is obliged to search out what rules of the common law, what statutes, and what judicial decisions bear upon the subject, and to endeavour to ascertain their combined effect. If, as frequently happens, the cases are numerous, this process is long and difficult. Yet it must be performed by each practitioner for himself when the question arises; and in some cases, after an interval of time, it may have to be repeated by the same person."

rules of construction.

"

During the period which has elapsed since this report of the Commission in 1867, the bulk of the law reports has been still further augmented by the addition of some hundred volumes, the whole presenting a most formidable array of confusion, to reduce which to order would necessarily entail a large expenditure of time and money. But the fact, to which I have just referred, of the rapid growth of the materials to be dealt with, is proof that the longer the task is delayed the greater must this expenditure be. A beginning could at all events be made with those legal subjects which are more or less compact and complete in themselves; such, for example, as the law of evidence, the law of partnership, and the law of bills of exchange, each of which has already been reduced to and published in the form of a code by pri. vate writers. By a statutory enunciation of the law relat ing to these subjects the benefits derivable from codification would be made apparent, and the way would be paved for a gradual extension of the process to the remaining branches of our law.

These remarks have been to some extent suggested by a measure introduced at the end of last session by Sir John Lubbock, who is well known to most of us, not only as a

banker, but also as a man most eminent in science, and recently president of the British Association, for the codification of the laws of bills of exchange. This Bill was only read pro forma for the purpose of consideration during the recess, and may be expected to appear again next year.

In codification, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and possibly other countries, have been far ahead of us; and a more ambitious attempt has been made by the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Laws of Nations (whose meetings in London I had the honour of attending as one of the delegates of the Incorporated Law Society a few years ago) to frame an international code on this subject. Sir J. Lubbock's Bill was considered with approval at their conference held at Cologne this autumn, though, as being confined in its effect to this country, it was deemed not to go far enough for their purposes.

For the result of these various efforts in amending and codifying our bankrupt and commercial laws, during the next or some future session, I must refer you to the next or some future president.

Mr. F. K. MUNTON (London) moved a vote of thanks to the president for the excellent paper they had heard. Coming from the head of one of the principal firms in the kingdom they had looked for a paper of high interest, and he hoped that such an address from the president of a representative society, such as the Law Society, would go far to convince the public that solicitors were anxious that the law should be reformed and rendered easy and expeditious. He expressed his pleasure that the paper had so strongly attacked the present bankruptcy law.

The motion was seconded by Mr. S. POLLARD (London), and unanimously adopted, and

The PRESIDENT thanked the meeting for the way in which they had received his address.

NEXT YEAR'S MEETING.

The PRESIDENT said it would now be necessary to consider as to the place of meeting next year, and members were at liberty to make any suggestions on the subject.

n

Mr. LAVERACK (President of the Hull Incorporated Law Society) said that his society had deputed him to give the society a cordial welcome to Hull. He moved that the meeting next year should take place there. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lown (Vice-President of the Hull Society), and was carried nem. con.

Mr. G. R. DODD (London) complained that it was quite impossible to consider the numerous subjects brought before them in the short space of nine hours, and moved that the time in future be extended to three days instead of two as was at present the case.

The motion was not seconded.

Mr. LEWIS (Wrexham) observed that it had at one time been laid down as a rule that the expenses of the banquets usually given at these meetings should be borne by those who participated in them. If this were not the case, it was felt that, at those towns at which there were few solicitors, it would be unjust to allow the expense to fall upon the society there. Birmingham had been the first to break through the rule which had been laid down, and had been followed in this respect by other large towns. He moved a resolution to the effect that the members attending these banquets should be required to pay their

Mr. BERNARD WAKE (Sheffield) read a paper on "Bank. ruptcy and the Broad Principles to regulate the Relations of Debtor and Creditor," in which he laid down and enforced the propositions that

1. Baokruptcy is a malfeasance-must be catalogued as a crime-dealt with by a court-not controlled by creditors, the main injury being to the State, or whole community, and not merely to individual creditors.

2. Penalties, or punishment, more or less severe, must be a necessary consequence of bankruptcy-in particular debts must remain undischarged.

3. Bankruptcy law must aim chiefly at repression of bank

ruptcy-not neglecting payment of dividends, but not making that the paramount object.

4. Bankrupts must be interested in the cash result of their bankruptcy.

5. County courts possess the best machinery for working bankruptcies.

And he gave the following as the broad outline of the proceedings in a bankruptcy :

1. The registrar of the court is the first officer who takes possession of the estate.

2. The registrar or court appoints, immediately after a bankruptcy, officers for the protection of the estate.

3. At an early date a creditors' meeting is held, and presided over by the registrar; the outlines of the estate are discussed, and resolutions are passed indicating the creditors' views as to how the estate will be best managed. These resolutions operating merely as suggestions or guides to the

court.

4. At this meeting one or more directors-not necessarily creditors-are nominated for the approval of the court, to be elected or not just as the court thinks fit.

5. The directorate are to work on the same principle as the directorate of a limited company; managers, secretaries, and accountants are to be employed, and the general machinery of a limited company is to be brought into use; accurate minutes are to be kept, and every payment, except petty cash, is to be by cheque.

6. Every expenditure is to be passed by the directors, but when so passed is to be subject to the approval and control of the court.

7. The directors are to make reports every six months, or oftener, whenever required by the court.

8. The directors are to hold office under the court, which is to exercise jurisdiction over them.

9. All money received is to be paid to a bank account. Mr. J. A. ROSE (London) was opposed to any such sweeping measures as those suggested. What was wanted was reform and not revolution. Any law that went beyond the good sense and good nature of the community must prove a failure, and he trusted that mercy would always be shown to the unfortunate bankrupt, and that no system of procedure should ever be brought to bear with the object of crushing him without mercy.

Mr. S. LEAROYD (Huddersfield) objected to any going back to the old system of imprisonment for debt to which Mr. Wake's paper appeared to point. There were many cases of honest bankrupts, and it was not right that these should be treated as though they were dishonest. He was opposed to the entire proceedings being in the hands of the court. They might begin there, but they must not end there. He thought that creditors should have the right to take the dealing with the estate out of the court and into their own hands. He regretted that the solicitor did not at all times deal with the estate as he would in the case of an individual, but looked upon it as something that could be attended to at any time and at his leisure.

Mr. HENRY ROSCOE (London) was strongly opposed to saddling a man with what might be termed twenty years' penal servitude because he had become a bankrupt whether he was honest or dishonest. Such legislation as that proposed would be so great a change from the present law, which, owing to the benevolent feeling of the age, was perhaps somewhat too lenient, that there would unfailingly come a change in the opposite direction. A wholesome system of credit was what was wanted, and which would be most beneficial in the prevention of bankruptcy, not a system by which the last sixpence could be wrung from the bankrupt by tighten. ing the screw upon him.

Mr. R. FEW (London) said there were many landowners and noblemen sinking into bankruptcy from no fault of their own, and he would not have them made liable to the penalties proposed by Mr. Wake. He was in favour of the business commencing in court, but would give the largest power to the creditors to settle among themselves as to how the estate should be dealt with. He protested against the bankrupt being treated in the harsh way which had been suggested.

Mr. COLBORNE (Newport) was in favour of the consent of the majority of the shareholders being required to the granting of the discharge of the debtor, though the power to grant the discharge should be placed in the hands of the court. The consent of the creditors should also be personal, and not by proof. How could they propose to punish the unfortunate shareholders in banks who had been rendered bankrupt by no fault of their own, but for the laches of

others, in the manner suggested by Mr. Wake, and to say he should not be a free man until he had paid his twenty shillings in the pound, and his wife and children for the future were not to have the first claim upon him. This sort of legislation would not go down. A defect of the present law was, that when a man was appointed as receiver the first thing he considered was how to be appointed a trustee. Anything that would purge the law of this defect would be a boon. Why should not there be attached to the various county courts solicitors of standing, to whom cases should be confided, and who would have the professional duty and responsibility thrown upon them of the administration of the estate?

Mr. G. R. DODD (London) observed, as an objection to Mr. Wake's scheme, that the bankrupt would seldom surthe twenty years necessary to carry it out.

Mr. LEAKE thought that Mr. Wake was enforcing the maxim that twenty innocent persons should suffer rather than that one guilty one should escape. He thought it should be incumbent upon the debtor to prove that be had not been guilty of any commercial offence, and that if he could prove it he should have his discharge, but the grant of the discharge should be in the hands of the court.

Mr. MELVILLE GREEN observed that it did not necessarily follow that the creditor was a fool, or that the debtor was a knave, and there should be some tribunal for deciding whether the debtor was reasonably justified in incurring the debt.

Mr. MARGETTS (Huntingdon) spoke of the injury done by the proxy system, and was in favour of leaving matters in the hands of the creditors. He would have the proxy system abolished altogether.

Mr. THORNLEY (Liverpool) could not see his way, as far as the practice in Liverpool was concerned, in getting rid of liquidation by voluntary payments. In many instances the bankrupt merchants had property abroad, and this would be otherwise practically irrecoverable.

Mr. SIMMONDS (Dorchester) thought the court should have the control of matters, and that the debtor should Mr. Wake's most able paper. not be discharged except with its consent. He supported

Mr. F. MILLER (London) said that under the last Bankruptcy Act a new state of things arose. Up to that time no payment had been made to trustees for any services in administering the estate of the bankrupt. The creditors were always anxious to take the debts and assets upon themselves and to wind up the estate without putting it to the expense of the payments which have now to be made to the trustee for his services. Prior to the Act the number of accountants was very limited, but since they had increased enormously. He would have the system of paid trustees abolished, and have the creditors wind up the estate.

Mr. W. J. MCLELLAN (Rochester) would give to the debtor the means of calling his creditors together, and the court should then resolve how the liquidation should be proceeded with.

after the bankrapt had earned his own livelihood the surplus Mr. WAKE, in reply, said that he was only desirous that should go to his creditors. He had no desire to put the bankrupt in gaol as had been suggested, but he thought that if a man who found himself getting into difficulties called his creditors together he would have no difficulty in getting them to accept a composition. When the d-btor obtained goods he would of course know whether he was in a position to pay for them or not, and if he knew that he could not pay for them, he must necessarily, more or less, be something of a rogue, and deserve to be placed under some ban. Bankruptcy ought not to be considered as a settlement of the debt, but the debtor should have an opportunity of paying it. The meeting then adjourned for luncheon.

AFTERNOON MEETING. The PRESIDENT took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

THE ANTI-SETTLEMENTS (LAND) AGITATION. The Rev. Mr. MOULE read the following paper which had been prepared by Mr. ALFRED BELL, of London :After referring to the demands of different classes of agitators and the history of the relaxation of feudal restraints on alienation, the writer continued :-

Thus, then (to use the words of a great lawyer, James Stephen), "the result of these several relaxations has at length been the complete disengagement of the realty from all the feudal restraints on alienation, so that it may be laid

down as a general maxim, subject to a very few exceptions which we state, in passing, to be unimportant], that all estates in land are now freely transferable," and, that being Eo, we regret to feel unable to speak of the bona fides of those who cause the uninformed public to believe that landowners make use, in settlements, of the offspring of the feudal law for their aggrandisement, and the accumulation of land in large aggregate quantities in families-a state of things which, the agitators urge, can only be counteracted by violent centrifugal legislation, compelling land to “disperse” (that is the favourite word), whether it naturally will or no, and whether for the good of the commonwealth it ought or no, and whether or no the effect would be to debase an agriculture which is at present the first in the world.

Next in order for consideration comes the demand that there shall not be a single acre of land without an owner able to sell the fee simple thereof, and therefore the call for the abolition of "limited owners," because they are alleged to be partics who can only sell less than the fee simple.

We hear but little of the fact that settlements of land generally contain a power to the trustees to sell the fee simple discharged from the settlement, and that, where a settlement does not contain a power of sale, the Legislature has largely supplied it.

But it is further urged that, whenever there is a limited -owner, trustees may not in all cases be or feel justified in exercising their power of sale, and therefore it is still said, abolish limited owners. That sole remaining contention, however, has no longer any place, inasmuch as Earl Cairns has removed this sole remaining vestige of a pretence (as we take the liberty of calling it). His lordship prepared, and the House of Lords passed, a Bill giving power to all limited owners in all future settlements (and under conditions even in present settlements) of land to sell the fee simple thereof. That Act was sent from the House of Lords to the House of Commons so long ago as the 22nd of February last (1881), but it did not succeed in getting beyond a second reading there, and, that being so, we are, according to the rule that no one can take advantage of his own wrong, entitled to consider the case as if Lord Cairns' Bill had not been hindered and had passed into a law.

We may also, in passing, remark that this patent obstruction by the agitators of the fulfilment of what they have been calling for so loudly as necessary for the public good, points to some object on their part distinct from the public good.

Such being the state of the case, it is manifest that this agitation has no base. If, as contended (though we by no means admit the contention), it be really necessary that for the due uses of land as a sustainer of the people, it should be looked upon in so special a point of view as to require that every owner (whether a limited owner or not) shall have the power at will to sell the fee simple, then here is the fee simple always at hand for sale.

This agitation, then (whether consciously or not), finds itself in collision with the one great principle respecting which the whole nation will join issue. That great principle is the right of every English person to settle all property, real and personal, for a life or lives in being and twenty-one years after, and no longer. This well-defined right has been upheld by statesmen and lawyers as the necessary motive for thrift. English statesmen have always seen that the living hand would lose the best motive to work while living if the dead hand were to be prevented by an arbitrary municipal law from speaking reasonably after its death. "The dead hand works in life from the consciousness that it can secure the product of its work to benefit, after its death, its own, who are dear to it, and that in the manner it believes to be best, and the existing well-digested law points out.

If this beneficent law could possibly be altered at such a bidding, it must, of course, be so with reference to all property. The acquisition of both personalty and land is the object of an honourable life's labour and ambition, and an Englishman has a right to require that whatever kind of investment he has selected, whether real or personal, shall remain as now upon equal terms as to settlement before the laws of his country. The agitators single out land from all investments in order to depress its status, and the reason is not far to seek. Landowners are necessarily the most visible representatives of order, and are hated accordingly by their opponents.

And now we arrive at the alleged public grievance of the undue accumulation of land by means of the operation

The above return does not appear to us to show undue accumulation, but, on the contrary, as we submit, it shows a natural gradation and adjustment of ownerships such as English statesmen would look for in a great commercial country, where land, being the least-paying investment, is retained from motives besides and distinct from the

income derived from it. English land has long ceased to be the only property of importance. Competing with land as an investment, there are 700 millions of funded debt (the safest security in the world), 700 millions of paid-up railway stock and shares-the enormous stock and shares of all the other English private enterprizes resting on the faith of our Parliament, which is relied on throughout the world. Then there are large colonial, Indian, and other stocks, and the great capitals required for commerce and trade-forming a vast total and offering a selection thereout of investments paying better and more securely than land.

But while land thus stands in the midst of those vast competing investments, the agitators cry aloud for its "dispersion," so as to wrench it away from those who retain it because they regard considerations other than and besides mere income, and to force it into the possession of those who cannot afford to regard, in an investment, anything whatever but yearly income.

Rich men also prefer other investments to that of land. Observe, weekly, in the Illustrated London News, the enormous amounts of personalty under which the estates of "dead bands" are sworn. We may also with interest call to mind two striking instances of this kind. In one case, the personal estate having been sworn under several millions, our great Finance Minister is reported to have said in the House of Commons that the amount of the duty on the estate had made its mark upon the national income for the

year; and in another case the personal estate was stated to be larger in amount than would have sufficed to purchase any landed estate which might be selected in all England. These millionaires might have bought land, of which there is always abundance in the market, but they preferred other investments, by the accumulation of which they died possessed of such great personal estates.

Next, when we come to say a few words about settlements, we are somewhat at a disadvantage, because we find ourselves opposed to mere phrases, and not to realities. There are no such entails and settlements as those the descriptions of which have been confusing the minds of the public. Phrases are, of course, effective weapons when unscrupulously made use of, and it is scarcely possible, by merely exposing their unreality, quite to undo the mischief they have done. However, we must be content with stating a little what the settlements really are, and what the estates are which constitute the alleged accumulations, and how they are for periods more or less long retained in families.

But, again, when we speak of land being put into settlement, it must always be borne in mind that above, beyond, independent of, and discharged from, the settlement, the land itself can always be sold in fee simple, so that the settlement is not (as it may be expressed) positive, but beneficial only as respects the land.

The family estates, moreover, brought into settlement are not, as the agitators would induce the public to believe, the estates which came into families long periods of years ago, and have ever since been compelled to stagnate in those families by the compulsion of entails. On the contrary, if any parts at all of the first granted land have uninterruptedly continued in families, it is a comparative rarity. Family estates, as they present themselves this day, have come together through all the vicissitudes of generations; they, or parts of them, have been lost, forfeited, regained, sold, exchanged, purchased, devised, divided, given or devised by friends or relatives from motives of natural love and family affection. Indeed, the estates (and the older the family the more so) are the outcome of the chances and changes of human life throughout generations; and, so far from having been, as the agitators presume to say, a useless stagnation through ages, they have been keeping in motion and circulation what is called the Land Market.

And now suppose a family estate, such as we have described, to be brought into settlement. The settlement cannot exceed the law or rule (before explained) against perpetuities. At the end of the moderate time permitted by that rule the settlement may be described as in effect dying, and the then owner decides what he will do with the property, or he can, if he be of age and so pleases, concur in a new dealing with the property, without even waiting for the time allowed by that rule to expire. The decision in either case may be to keep the property in the family, or not to do so. Often the owner makes a new settlement, but almost always unlike the former one; sometimes only part of the property is put into a new settlement, and often a division of it takes place. Often no new settlement takes place, but the owner keeps the fee during his life, sells part of it, it may be, and, at his death, settles the rest in his family as he thinks fit, within the rule always. Thus, not by way of legal compulsion, but always by legal voluntary act, such as British subjects have hitherto been taught to consider as a part of freedom, an estate or a part of it may remain in a family for periods longer or shorter, as the case may be, but the absolute right to dictate which way an estate is to go must recur every time the rule against perpetuities sets it free from all settlement-control whatever.

The tendency of families naturally is clannish, and it ought to be so. It is not the love of money which tends to keep land in families, because any landowner would improve his income by turning it into money and investing it; but it is an honour, distinction, and fair ambition to hold and retain land in a family, and especially if its ancestors were landowners (though probably not of the same land), and bore their part in the formation of the history of their country. Families, moreover, know how mischievous and impracticable this theory of "dispersion "is in a country situated as England is. They know, because common sense tells them, that if land is to prosper and to enable its owner to live on it, and by it, and to do upon it the liberal and beneficent acts he does, it ought to be held upon such a scale as will admit of the development of all its uses and capa

bilities. The education of English history has, moreover, taught families what an inestimable advantage it is to have a head to a family, and they have not the slightest intention of allowing themselves to become like that headless soft fish which the wonderful wit of the head of one of the noblest of the Scottish races has so lately immortalized among us.

English landowners do not, therefore, intend to allow themselves to be robbed of the present moderate power of settling which they have in common with and to the same extent only as the owners of personal estate. That power is part, and only part, of the ballast of the good ship. A providence, kind to England, has placed it there, and hands off " is the command to those who would attempt to throw that ballast overboard.

And now it remains only to apply that test, which is above all agitations and partisanships: "By their fruits you shall know them."

The writer of this has for nearly fifty years been professionally and largely concerned for landowners (both fee simple and limited owners), and increasingly so year by year, and these have been but a part of their acts, as he has known-and seen them-regularly year by year, and with methodical liberality; draining, building, re-building, roadmaking, and other improvements of various kinds have been done by the owners; sites given by them for churches, chapels, and schools; labourers' cottages liberally built with especial care to provide separate accommodation for parents, boys, and girls respectively; villages for the labouring population renovated, rebuilt, cleansed, and improved respectively; churches and schools built and endowed; practical examples set for the encouragement and improvement of agriculture, and much pains taken for improving the breed of animals; no labourer grown old in their services left unprovided for for the remainder of his life; and the cases of the poor carefully considered. We desire to call especial attention to the most important fact that it is the landowner only who can be at all relied on to build such cottages for the labourer as will secure his family from overcrowding with its sad and immoral effects upon so very many thousands of our fellow-subjects. There seem to be only three sets of persons who build labourers' cottages, namely, the labourer, retired builders, or other tradesmen who make the highest rent they can, and the landowner. The last is the only one who can be relied upon to make it a principle so to build asto consult the best domestic requirements and the morality of the labourer, his wife, and children.

At the conclusion of the paper the PRESIDENT suggested. that the two next papers on the programme should be taken before any discussion was entered upon.

LAND TENURE AND DIVISION IN BRIGHTON AND NEIGHBOUR

HOOD.

Mr. F. E. SAWYER (Brighton) read a very interesting paper on on this subject, which we hope to print in full hereafter.

THE SIMPLIFICATION OF CONVEYANCING EFFECTED BY LORD CAIENS' ACT.

Mr. J. S. RUBENSTEIN (London) read the following paper on this subject ::

In the closing days of August there passed through Parliament, almost unnoticed, an Act destined seemingly to ancing. Even among the various Bills mentioned in the work little less than a revolution in the practice of conveyannual report of the council of the society as recently as July last, no reference whatever is made to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or Lord Cairns" Act, to give it at once the name by which it is likely to be known. Νο speeches marked its introduction, no debates its several readings, and no divisions its progress. The public, and even the profession, were almost unaware that such a statute had been under the consideration of Parliament, when they learned that the measure was already law.

For generations our system of conveyancing has been antiquated, a mystery to the public, and therefore a reproach to lawyers. All our great Chancellors for the last forty years-Lord Brougham, Lord St. Leonards, Lord Westbury, Lord Cranworth, Lord Cairns, and Lord Selborne-bave proclaimed the need of reform; severs have attempted it, but none hitherto with success. Our deeds have in form remained but tle changed, none. the

more effective-to use the late Lord Justice James's phrase-for their tons of sealing-wax and acres of parchment. At last we appear to be on the threshold of a new era. This Act, brought in by a Conservative ex-Chancellor and supported by a Liberal Chancellor, has swept away one-half at least of the verbiage that still incumbers our common forms. After the 31st of December in this year, we must prepare ourselves for a new and, beyond all doubt, a better state of things.

As long ago as 1845 Lord Brougham's Act provided that, in every conveyance of freeholds purporting to be made in pursuance of that Act, the covenants for right to convey, quiet enjoyment, free from incumbrances, further assurance, and production of title deeds, and the trustee's covenant against incumbrances, need not be set out at length, but should be sufficiently incorporated by their titles; and that, in the absence of any special exception, the general words and "all the estate" clause should be implied in every such deed. This Act has remained almost a dead letter. Lord Cranworth's Act of 1860 did not contain any provisions to affect an ordinary purchase deed, but gave mortgagees statutory powers to sell, to insure, and to appoint 8 receiver. These powers were unduly restricted, and in practice it has not been usual to rely thereon-at least without special variations. Why, then, is the present Act likely to succeed where the former Acts have failed? Mainly for two reasons-(1) because of its wide sweep, it applies to property of every kind; (2) but chiefly because its application is not left optional. The reform is positive, not permissive. The provisions of the Act must be expressly excluded; they are not merely left open for adoption or rejection. In some cases they are even imperative, and cannot be excluded at all.

What are the main provisions of this Act, and in what respects will it alter the present practice? Without venturing to give a complete list, the leading changes may be

summarized as follows:

I.-As to Contracts for Sale.

1. A purchaser of a leasehold interest is not entitled to call for the title to the leasehold reversion. This is an -extension of the principle introduced by the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, which provided that the title of the lessor should not be required.

2. Evidence of title prior to the date fixed by law or by the contract is not to be required, even although referred to by the abstract.

3. The production of the last receipt for rent payable before completion is to be sufficient evidence that all the covenants of the lease have been duly performed.

4. The purchaser is to bear the expense of the production and obtaining copies of all deeds and documents not in the vendor's possession, and of all certificates, declarations, and the like, required for the verification of the title.

II.-As to Conveyances.

1. Freehold land, or a thing in action, may be conveyed by a husband to his wife, or by a wife to her husband. This provision strikes another blow at the old maxim that the husband and wife are one.

2. The word "grant" is rendered unnecessary, and estates in fee simple, in tail, and in tail male and female may be -created by the use of these titles without using the word "heirs," or other words of limitation.

3. The general words and "all the estate" clause are implied.

4. Covenants for title are implied. Thus, in an ordinary conveyance, it will not be necessary to insert covenants by the vendor for right to convey for quiet enjoyment for freedom from incumbrances or for further assurance, and if the conveyance is of leaseholds (the Act substitutes the word "conveyance for "assignment"), a further Covenant that the lease is valid is implied. Where a trustee, however, or a mortgagee conveys, the only covenant implied is the usual one against incumbrances.

5. A simple acknowledgment in writing of an obligation to do so is substituted for the covenant to produce deeds, and the ordinary incidents of such a covenant are implied.

6. A covenant binds the heirs, executors, and adminis trators of the covenantor, and the benefit of a covenant extends to the heire, executors, administrators, and assigns

of the covenantee as the case requires. It is therefore unnecessary to name them.

7. It is unnecessary to indorse a receipt if a receipt is contained in the body of the deed, and payment can be made to a solicitor producing a deed duly signed without further authority.

8. A purchaser cannot require a conveyance to be executed in his presence, but is entitled, at his own expense, to have it attested by any person he may appoint. This is imperative. III. As to Mortgages.

1. Covenants for title by the mortgagor are implied, and, where the mortgage is of leaseholds, the further covenants that the lease is valid and for payment of rent and performance of covenants.

2. The following powers are implied:

(1) To sell, if default be made in paying off after three months' notice, or if the interest is two months in arrear, or on breach of any other provision.

(2) To insure.

(3) To appoint a receiver, with powers of management, at any time after the power of sale can be exercised. (4) To cut timber.

(5) To grant, if the mortgagee is in possession, agricultural occupation and building leases, subject to certain conditions.

3. A mortgagor, while in possession, has an implied right to grant similar leases, subject to the same condi tions.

4. The mortgagor has the right to require the mortgagee to transfer the mortgage instead of reconveying the property.

5. A statutory form of mortgage is given, in which are implied, in addition to the covenants and powers already mentioned, a covenant by the mortgagor for payment of principal and interest at the appointed times, and the usual proviso for redemption on payment thereof.

6. A mortgagor is entitled to inspect the documents of title and to take copies thereof at all reasonable times. This is imperative.

7. Consolidation of mortgages made subsequent to the Act is abolished.

8. In cases where money is advanced by two or more persons, it is assumed, unless the contrary be stated, that it was advanced on a joint account, and the receipt of the survivor is sufficient.

9. Lands mortgaged may be sold, without the concurrence of the mortgagee, by payment into court of a sum suflicient to satisfy the advance, interest, and cests. This is imperative.

10. Freehold estates vested by way of mortgage in any person solely are, on his death, notwithstanding any testamentary disposition, to go to his personal representatives. This is imperative.

11. The provisions regarding general words and "all the estate clause, and as to the covenants binding and extending to the heirs and personal representatives mentioned when speaking of conveyances, apply equally to mortgages.

IV. As to Leases.

1. The rent and the lessor's and lessee's covenants respectively run with the reversion, and can be apportioned so as to prevent such covenants losing their force on account of any technical rule consequent on a devolu. tion of interest or other event, or the severance of the reversionary estate.

2. New and extensive powers are given to the court to grant relief against forfeiture, and, in substance, relief can always be obtained where damages are sufficient compensation,, except in the case of the breach of an unqualified covenant not to assign, or of a condition for forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee or on the taking in execution of the lessee's interest. The law relating to relief against forfeiture in case of non-payment of rent is left unchanged.

3. A term that originally was not less than 300 years, of which there is not less than 200 years unexpired, and where there is no rent attached, can be turned into a fee simple by the party entitled to the term declaring by deed that from and after the execution thereof the term shall be enlarged into a fee simple.

All these provisions as to leases are imperative.