The Controversy over a Land Registry. 97 



" seems to be greater than the want of a Register, whereby 

 to prevent Frauds, Forgeries, Cheats and Perjuries in Pur- 

 chases and Mortgages ; such a Register as hath for a long time 

 been practised with much benefit and admirable success in all 

 our Neighbour Nations ; such a Register as hath been gene- 

 rally desired by the most wise and most honest men of Eng- 

 land, but seems to be reserved for the Honor and Glory of our 

 present Dread Sovereigns, King William and Queen Mary, to 

 whom it is most humbly proposed. That for the infinite good 

 and benefit of all their loving Subjects, and all Strangers fled 

 hither for Protection, Their Majesties would graciously be 

 pleased to appoint a Select Committee of Lords, Spiritual and 

 Temporal, of some of the Learned Judges and of some Mem- 

 bers of the House of Commons to receive such Proposals as 

 shall be offered touching the speedy erecting of a Register ; 

 after mature deliberation to draw up a Bill, to be read in both 

 Houses of Parliament. Such a Bill as would secure all Pur- 

 chases from Dormant Intails, from all Premorgages, from 

 private Trusts and Assignments, from forged Deeds, Pocket 

 Securities, Long Leases, and a multitude of other Frauds and 

 Incumbrances which the Wit and Knowledge of the most 

 Learned in the Law can never be able to discover. Such a 

 Bill as would prevent those common and vile practices which 

 fill our Courts with many long, chargeable and infamous Suits. 

 Such a Register would encourage Foreigners to bring over 

 vast Summs of money, would raise Lands, as in Holland, to 

 thirty years' purchase, and lower Interest Money to three per 

 cent., whereby Trade and Commerce would infinitely encrease. 

 Briefly, the Benefits and Advantages thereof are more and 

 greater than any English Man can easily express or conceive." 



But though this seventeenth century doctor's conclusions 

 have been fully verified by experience, as in Scotland, it is not 

 to be expected that a point which even now divides the legal 

 profession into two hostile camps would have been conceded 

 without considerable opposition then. 



We must therefore expect to find quite as many learned 

 men arrayed against the suggestion as in favour of it, more 

 especially since as late as 1890 no less an authority than the 



II. H 



