TRANSFER OF TITLES TO LAND

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 110, 9 November 1858, Page 3

TRANSFER OF TITLES TO LAND

{From the Melbourne Argus ) It cannot fail to strike every person who has watched through its successive states the progress of tho question of Registration, that the conviction has gradually and steadily been growing in the public mirid, that means must be found for effectr ing the transfer of land with greater expedition and at a less cost than is at present possible. The great advantage which at an early period of the question a general register of deeds was supposed to afford, was the additional security to titles

which it.,gave. But at present its supporters advocate it on the -grounds of its efficiency in removing the impediments that exist to the speedy transfer of land. A mere registrar of deeds, however, can be of comparatively little use towards effecting this great object. The real benefit which such a register confers is the information it gives to those whose duty it is to draw up the abstract of title. It enables these persons at once to lay a complete statement of the title before those whose opinion on its validity is required. It is probable that the eminent conveyancer, Mr. Duval, whose plan has been, to a great extent embodied in all subsequent attempts at legislation on this subject, considered the obtaining of a full and complete abstract of title to be the end and aim of all legislation. But the most perfect registration of deeds, the most complete information as to all the dealings with the land, will not enable us to dispense with the retrospective deduction of title, and with that complicated system of conveyancing which is the. necessary result ofthe retrospective title. We must also l'emember that in this colony the tendency of our present system of conveyancing must be not to diminish, but to increase in complexity and expense every year. The dealings with land have been in most cases as yet comparatively few, but in proportion as the colony increases in wealth and population, and in proportion as the consequent sales and incumbrances multiply, the title must be traced at a continually increasing cost and risk. The greater the want of land, the greater must be the difficulty of dealing with it. We shall perceive the direction -which our changes must take if we consider the difference between a register of deeds and a register of railway shares.^. The register of deeds supplies a list of all the documents which relate to a given estate; it affords the means of identifying the estate and of determining the title of it. But, it docs not register the actual transfer. It only preserves and renders accessible the evidence that a transfer has been made. Under the best posible system of registration, searches must still bo made", deeds must be perused, and abstracts prepared. All this involves time and trouble, and consequently expense. A register of rail wa}' shares, on the other hand, shows not merely the transactions by which changes of ownership are froduced, but those very changes themselves. t shows not only that A has executed a deed purporting to convey certain rights to B, but that the right to the property is actually taken out of A, and is vested in 13. It does not merely preserve in a convenient form the materials for constructing the history of a title, but it establishes the title itself. This is a result which no improvement in registration alone can effect. We ought not, therefore, to be as hasty as some of our "practical men" seem to be, in rejecting altogether on such a question the assistance of legal skill and experience. But whether we simply attempt to improve our existing registry of deeds, or whether we desire a registration of titles, the existing system of the transfer of land requires speedy and careful reform. A solicitor of considerable experience stated in evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, that he had made out an estimate of the expense per cent, upon sales and mortgages of real property. With regard to sales, he found that "upon a sale £50 value, the expenses,including stamps, amounted to thirty per cent. Upon a sale of .£IOO value, the expenses amounted to fifteen per cent. ; upon a sale of .£6OO value, to five per cent., and onwards, no matter how large a sum, up to .£IOO,OOO, four per cent. On mortgages the expense is rather less, upon smaller sums it is equal; but upon larger sums it is much less." Thus we see that a sale of land to the value of £50 c.osts .£l4, but a sale of stock to the same amount costs half-a-crown. We do not precisely know the expense of such transfers in this colony. A witness stated to the Conveyancing Committee of the Council that the cost of a conveyance varies from £8 to £25. One witness stated that he had purchased land for £124, and that his taxed costs exceeded £81. We need haVdly observe that such a system necessarily depreciates the value of land. Mr. Senior, the eminent economist, who, as Master of Chancery, and previously as-a conveyancing counsel, has had ample opportunities for forming a correct opinion, states his belief that the value of land in England is depreciated by the -difficulty of its transfer to the extent of nine years' purchase. But there is another aspect of the question. It is upon the small purchasers that the pressure is most severe. A man who wishes to sell or mortgage his allotment for £50 must pay, if we take the English tariff, at the rate of thirty per cent. But a large landowner, whose dealings amount to thousands, pays but four per cent., and for mortgages still less. This unequal pressure arises from the very nature of the case. It is just as difficult to make out a title to one acre as it is to a million acres, if they are all included in the same estate. The consequences, however, are very serious. In England small properties are now articles of luxury. The large proprietor is prevented from selling a part of his estate, and the man of moderate means from buying that part, by the expense of transfer. Such a result, which under the present system is almost inevitable, would be most disastrous in this colony. It is in our circumstances a matter of primary importance that every facility should be given to the holders of small estates. It is with a view to the small landowners, not to the great proprietors—to the permanent settlment ofthe country by the largest population that we can induce to settle on the land, that thinking men of all parties desire an adjustment of the land question. But all our hopes from a liberal Land Bill may be defeated by the operation of the present system of " dealing with real property. Of what use is land to a man if he can neither sell it nor raise upon it the money he may require for its improvement, without a long delay and a ruinous expense ? It will be but a small gain if, after having with much labor and much ill-will removed from the lands the State lock, we allow the same lands to be secured with that far stronger and more dangerous lock which the lawyers supply. , The possession of the land is undoubtedly a great object, but an equally great object is the facility of dealing with it after it has been acquired.