LAND LAWS. 



523 



able features of entail, but still permitted a 

 man to make, by means of settlements, proper 



S revision for his daughters and their children, 

 n the other hand, Mr. Gladstone and Liberal 

 statesmen generally hold that further legisla- 

 tion is needed to carry out the purpose of the 

 measure. Lord Hartington has said that the 

 act was excellent, but the law was so carefully 

 fenced in by protections in the interests of land- 

 owners, and the legal profession had interposed 

 so many obstacles to the working of the act, 

 that up to the present time they had prevented 

 its having any extensive operation. There are 

 many who strongly advocate giving the trus- 

 tees a wider discretion for the investment of the 

 money obtained from the sale of settled land ; 

 giving the creditors of tenants for life greater 

 power to compel the sale of settled property ; 

 and enabling the limited owner to compel a 

 division of the proceeds of the sale between 

 himself and the reversioner, and permitting the 

 parent, where the tenant in tail is under age, to 

 apportion the estate among his children. The 

 absolute prohibition of entails upon unborn 

 persons and upon successions of living persons 

 is also strongly advocated. Measures that will 

 unfetter the glebe-lands and lands that are the 

 basis of charitable foundations, and facilitate 

 their sale and transfer, have many advocates 

 among statesmen of both parties, and would 

 probably prove very beneficial to clergymen 

 and charitable institutions, and bring large 

 quantities of land into the ownership of those 

 who cultivate it. The ecclesiastical commis- 

 sioners, convinced that money invested in Gov- 

 ernment securities brings a larger and more 

 certain income than that invested in land, are 

 offering to sell their lands to tenants on favor- 

 able terms. Further legislation, however, seems 

 to be needed. 



Registration. In the absence of a general 

 system of registration for titles and incnm- 

 brances, the trouble and cost of looking up 

 titles and making conveyances that shall guard 

 all the interests that may be affected by the 

 sale of a settled and incumbered estate are 

 great obstacles in the way of its sale and trans- 

 fer. These obstacles are often more formida- 

 ble in the case of small properties, where the 

 titles are apt to be more uncertain, than those 

 of large estates. The proof of title was some- 

 what simplified by the Prescription Act of 1832 

 and the Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 

 and 1874, but the work of making an abstract 

 of title is in many cases still difficult, tedious, and 

 costly. The Conveyancing and Law of Property 

 Act (1881), the Solicitors' Remuneration Act 

 (1881), and the supplementary act passed a 

 year later, somewhat abridged the required 

 length of deeds, and reduced the necessary cost 

 of their preparation. It is obvious, however, 

 that the transfer of land can not be made sim- 

 ple and inexpensive without a general system 

 of registration. Local registries have long 

 been in use in Yorkshire and Middlesex, and at- 

 tempts were made under acts passed in 1862 



and 1875 to induce land-owners generally to 

 register their property. The provisions of. 

 these acts were, however, merely permissive 

 and have been practically inoperative. Nearly 

 all the leading statesmen of both parties are in 

 favor of compulsory registration. The opposi- 

 tion comes from conveyancers, lawyers, and 

 land-owners that are unwilling to give up their 

 power of making secret transfers of or incum- 

 brances on their estates. 



Free Trade in Land. Most of the advocates 

 of these reforms believe that, when all obsta- 

 cles in the way of the sale and transfer of land 

 are removed, many of the large estates will soon 

 be broken up, and that the number of land- 

 owners will be rapidly and greatly increased. 

 Lord Salisbury and some other Conservative 

 statesmen, however, hold that the present tend- 

 ency toward the concentration of ownership 

 is in accordance with the laws of political econ- 

 omy, and that if the disposal and transfer of 

 land were wholly unfettered, this natural tend- 

 ency would be increased. All agree that 

 these reforms would in many cases cause land 

 to pass into the ownership of those who would 

 have capital and motives for more fully devel- 

 oping its productiveness and for rendering it 

 more beneficial to the country. 



State Intervention. Many of the Radicals 

 urge the use of the power of the state to effect 

 a wider distribution of land than is likely to re- 

 sult from the removal of all legal restrictions 

 and obstacles to its sale and transfer. Some 

 advocate the compulsory distribution of at least 

 a part of a man's estate among his children. 

 While few have ventured to advocate openly 

 the general nationalization of land, numbers 

 favor the restoration of the ancient rights of 

 common over large tracts of it. The appor- 

 tionment and inclosure of commons was until 

 recently considered desirable in the interests 

 of better cultivation and increased production, 

 and a series of acts favoring and regulating it 

 were passed. Under the provisions of these 

 acts large tracts were inclosed. Of late, pub- 

 lic sentiment and a number- of statutes and de- 

 cisions of the courts have shown a tendency to 

 reverse the former policy by preventing fur- 

 ther inclosures, and restoring some of the lands 

 that have been inclosed without clearly prov- 

 able legal right. Mr. Collings recently intro- 

 duced into Parliament a bill providing for the 

 restoration of commons that had been unlaw- 

 fully inclosed, and requiring any one, who 

 within the past fifty years had acquired or in- 

 closed any wayside or common land, to show 

 that he or his predecessors had acquired or in- 

 closed it lawfully. In this way the advocates 

 of restoration hope to compel private owners 

 to open many parcels of land of a greater or 

 less extent for the common use of small ten- 

 ants and laborers. The land-owners claim that, 

 even where one's title is good, it would often 

 be extremely difficult to go back fifty years 

 and prove it, and that such an act would in- 

 crease the cost of transferring land, for it would 



