680 
PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G. 
course would be to provide that every conveyance should imply the 
covenants for title which might now be insisted on, having regard to 
the interests of the conveying parties, and that no one should be 
entitled to express covenants without stipulating for them. 
In England the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, 
contains express provisions for implying covenants for title in convey- 
ances, and the covenants to be implied vary according as the conveying 
party is expressed to convey as beneficial owner, trustee, mortgagee, 
husband of a married woman, settlor, &c. This system requires that the 
character in which the conveying party conveys should be expressed 
in order to subject him to covenants. If it is desired to abolish 
express covenants for title in Victoria, I doubt whether it will be 
expedient to adopt it. The risk involved in a covenant for title is 
usually small, and ought to he nothing. It is little advantage to a 
purchaser to know whether he has the covenants of a trustee or of a 
beneficial owner, for he is bound to accept covenants suited to the 
situation of the vendor, whatever that may be, and it must be very 
rarely that there is any difficulty in ascertaining what that situation 
is. It would seem, therefore, quite sufficient to enact that a conveyance 
should imply the description of covenants which could now be insisted 
ou,and leave that matter to be determined in the rare cases in which it 
arose. Under the Torrens system covenants for title drop out as of 
course, the purchaser, being* absolutely protected from unregistered 
interests, has no need for any further protection by way of personal 
covenant. In case of a general extension of the Torrens system to 
all land, covenants for title would cease to be of any use, and might be 
safely abolished. 
The general words and the estate clause have been abolished in 
England and might be abolished here. 
Covenants for the production of title deeds have disappeared 
under the Torrens system. The issue of the certificate of title 
renders them no longer necessary. Ey providing for a system of 
registration in duplicate, one part being left with the registrar, the 
necessity of the production of future deeds might be avoided in 
all cases without the necessity for any certificate of title, and if 
the language of the deeds was simplified as above suggested the 
expense would not be greater than is occasioned by certificates in 
duplicate under the Torrens system, but as regards existing deeds 
some provision for giving the purchaser a right to their production is 
necessary. Probably the English system contained in the Convey- 
ancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, by which an acknowledgment 
of the right to production may be substituted for a covenant to 
produce, would be the best course to adopt. 
We see, therefore, that the simplification of the language of 
conveyances ’which has been carried out under the Torrens system 
might, with the exception of the absence of covenants for the 
production of existing title deeds, or some substitute for such 
covenants such as the English acknowledgment of the right to their 
production, be carried out with respect to all land whatever; and, in 
fact, it might and should be carried out irrespective of applying the 
other provisions of the Torrens system. I do not think I need notice 
tin ’^visions of the Torrens system as to leases (they differ so little 
