H.—l9

1875. NEW ZEALAND.

REPORT OF THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND. (FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30TH JUNE, 1875.)

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

Office of Registrar-General of Land, Sir,— Christchurch, 20th July, 1875. I have the honor to lay before you the result of the working of the Land Transfer Act for the year ending the 30th June, 1875. The revenue for the vear, exclusive of Assurance Fund, has been £11,727, the expenditure about £8,900. The receipts for the ensuing year may be estimated at £13,000, the expenditure at about £9,500. The department has for the last two years been more than self-supporting. The returns appended show a large increase of business during the past year. With the view of instituting a comparison between the working of the Land Transfer system in New Zealand and in the Australian colonies, my predecessor, by the aid of the Government, collected the information a summary of which (D) is appended. The Australian returns are for the year ending December 1873, as against those of New Zealand for the year ending 30th June, 1875. The comparison is nevertheless, in point of time, somewhat unfair to New Zealand, on account of the longer period during which the system has been in operation in the other colonies, which more than compensates for the difference in the dates of the returns. Taking this into account, it willbe seen that relatively to population the business returns for this colony compare favourably with those of other colonies whilst for economy of administration the comparison is very favourable to New Zealand. The contrary might have been expected, seeing that in each of the Australian colonies the business is conducted from one centre, whilst in New Zealand it is found necessary to maintain ten District Registrys. It is probable that this, although at first sight a disadvantage, has by the facilities afforded been conducive to the rapid extension of business, and thus more than compensated in revenue for the additional expenditure incurred. Notwithstanding some exceptional difficulties, chiefly in relation to Native lands (but which have now for the most part been removed), the Land Transfer system has, I believe, here as elsewhere, answered all reasonable expectations, and may be justly claimed as an important reform in the practice of conveyancing. Those who ignore the difference in point of responsibility between this and other systems of registration, occasionally take exception to the strictness of practice which it is found necessary to enforce in matters of survey and otherwise. When it is considered that registration under the Land Transfer Act involves absolute respousibility for title, it will be seen that a vigilant regard for accuracy is the only principle on which such a system can be conducted. It is not claimed for the Land Transfer system that it renders possible the abandonment of the ordinary safeguards of business, or the evasion of restrictions imposed by law on dealings with real property. Its merit as a system of conveyancing consists mainly in this, that it divests the subject of complications and technicalities, and brings it within the range of ordinary business capacity. How effectually this is done is evidenced by the fact that a large and increasing proportion of the dealings with land under the Land Transfer Act is conducted with perfect facility by persons without any professional knowledge or experience. Exclusive of solicitors, there are upwards of fifty licensed land-brokers practising under the Act. With regard to the cost of dealing with land, the reduction of which is one great object of the Land Transfer system, it may be observed that the office fees have been fixed on as low a scale as is consistent with the due maintenance of the department, being in some instances lower than in the Australian colonies. There is reason, however, to believe that the attempt to regulate business charges under the Act has been only partially successful. The Government is, I presume, fully informed as to the unreliable character of the public surveys in many parts of the colony. Much evil has been predicted to the Land Transfer system from this source, and it cannot be denied that there exists a serious liability to complications of the nature suggested, though, I think, by no means to the extent anticipated. The tendency is practically towards the settlement of such questions on the basis of occupation.