loo History of the English Landed Interest. 



as is embodied in statutes 27 Eliz. c. 4, and 29 Car. II. c. 3. 

 But, from all that has been now said, it is clear that the fiction 

 of Common Recovery was the root of the evil, and that its 

 extirpation was only a question of time. Indeed, it is sur- 

 prising to find that the Act finally abolishing this process was 

 not passed till 1833.^ 



Up to that date, therefore, the advocates of a public regis- 

 tration had a much stronger case than their like-minded 

 descendants of the present day. The physical difficulties of 

 the scheme were, as regards population and multiplicity of 

 documents, infinitely less ; as regards locomotion and acces- 

 sibility, infinitely greater than they would be now. 



The question is one which from time to time has attracted 

 considerable public attention. A large amount of literature 

 embodying the 'pros and conn of this important problem began 

 to appear towards the close of the seventeenth century. Thus 

 in 1678 there came out a pamphlet in favour of registration, 

 followed later in the same year by one against it. Then in 

 1694 a writer, styling himself " a person of great learning and 

 judgment," took up the cudgels in its defence, which no doubt 

 provoked a further attack and counter-attack. Besides such 

 works every law-book had something to say on the point, so 

 that the historian who desires to make a conscientious selection 

 of what is permanently useful on the subject is positively 

 embarrassed by the excess of materials to hand. 



At first sight it seems strange that in all the literature which 

 we have examined no one had placed his finger on the seat of 

 the mischief, and proposed the abolition of Common Recoveries, 

 especially because as long as the judicature countenanced 

 such fictitious processes, it opened the door to still worse forms 

 of fraud, of which tacking and consolidation of mortgages 

 would be reckoned among the most innocent. 



But it must be borne in mind that neither the champions 

 of registration, who probably represented the commercial in- 

 terest, nor the advocates of the iiiatus quo, who probably repre- 

 sented the landed interest, desired to abolish a system without 



' '6 and 4 Will. IV. c. 74 substitutes a simple disentailing deed for tlie 

 more intricate processes in use Leforo. 



