8

Sale and Transfer of Land. XVI. It is first, however, material to observe that a register of assurances would not of itself, as we conceive, operate to simplify title, or facilitate (as respects the title) the transfer of land, or render less intricate the practice of conveyancing, or lessen any of the burdens on land which arise from those peculiarities in the ownership of land to which we have above adverted. The registration of assurances would not, as we think, render unnecessary the retrospective investigation of the title on the occasion of each succeeding sale or mortgage. The effect of past dealings upon the title to the land would remain the same as as at present. No evidence of the ownership would be afforded without examining the former transactions, as is now done. Abstracts of title would not be shortened. The forms of conveyance would not be simplified. The technicalities and anomalies of the law of real property would, we think, be confirmed, rather than lessened or relieved, by registration of assurances, unaccompanied by alterations in the general law. Those embarrassments and impediments in the sale and transfer of land which arise from the state of the law and the mode of showing title to land would remain as before, if indeed the delay, trouble, and expense in transferring land would not not be increased rather than diminished by the establishment of a Register of Assurances. A brief consideration of the positive objections that have been taken to that scheme is calculated, we think, to show that this would be the case. , XVII. One of the most prominent objections to registration of assurances, is the vast bulk and increasing quantity of deeds and instruments which would have to be kept, and, on transfers, to be searched and examined, (a) It is calculated by solicitors that these instruments would accumulate at the rate of 300,000 annually, requiring a registry of about 1,000 a-day for every working day. The inconvenience of this, as well as the cost, would be so great, and it struck so forcibly the Commissioners who reported in 1850, that they endeavoured to get rid of the objection by allowing protection in ii variety of instances to unregistered assurances. After observing that in one aspect it would seem necessary to the perfection of a register that the registration should be as essential as any other solemnity required to the execution of a deed, the Commissioners in their Report remark, " But (b) we believe that the establishment of such a rule would lead to consequences seriously affecting the practical utility of registration. One great difficulty in the way of the establishment of a register has always been the bulk of written instruments which are forced upon the attention of purchasers. If registration were made imperative, this evil would become very formidable. After careful consideration we see no sufficient reason for denying to an unregistered assurance, an effect which is not incompatible with the protection to be afforded by the register to those who seek such protection. An unregistered deed may be safely allowed to have full effect against all persons except purchasers claiming the protection of the register." A stronger proof of the magnitude of the evil arising from an indefinite accumulation of deeds can hardly be adduced, for the remedy proposed amounts to this, that in establishing a registry of deeds one of the principal advantages to be derived from it, namely, the certainty of always being able to ascertain the instruments which by possibility can affect the land, may be withheld, except as against persons who have chosen to claim the protection of registration. ' XVIII. In the second place, the registration of assurances would involve a specific addition to the existing burdens on the transfer of land, without diminishing, as we think, except remotely andcasually, any of the existing causes of expense, tardiness, and difficulty in such transfer. The cost of the necessity searches, and the delay and impediments they will occasion in completing sales are not to be overlooked, if no substantial compensation be afforded by diminishing or removing other causes of expense and embarrassment. The complexities of title and the technicalities of transfer, which are at present the chief causes of cost and difficulty, and protracted inquiries in performing contracts of sale, will not be taken away by any system of registering deeds. To this we must add the important consideration that the additional expense and complication caused by requiring registration would be universal, and would extend to all landed property, and to all sales and purchases of it, large or small. The benefit, however, which the register would confer by excluding the risk of fraud would be exceptional anil peculiar. All transactions would, in fact, be made to pay for the machinery contrived to defeat fraud in a few. Were the register calculated to simplify title generally, or the forms of transfer generally, or were it adapted to relieve sellers and buyers from the necessity of retrospectively investigating past titles, the benefit to landed property, and to commerce in it, would be universal, or substantially so; and in such a state of things there would be no harshness in throwing upon all transactions the cost and burden of coming and being admitted to the register. Unless, however, the investigation of the title retrospectively can be dispensed with, the main sources of expense will remain untouched. The expense of this investigation, amounts certainly to one-third and often to two-thirds of the whole cost incurred by a purchaser, (c) We cannot, therefore, but concur in the opinion expressed by Mr. Hayes, that by "establishing a general register there is an absolute certainty of an immediate addition to the expense of every transaction relating to laud, and the risk of involving titles at an early period in almost irretrievable embarrassment, while all the advantages which it tenders are more or less speculative .and remote." In small transactions, which are far the most numerous, any increase of expense would be very oppressive, (d) An

What Registration of Assurances will not effect.

First objection to a Registration of Assurances considered.

Second objection considered.

(a) Lord St. Leonard's Pamphlet, " Shall we register our Deeds?" p. 4. (4) Page 28. (c) See the answers of Messrs. Hurst, Lewis, Statham, Shaen, Sweet, Christie, Earrer, Dugmore, &c. (d) See answers to Question 2. See also Mr. Btiliar's Evidence on Registration of Assurances Bill in answer to Question 685, &c.