registration except such as a court of equity would hold to be a valid marketable title," has been justly complained of as causing unnecessary expense and delay, at the same time limiting seriously the scope of the measure, and depriving it of what has proved to be a most valuable provision of the Australian method—namely, the conversion of good holding titles into indefeasible titles, as already pointed out.
In the memorandum submitted to the Royal Commissioners of 1868 by Mr. Follett and the Assistant-Registrar, these, the chief officers of the department, state that in their opinion "the title in certain cases taken by a purchaser is not necessarily indefeasible, and the question whether a purchaser does or does not take an indefeasible title is not decided by the Registrar, but he, the purchaser, has to satisfy himself whether the title shown by the deed or will is such as he intends to purchase, and he takes it on his own responsibility. In all such cases, therefore, the entry in the register is merely a registration of the deed of conveyance, and it has been doubted whether the title does not in these cases cease to be within the Act." Surely this defect, if even it stood alone, is sufficient to condemn this measure.
Lord Cairns's Act is to some extent obnoxious to the same objections which caused the miscarriage of that introduced by Lord Westbury. Notably, section 49 admits of conveyancing of registered land being carried on by deed for an indefinite period. So far it is but a hybrid measure, an attempt to carry on two antagonistic principles in dealing with land.
Again, as indefeasible title is given to purchasers only, it affords no inducement to holders to register, as they would not get their titles freed from technical defects and doubts, but would continue, as regards future dealings, such as leases, mortgages, encumbrances, &c., under the present law, subject to all its cost, uncertainties, and delays.
The official mechanism for carrying out this measure,
