The Express.
London, England, 1862-08-27 00:00:00

HIJTANNIA.

Tim Enante, BARRINGTON, THE GIINTLEMAN NCH-
POCILIT.—Arean Hamm and Madame I. Haman.—Moning by
Hearn H. Sydney, J. Ogden, C. Woodman, and J. Plampton.—
And THE CORSICAN RlOTHERS.—Commence Mei.

AI!TL/Y:l.

TBT ETENTRO, MAZEPIA.=Attar which SCENES TN THE
CIRCLE. Millie. MamottL—To cosolude with a comic BALLET
in which the Mimes Gunnies will appear.—Commence at 7.

HIGH WATSK AT LONLX)N FittIDOR.
MODIT Korn*" JR. 1002.....At4ern00n. J%. 25m.
To-MOIROW—MornIng. U. 40m.. ..Att.mmoon. 42 Om.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27.

Walter most people have been occupying them-
selves with the dramatic incidents of the ROUPELL
trial, the melancholy consequences to those who
have been the innocent sufferers of his multifa-
rious iniquities are almost forgotten. It is an
axiom of Lord Sr.LEONSRDS and the conveyancers
that an investment in land is much better than an
investment in Consols or in Railway Stock, be-
cause the title to land is so much more secure.
Every attempt to simplify the transfer of land has
for years been successfully resisted on the ground
that no reform was needed, that people were so
thoroughly satisfied with the existing law that
they wanted no change. When any proposal was
made to assimilate the transfer of land to that
of stock, the advocates of change were asked
whether they desired to introduce all those chances
of forgery into the former which confessedly
existed as to the latter. And confident predic-
tions were hazarded that, however ingenious
might be the system of registration proposed,
the groat ..,MM of landholders would prefer to
keep their title-deeds in their muniment
boxes, and to deal privately with their
property instead of calling in the aid of registrars
and a host of public officers. These theories can
now be put to the test. Fortunately Lord
WESTBURY has succeeded in passing an Act for
facilitating land transfer, which will very soon be
in practical operation ; and a very slight con-
sideration will enable us to judge whether its pro-
visions would have placed any obstacle to the
fraudulent schemes of Witusit Rourett.

This Act is far from perfect. The system
which it introduces is somewhat complicated, and
it may be doubted whether those who have been
selected to carry it into effect are equal to the
task assigned to them. Mr. SPENCER FoLLErr, the
newly appointed Registrar, has prudently gone to
Ireland to look at the practical working of the
Encumbered Estates Court in that country, and to
consult the judges of that court as to the best
mode of conducting what practically amounts to
the same thing in England. It is hardly fair to
prejudge any man who has undertaken a
new and difficult duty before he has begun his
work. The new Registrar, we believe, is a tole-
rable Equity lawyer, but, during a not very brief ap-
prenticeship, he has given no very conclusive proofs
of the capacity to inaugurate a new system of
land registration so as to make it practically suc-
ceed. Let us hope that with the aid of such men
in Ireland as Mr. HAROREAVE and Dr. LONOFIELD
he will exceed the expectations of those who are
compelled to estimate his future by his peat career.
What, however, would have been the state
of things if this Act of Parliament had been
in force during the life of old Mr. ROOPELL ?
He was the absolute owner in fee of the
Norbiton Park Estate. During his life WIL-
LIAM ROUPELL, his son, wanted some money,
and in order to obtain this money he, in fact,
stole the Norbiton Park Estate deeds out of his
father's custody, had them copied, put back the
copies into his father's box, and then got a
forged deed of gift executed in favour of himself,
upon security of which deed of gift he borrowed
the money he desired. During the lifetime of
the father the Norbiton Park Estate remained in
his possession : for of course the mortgagee had
his interest paid regularly by WlLLian, the son,
and therefore the possession was not interfered
with. But after the father's death the Norbiton
Park Estate was sold to a Mr. Warn; with the
concurrence of the mortgagee. Now here was a
gigantic fraud perpetrated because the son was in
the complete confidence of the father. If the so-
licitor who acted for the mortgagee had inquired
into the history of the deed of gift—if he had
gone to the father and had inquired into the
singular circumstance of his having made
a voluntary conveyance to his son during
his lifetime, the fraud must have been
discovered. But the solicitor had sufficient confi-
dence in young Mr. ROTYPELL, and he neglected
this duty. Now, if old Mr. RouraLL had been
registered as the owner of the Norbiton Estate
under the Act of last wagon, the case would have
been very different. No transfer could then have
taken place without the express consent of Mr.
ROCPELL as the registered owner. As the 64th
section declares, " on the occasion of any sale or
" mortgage of registered land, the parties or their
" agenta duly authorised may attend at the
" registry offices, and such conveyance shall be
" executed by the parties or their agents, in the
" presence of and attested by such persons as
" the registrar shall approve of, and shall
" then and there be delivered to the
" registrar for the purposes of registration."
It is abundantly clear that under this section

the old Mr. Rourrux.would have been required to '
attend at the Registry for the purposes of execut-
ing the deed of gift to his son, and thus it
would have been impossible for the son to have
forged the name of his father, or to have got the
two witnesses to attest his own signature, thinking
it was the signature of his father. In short, the
fraud would have been nipped in the bud. The
deed of gift never could have been executed be-
, hind the back of the old man, and therefore neither
the mortgagee nor Mr. WAITE could have been
deceived.

But further, the forgery of the will would have
been more difficult than it turned out to be—at
all events those who claim under this will would
have had the advantage of an inquiry in-
stituted by the Registrar into the genuine
character of the old man's signature.
No doubt, in ordinary cases the genuine character
of the will is proved by the fact that the Probate
Court has stamped the will with its seal. But
this does not affect real property. And, therefore,
the result is that, so far as real property is con-
cerned, the Registrar, under the Act of Parlia-
ment, is entitled to require that the will shall be
proved in such manner as he may think fit. In
this case the widow was the devisee and legatee of
the whole property, and under the new Act of
Parliament it would have been necessary to give
notice to the heir-at-law that the registration of
the will was in contemplation. It may no doubt
be that the widow would be registered as
devisee, but the position of an heir-at-law who had
permitted this registration to take place would
have been very different from his position if no
such notice had been given.
No doubt the specific object of the Act for
facilitating the transfer of land was not to prevent
forgery or fraud ; still it is tolerably clear that in
such a case as that of WILLIAM ROUPELL the regis-
tration would have opposed very serious obstacles
to the success of those fraudulent devices which
have occasioned complications so serious. The
advantages of registration for the purpose of faci-
litating the transfer of land are the immediate
object of the Act of Parliament, and they are
obvious. The fact that the Act will do something
to prevent fraud and forgery is another and per
not less important result which may be
expected to flow from it.