THE ECONOMIC CAUSES 
 
 PRESENT STATE OF AGRICULTURE 
 IN IRELAND: 
 fart I. 
 
 THE DUBLIN STATISTICAL SOCIETY: 
 
 W. NEILSON HANCOCK, LL. B. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 PUBLISHED EOR THE SOCIETY. BY HODGES AKD SHITH, 
 
DUBLIN STATISTICAL SOCIETY, 
 
 IJwBftcnt! 
 
 HIS GKACE THE AECHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 
 
 MOUNTIFORDLONGFlELD,Esq.Q.C.LL.D. , THE EARL OF EOSSE, 
 CaPTAK THOMAS A. LARCOM, R. E. | THE BISHOP OF CORK. 
 
 JSfiirterB of fflouncti 
 
 Sir Robert Kane, 
 
 ^Y. Cooke Taylor, LL.D. 
 Robert Ball, Eso. 
 
 John K. Ingram, Esq. F.T.C.D. 
 Professor Apjohn, M.D. 
 Professor Allman, M.D. 
 
 James Habghton, Esq. 
 
 \Y. T. Molvany, Esq. 
 Sdrgeon 'Wilde, 
 
 Robert 'Vance, Esq. 
 
 Conway E. Dobbs, Jun. Esq. 
 Jajies \Y. Murland, Esq., 
 
 SErcaBuvtr ; 
 
 STEWART BLACKER, ESQ.. Gardiner’s-pliicc. 
 
 Secwtavics: 
 
 JAJIES A. LAWSON, LL.B., 41, Lower Baggot-street. 
 PROFESSOR HANCOCK, LL.B., 40, Trinity College. 
 
 This society was estaWished in November, 1847, for tlie pnrpose of pro¬ 
 moting the study of Statistical and Economical Science. The meetings 
 are held on the tliird Monday in each month, from November till June, 
 inclusive, at 8, p. m. The business is transacted by members reading 
 written communications on subjects of Statistical and Economical Science. 
 No communication is read, unless two members of the council certify that 
 they consider it accordant with the rules .and objects of the society. Tlie 
 reading of each paper, unless by e-apress permission of the council previous¬ 
 ly obtained, is limited to half an hour. 
 
 Applications for leave to road papers should be made to the secreharies 
 at least a week previous to the meeting. 
 
 Proposals of candidate members should be sent to the secretaries at 
 least a fortnight previous to the meeting. 
 
 The subscription to the society is one pound entrance, and ten shilhngs 
 
 
Oil the Ecoiioiiiw Causes of the PnsciU Stale o/A^riciillurc in h-claml 
 Part I. By W. Neilson Hancock, LL.B., Archbishop TVhately’s 
 Professor of Political Economy in the University of Dublin. 
 
 6entle.men— In a paper which I had the honor of reading 
 before this Society last session, I showed that the condition of the 
 Irish labourer depends chiefly on the state of agriculture in Ire¬ 
 land. By a train of reasoning similar to what is used in that 
 paper, it could be shown that the condition both of the Irish 
 capitalist and of the Irish landlord is equally dependent on the 
 same cause. It is, however, unnecessary to go through the proof, 
 for the conclusion can be derived from a general principle of 
 economic science, to which I also referred in a former paper— 
 namely, that the true interests of all classes are really identical. 
 IVe may, therefore, infer that the condition of both landlords and 
 capitalists in Ireland must also depend chiefly on the state of agri¬ 
 culture. As the state of agriculture thus forms such an import¬ 
 ant element in our social condition, I propose to occupy the time 
 of this society, on this and some other evenings during the ses¬ 
 sion, with a statement of the results of an inquiry into the econo¬ 
 mic causes of the present state of agriculture in Ireland. The 
 first step in such an inquiry is to ascertain what the state of agri¬ 
 culture actually is. 
 
 On this point it would be easy to accumulate evidence; but the 
 most recent authority, based on any general observations of the 
 subject, is the Digest of Evidence taken before the Land Occupation 
 Commission, published by Lord Devon. Chapter I., entitled 
 “ Agriculture,” commences thus “ The general tenor of the evi¬ 
 dence _ given before the Commissioners proves that with the 
 exception of some districts in the north, and some particular locali¬ 
 ties and estates, or individual farms in other parts of the country, 
 the usual agricultural practice throughout Ireland is defeclhe in the 
 highest degree, whether as regards the permanent preparation and 
 improvement of the land essential to successful tillage, the limitted 
 succession of the crops cultivated, or the relative succession and 
 tillage of those crops. But it likewise gives, at the same time, 
 the encouraging proof that where these exceptions exist, where 
 judicious e.xertions have been made to improve the state and tex¬ 
 ture of the, soil, and to introduce a more desirable and extensive 
 selection and rotation of crops, these exertions have been attended 
 with the most striking success and profit.” 
 
The Digest then proceeds to give an account of the rotation of 
 crops adopted on the largest farms, and proceeds:—“ Upon the 
 whole, this principle of farming consists, first, by the application of 
 manure to bring up tbe land to a certain capability of production ; 
 and then, instead of seeking to keep it either in that condition, or 
 in a progressively improving state, the effort is to take everything 
 from it by a continued succession of the same class of exhausting 
 crops, until it becomes incapable of returning the cost of seed and 
 labour ; after which it is left to the unaided and gradual operation 
 of nature to recover it from the effects ofthis destructive treatment, 
 that it may be again exhausted, and again left for years unpro¬ 
 ductive to recover. It has been stated almost universally through¬ 
 out the evidence, that the lands in nearly every district in Ireland 
 require drainage; that the drainage and deepening of the lands, or 
 subsoiling, have proved most remunerative operations wherever they 
 have been applied; that these operations have as yet been intro¬ 
 duced to a very limited extent.” 
 
 This description of the state of agriculture naturally suggests 
 the inquiries: Why is the usual practice defective in the highest 
 degree ? Why are permanent improvements disregarded ? Wliy 
 is all the teaching of modern agriculture, as to the advantage of 
 rotation of crops, thrown away ? Why are these things the ge¬ 
 neral rule, when the opposite course of conduct is stated to he 
 attended with the most striking success and profit ? Why do 
 large farmers, whenever the land has been improved by manure, 
 endeavour to take every thing from it by exhausting crops, so as 
 to leave it almost barren for some years ? Again : why are the 
 most remunerative operations of thorough drainage and subsoiliiig 
 introduced to such limited extent ? 
 
 In looking for the answers to these queries, there is an impor¬ 
 tant circumstance to be attended to, namely, that this state of 
 agriculture is no novelty—no offspring of late years. Without 
 noticing accounts of the intervening period, I will just quote one 
 authority as to the state of agriculture during tbe period between 
 1782 and 1800, which is often referred to as an era of general 
 prosperity. 
 
 Dr. Crump, in his “ Prize Essay on the best Means of providing 
 Employment for the People,” which was published in 1793, says:— 
 “ The low and wretched state of agriculture in Irela d requires 
 little proof; even those perfectly unacquainted with its practice, 
 who have seen tlie rich and regularly cultivated fields of Flanders 
 and England, must be convinced, from a glance, of its great in¬ 
 feriority. Mouldering fences, scanty crops, are universally pre¬ 
 valent, and a thousand other similar symptoms, evince it but too 
 forcibly. Farmers by profession, who have made more particular 
 inquiries, give decisive proofs that this inferiority is more than 
 apparent. The annual products of a soil, fertile by nature, fall 
 far short of those which the regular, opulent, and skilful husband¬ 
 man extracts from the earth in countries naturally more barren 
 
5 
 
 and unproductive.” He then describes tlie distress wliich this 
 state oi agriculture produced tlien, in the same manner as at pre¬ 
 sent:—“ To offer any evidence of the poverty which prcxails 
 among the Irish commonalty would surely he sui)etfluous; it is 
 too obvious to escape the notice of the most inattemive, too 
 considerable not to possess a powerful iniluence on their character, 
 and so universally acknowledged as to render any proof of its 
 existence unnecessary.” If we go back half a century further, we 
 lind similar accounts of the state of agriculture and the condition of 
 the population. Thus Bishop Berkeley, in liis “ Querist,” pub¬ 
 lished in 1737, calls on the slate “ with a high hand to introduce 
 agriculture,” and he asks, “ w hether there be upon earth any Chris¬ 
 tian or civilised peo|)le so beggarly, wretehed, and destitute as the 
 common Irish?” The economic causes which I am about to point 
 out, account for the state of agriculture of these diH'erent pei'iods; 
 for they were in as full operation in 1793 and in i737 as at present. 
 
 The simplest way of explaining these causes, is to notice the 
 possible solutions of the queries 1 have suggested. These are: first, 
 ignorance; secondly, the perverse character of the people; and, 
 thirdly, the state of the law. According to the first theory, the 
 ■ farmers do not know the value of permanent improvemejits. They 
 do not know that their cattle would sell better if well housed. 
 They cannot see the i'olly of exhausting the laud inste,ad of always 
 keeping it in good condition. They do not perceive that the pios- 
 perity of those wdio adopt a difi'erent practice arises from the 
 striking success and profit which attends the change. The great 
 gain of those who thorough-drain and subsoil escapes the farmer’s 
 notice. He cannot see when his neighbour has a crop better than 
 before, or more luxuriant than his own. He wants some one to 
 teach him all these things. 
 
 According to the second theory, the people know the advantages 
 of improved agriculture right well, but from some perverse dispo¬ 
 sition they leave the improvements untried. Bishop Berkeley held 
 this theory one hundred years ago; and attributed this perverse 
 disposition to the Tartars and Spaniards, from whom he thought 
 Irishmen were descended. Others attribute it to the Celtic race; 
 and the writer of Lord Devon’s Digest has been led, by a close 
 analysis of the entire subject, to the conclusion that the main 
 cause of the inertia of the population is —the jiolalo. 
 
 The amount of perversity and inertia wdiicli this theory requires, 
 however, is rather much. Thus, we are called on to believe that 
 the 50,000 labourers who every year go to reap the English har¬ 
 vests, would not work as hard at home if they got the same wages ; 
 that the hundreds of thousands who cross the Atlantic .and toil in 
 Canada and the United States, would not work at home if they had . 
 the same security of ownership or tenure to reward their industry; 
 that the Irish labourers who have made Irish railways, would not 
 work at other permanent improvements if they were as well paid. 
 
 The third theory is, that the state of agriculture in Ireland is 
 
6 
 
 mainly caused, neither by the ignorance nor by tbe perverse disposi¬ 
 tion of tbe people, but by tbe state of tbe law. Tins is the solution 
 of tbe facts observed, which is suggested by tbe best established 
 prineiples of economic science. The doctrine of /nissei faire 
 teaches us, that in all industrial undertakings we may rely on the 
 best results being produced by private enterprise, if it be only 
 emancipated from the restrictions which tbe ignorance and folly of 
 past generations have allowed to become sanctioned by law. Pri¬ 
 vate enterprise requires no artificial instruction. Nature herself 
 is the best instructor in industrial occupations; she teaches by ex¬ 
 amples, exhibiting the result of wise conduct in the success and 
 profit which the Almighty has annexed to human exertions when 
 directed by ability and knowledge; and at the same time showing 
 the disastrous consequences of ignorance and folly, in the failure 
 and loss which, by the same all-wise providence of God, is ’made 
 the inevitable consequence of human exertions misapplied or per¬ 
 verted. In the school of nature the prize is gain, the punishment 
 is loss. Such a system acting on man’s instinct of self-interest, 
 leads to results alike beneficial to the individual and to the com¬ 
 munity. IVlien, therefore, we find an industrial undertaking badly 
 carried on, instead of attacking the character of the people, or 
 recommending government instruction, we ought first to inquire 
 whether there are any legal impediments to the free operations of 
 private enterprise. 
 
 The opposite opinion, w’hich sets out with distrusting private 
 enterprise and demanding an extension of Government inter¬ 
 ference, when followed to its legitimate consequences, leads to 
 those Communist doctrines respecting the organisation of labour 
 w'hicb are alike destructive of wealth, morality, and social order., 
 It would be foreign to the purpose of this paper to enter into an 
 examination of tbe theory of organisation of labour; as, however, 
 it is directly opposed to the principle of lahscz faire, so that one 
 or other must be false—and as I proved the latter principle in a 
 former paper, I may, for the present, treat the organisation of 
 labour as disproved, without pointing out the fallacies on which it 
 
 When we are thus led to look to the state of the law for the 
 cause of the present state of agriculture, we naturally inquire 
 whether those conditions are fulfilled which have been observed to 
 be necessary to the success of all manulirctures and trades— 
 namely, freedom to purchase the raw produce, security for the 
 application of capital, and freedom to sell the manufactured article. 
 It has been long ago demonstrated, and is admitted by every 
 economist of any reputation, that every impediment to the freedom 
 of purchase and of sale, and every circumstance creating insecurity 
 for the employment of capital, to the extent of their operation 
 impede the prosperity and improvement of the manufacture or 
 trade to which they apply. I am not venturing on a very rash 
 hypothesis, then, in stating that we may expect the same causes to 
 
7 
 
 produce tlie same effects in agriculture, 'wliioli we know they pro¬ 
 duce in every other trade and manufacture. The main causes, 
 then, to which I ascribe the present state of agriculture in Ireland 
 are, the legal impediments to the free transfer and sale of l-.ind, 
 whether waste or improved; and the legal impediments to the 
 application of capital to agricultural operations. 
 
 Of these legal impediments, I shall only notice one in this paper 
 —namely, the rule that the vendor of land must produce sixty 
 years’ title to every acre that he sells. The other elements of the 
 cost of transfer, the restraints on the power of sale, and the im¬ 
 pediments to the application of capital, I must postpone to sub¬ 
 sequent papers. Before, however, proceeding to notice the im¬ 
 pediments to the transfer of land, I will refer to some authorities 
 as to the impolicy of such impediments. 
 
 For this purpose, I shall quote from a very able work, recently 
 published by an English lawyer, “ Three Lectures on the Means 
 of Facilitating the Transfer of Land,” by James Stewart, Esq. 
 He commences by showing “ that by the theory of our law, no 
 restriction whatever (except in the case of an entailed estate) is 
 placed on the transfer of land. Indeed we know' that, as a general 
 rule, all fetters on the alienation of freehold land are broken by the 
 law, all conditions having this operation being held to be positively 
 null and void.” He then quotes the opinion of the great commen¬ 
 tator Blackstone, “ who, when speaking of land, after stating that, 
 under the feudal system, alienation was much restrained, uses tlie 
 following remarkable expressions: ‘ But by degrees tlie feudal 
 severity is W'orn off, and experience has shown that property best 
 answ'ers the purposes of social life, when its transfer and circula¬ 
 tion are totally free and unrestrained.’ ” 5Ir. Stewart then cites 
 various authorities, from which I may select the following. Tile 
 Real Property Commissioners, appointed by Sir E. Peel in 1828, 
 from amongst the most eminent conveyancers in England, reported 
 that while they approved generally of the theory of the law of 
 real property, the law respecting its transfer suggested remarks 
 of a different nature: “ It appears to us,” they say, “ that the 
 modes by which estates and interests in real property are created, 
 transferred, and secured, are exceedingly defective, and require 
 many important alterations.” But the most recent as well as the 
 most important opinion on this subject, is that contained in “ The 
 Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Bur¬ 
 dens of Land.” This report was made in the year 1816. “The 
 committee was composed of the most eminent men of all parties in 
 the State-noblemen of vast landed possessions—the law being 
 represented by the present Lord Chancellor Cottenhain, and Lord 
 Brougham, and also by lawyers of both branches of the protession, 
 who were examined by the committee. There was this further 
 remarkable circumstance attending this document, that, differing 
 on all other subjects, this committee unanimously agreed as to one, 
 and mark the strong language in which this unanimity is con- 
 
8 
 
 veyecl. They complained ‘ that the transfer of real property is 
 subjected by law to difficulties, expenses, and irregularities—that 
 the Committee are convinced that the marketable value of real pro¬ 
 perty is seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process 
 attending its transfer. It is a work of time to raise money on 
 landed seeurity; ana the law expenses incident to the transaction 
 are a considerable addition to the sum borrowedand the Commit¬ 
 tee state, ‘ that they are anxious to impress on the House the 
 necessity of a thorough revision of the whole subject of convey¬ 
 ancing, and the disuse of the present prolix, expensive, and vexa¬ 
 tious system.’ The Committee, by way of remedy for these evils, 
 recommend four things: ‘1st, The improvement of the law of real 
 property; Sndly, The simplification of titles; .‘irdly, The simplifi¬ 
 cation of the forms of conveyance; 4thly, The establishment of 
 some effective system for the registration of deeds.’ There is one 
 other important consideration respecting this committee; that it 
 was appointed by all parties with a view, so far as it was possible, 
 of relieving the landowner from any hardship proved and ad¬ 
 mitted, as a set-off against any injury from the great alteration 
 which was made in that session with resjiect to the duties on corn.” 
 
 Another authority on this subject is that of a gentleman at the 
 head of one of the wealthiest and most successful mercantile firms 
 in Dublin. Mr. .lonathan Pirn has, in a very able work on the 
 “ Condition and Prospects of Ireland,” directed public attention to 
 the pressing necessity of legislation to facilitate the transfer of 
 land. In his preface he says: “ The various information which 
 has come before him, as one of the Secretaries of the Central 
 Eelief Association of the Society of Friends, has greatly strength¬ 
 ened the conviction previously entertained, that the circumstances 
 under which the landed property has been placed have, moro 
 than any other cause, contributed to the poverty of the people, and 
 have greatly increased the effects of the recent calamity.” The 
 arguments respecting the sale of land are repeated throughout the 
 work, “ with a view of showing the evils of large encumbered 
 estates, and the necessity of such alterations in the laws as may 
 give security and simplicity of title ; may facilitate and cheapen 
 the means of transfer; may free land from the various restrictions 
 which interfere with its improvement, and may permit its sale to 
 those who possess the capital indispensable for that purpose.” 
 
 Thus, we see that the reality of the first cause I have assigned 
 is not only admitted on the highest authority, but the greatest will¬ 
 ingness is expressed to apply a suitable remedy. This feeling is 
 further indicated by “ the appointment of a Commission by the 
 Governm. ut in February, 1847: after a recital of the report on 
 the burdens of land, the Commissioners are directed to inquire 
 into two of the matters recommended for consideration by the 
 Lords, viz.: The simplification of deeds, and a general registry of 
 
 Stewart’s Lectures, p. IS. 
 
To proceed, however, with a consideration of tlie legal impedi¬ 
 ments arising from the cost of tansfer, I shall notice some instances 
 which have been furnished to me by an experienced solicitor, 
 illustrating tlie extent to which the cost of transfer impedes the 
 sale of land. 1st, a case of a sale of land for f 1,S!00; the costs to 
 vendor and purchaser together amounted to £200, being about 
 seventeen per cent, or one-sixth of the purchase-money. 2nd, a 
 sale for £.j00, where the costs to one party alone were £12d, being 
 twenty-live per cent., or one-lburth of the purchase-money, ord, 
 a sale for £2.;0, where tlie costs to one party alone were £40, 
 being sixteen per cent, or about one-sixth of the purchase-money. 
 4 th, a sale for £21)0, where the costs to one party alone were £10, 
 being about eight per cent. 5th, a sale for £l.:0, where the costs 
 to one party alone were £23, or about sixteen per cent. The 
 costs do not increase in proportion where the purchase-money is 
 very large. Thus, in a case where it was £-5,000, tlie costs to one 
 party were only £1.32, or about three per cent., and another case 
 where the purchase-money was £30,000, the costs were only 
 £900, or about three per cent. These instances are veiy 
 similiar to those mentioned by Mr. Stewart, in his lectures on 
 the transfer of land, as usual in England. Thus he says he is 
 guilty of no exaggeration in saying that, in small purchases, tlie 
 expenses of transfer i'requently. amount to one-sixth, and some¬ 
 times to ono-third of the value, or even a larger proportion; that 
 circumstances had very recently come to his knowledge of one 
 transaction, in which £150 was the purchase-money, and the 
 expenses were £-30; and another, in which £030 was the purchase- 
 money, and the expenses were £200. 
 
 But the amount of money actually paid by the vendor and pur¬ 
 chaser represents only a part of the cost of transfer. There is, 
 besides, the delay between the sale and the completion of title ; 
 and also a threefold risk incurred, arising from the uncertainty as 
 to the amount of the legal expenses, and the uncertainty as to tlie 
 period within which the transaction can be completed; and lastly 
 after every care, the risk of the title turning out defective. There 
 is also the loss of time and labour incurred by the vendor and 
 purchaser themselves, which, if valued at the market price of their 
 exertions, would make a considerable addition to tlie amount 
 already mentioned as actually paid on the transfer of land. 
 
 I need not dwell on the impolicy of keeping up this enormous 
 cost of transfer. The eftect of it is to prevent the land getting 
 into the hands of those who can make the most of it. As far as 
 this cost arises from the state of the law, it is a tax burdensome on 
 the community, and unproductive to the exchequer. To show, 
 however, that this cost arises from the state of the law, and could 
 be easily diminished, it will be convenient to analyse iis causes, 
 and to point out how they may be removed. The cost of transfer 
 of land may be divided into the following four distinct elenicnls: 
 the expense, delay, and risk attending the investigation ol title ; 
 
10 
 
 the expense of searches for incumbrances; the stamps on searches 
 and conveyances; and the length of conveyances. 
 
 The .first of these elements, which is the only one I shall have 
 time to notice at present, arises entirely from the rule of law, that 
 the vendor of land must produce sixty years’ title to every acre 
 that he sells. How could other trades he carried on if a similar- 
 rule were enforced ? What would he thought of a law that com¬ 
 pelled you to examine the title to the leather every time you bought 
 ajair of shoes ? How could the cotton trade be carried on, if the 
 spinner could not buy a bale in Liverpool without tracing the title 
 from the time the plant was grown in Louisiana, and sending to 
 New Orleans lo search for incumbrances ? Or hoiv, again, could 
 the tea trade be carried on, if an abstract of title had to be sub¬ 
 mitted with every chest, showing all the hands it had passed through 
 from the time it left the banks of the Ho-ang-ho ? 
 
 So great is the element of cost arising from the examination of 
 title, that in the sale of leaseholds it is almost always dispensed 
 with as far as the title of the lessor is concerned; and, in the case 
 of sales of small portions of freehold, it is frequently dispensed 
 with, the parties preferring to trust to the chance of the title being 
 bad to incur the necessary expense of getting a perfect security. 
 But this rule admits of a very easy remedy, by extending to land 
 the principle of market overt so wisely established in the case 
 of all other kinds of property. The principle of market overt 
 is well stated by our great law commentator, Blackstone:— 
 “ Property may, in some cases, be transferred by sale, though the 
 vendor hath no right at all in the goods; for it is expedient that 
 the buyer, by taking proper precaution, may, at all events, be se¬ 
 cure of his purchase; otherwise all commerce between man and 
 man must soon be at an end. Therefore, the general rule of law 
 is, that all sales and contracts of any thing vendible in fairs or 
 markets overt, shall not only be good between the parties, but also 
 binding on all those who have any right or property therein.” 
 
 In order to extend this general rule of law to land, three things 
 would be necessary: First, a general register of all land, containing 
 the names of those having the first estate, and also the names of 
 those having subsequent estates, and also the names of all those 
 having charges or incumbrances affecting it; secondly, the estab¬ 
 lishment of periodical public sales of land by auction, in each 
 county in Ireland, to be deemed markets overt; thirdly, the enact¬ 
 ment, as a general rule of law, of the principle, now sanctioned in 
 particular instances, that the limitations and incumbrances 
 affecting any land should, on its being sold, be transferred to the 
 fund arising from the sale. 
 
 If these preliminary arrangements were adopted, the doctrine of 
 market overt might be safely extended to land by enacting, first, 
 in the case of land registered as belonging to a party having an 
 estate in fee, without any other parties appearing in the register. 
 
11 
 
 either as having subsequent interests, or incumbrances, that tlie 
 land might be transferred by the registered party executing a form 
 of transfer, somewhat similar to that now used in the sale of stock 
 in the funds ; secondly, in the case of land where the party having 
 the first estate had only a limited interest, on account of there 
 being either subsequent estates or incumbrances appearing on the 
 register, that such party having the first estate, or any incum¬ 
 brancer authorised by contract or by law to do so, might proceed 
 to sell the land at one of the periodical sales, on giving notice to 
 the registrar of the county, and advertising for three months pre¬ 
 vious to tlie sale ; the registrar being required to give notice to 
 all parties appearing on the register as interested in the land. 
 That tlie highest bidder at such sale, on paying the purchase- 
 money into the Court of Chancery, to the credit of tlie parties so 
 appearing to be interested, should acquire an absolute estate in fee- 
 simple in the land, discharged of all prior estates, interests, or 
 incumbrances, except leases or other contracts with tenants; the 
 limitations, charges, or incumbrances previously afl'ecting the land 
 being all transferred to the purchase money so paid into court. 
 
 It might be objected to this plan, that the incumbrancers might 
 he defrauded by the land being sold for less than its real value. 
 The remedy, however, for such an event is in the hands of each 
 incumbrancer ; he has full notice of the sale ; if he thinks the land 
 is going too cheap, let him bid more for it and become the pur¬ 
 chaser. At present parties are deterred from buying land to sell 
 again, because the enormous cost of transfer is incurred on each 
 occasion; but were the cost of transfer reduced to a nominal amount, 
 land would be constantly bought on the speculation of selling again, 
 just as funds, railway shares, and other readily transferable pro¬ 
 perty is bought. An incumbrancer, therefore, would have no 
 hesitation in buying land he did not want to hold, if he saw it going 
 too cheap, just as an incumbrancer, under similar circumstances, 
 would now buy railway shares. But were the sale of land per¬ 
 fectly free, there would be no danger of its being sold at too low a 
 price, for a class of capitalists would be immediately created like 
 stockbrokers, who would make it their business to attend all sales 
 of land, and try to make a profit by buying to sell again. The 
 competition of these parties would always secure for the seller the 
 fair market price fur his land. 
 
 I may observe, too, that, by a very simple arrangement, the sel¬ 
 ler and the incumbrancers could be secured the advantages of sell¬ 
 ing the land either in portions or in one lot, whichever would 
 realise the larger sura of money. The arrangement to which I refer 
 is thisIn case any parties applied to have any part of the estate 
 put up in separate lots, let the auctioneer first put up these lots, 
 and ascertain the highest bidder for each ; and then put up the 
 residue of the land, and ascertain the highest bidder for it; and 
 then put up the entire estate in one lot, and iu case any one bid 
 more than the total of the sums bid for the separate lots, then let 
 
12 
 
 the highest hidilers for the lots have an opportunity of advancing 
 on their offers: the land to be ultimately knocked down to the 
 single purchaser, or to the lot-purchasers, according as his bid 
 exceeded or fell short of the total of the sums bid by the highest 
 bidders for the separate lots. 
 
 As to tlie plan of a general register of land, there exist in Ire¬ 
 land all the materials for having it of the most perfect description. 
 First, we have the Ordinance Survey to furnish that essential 
 basis of the system, a complete identification of boundaries and 
 parcels ; secondly, we have a registry of conveyances affecting 
 land; thirdly, we have a registry of judgments and other charges. 
 From these materials a most complete register could be formed. 
 Let the ownership of land be registered by reference to the Ordi¬ 
 nance Survey, setting out the name of the party taking the iir.=t legal 
 estate; let the names of all parties taking subsequent legal estates, 
 or taking equitable estates, be next recorded in the same book, with 
 a reference to the register of conveyances; and then let all parties 
 having judgments or other charges in anyway affecting the land, 
 be next set out in the same book also. To render the last arrange¬ 
 ment complete, an alteration in the law of judgments would bo 
 necessary, which I shall notice in my next paper. This nould be 
 a really complete register, as the names of all parties interested in 
 any portion of land could be ascertained in one or two pages, 
 withont any labour or delay in searching. 
 
 The plan of register here suggested is in part borrowed from the 
 plan suggested by Mi'. Stewart, whose lectures I have already 
 referred to; and he mentions a useful repoi t as to a general map 
 printed among the papers of the Society for the Amendment of the 
 Law, which I have not been fortunate enough to see. Mr. Pirn's 
 book “ On the Condition and Pro.spects of Ireland,” to which I 
 have already referred, also contains some very useful suggestions 
 as to a general register. 
 
 There is an other authority on the general question which I 
 must quote, as he combines the peculiar qualifications of being a 
 most distinguished economist, and having been long conversant 
 with the law of real property—I allude to Mr. Senior, whose eco¬ 
 nomical writings many of you must be familiar with, as they have 
 long formed some of the leading text-books in our University. 
 He has twice held the chair of Political Economy in Oxford, and 
 is the Examiner at the London University. He was for eighteen 
 years a conveyancing barrister, and for the last ten years a Master 
 in Chancery, in England. In his evidence before the Committee 
 of the House of Lords, on burdens on land, he says, “ He is aware 
 that the system of conveyancing imposes great difficulties, great 
 expense, great delay, and great uncertainty, upon the transfer of 
 land (Q.-5,409). Again, he says, “ There is scarcely a title that is 
 marketable,” in the legal sense of that term—meaning a title 
 without a flaw; “ there is scarcely any title which is not subject 
 to some legal doubt.” 
 
13 
 
 And again, “ A man who has agreed to sell a field for 2001. 
 does not know that he has not contracted to spend .'iOOl, in show¬ 
 ing his title; and the person who has agreed to pay does not know 
 that he has not contracted to spend £500 in getting the title ap¬ 
 proved.” And again, “ I believe this [speaking o! England] is 
 the only civilised country without a general register, and the 
 [United Kingdom] the only civilized country requiring a sixty 
 years’ title, or even forty years. I believe that in almost every 
 countiy hut this, the transfer of property is effected in the hooks of 
 a notary, or a registrar, or some public ollicer, and that you re¬ 
 quire only the title of the person who sells. In fact, land in almost 
 every country but this is transferred in the same manner in which 
 stock is transferred. You look to the last purchaser only." 
 (Q. 3422.) 
 
 Thus, you see that Mr. Senior takes precisely the same view 
 that I have brought forward in this paper, as to the eflect of the 
 present state of law in impeding the transfer of land, as to the 
 general iinpolicv of such impediments, and as to the means of 
 removal being a register of land and a sale similar to market overt. 
 He has not, however, drawn the conclusion from this state of the 
 law to which I have directed your attention ; namely, that it ac¬ 
 counts in a great degree for the present state of agriculture; being, 
 in fact, one of tlie principal causes of it. 
 
 In conclusion, let me observe, that when the conditions are ful¬ 
 filled wliich I have stated as necessary to the prosperity of agricul¬ 
 ture—in other words, when there is free sale of land and security 
 for the expenditure of capital, the greatest advanfiages accrue to 
 the community in general. For wlicn the sale of land is free, it 
 has a constant tendency to get into the hands of those who can 
 improve it most, since such parties can afford to give the highest 
 price for it. Thus the seller gets a high price, the buyer gets an 
 opportunity of exercising his skill, and the community gets the 
 cheapness and abundance consequent on the improvement. In the 
 second condition is comprised what Adam Smith has so well de¬ 
 scribed as the ouly encouragement which industry requires from 
 the hands of a government: “ The increase of the manufactures 
 and the agriculture of Europe has arisen,” he says, “ from the fall 
 of the feudal system, and from the establishment of a government 
 which afforded to industry the only encouragement which it re¬ 
 quires—some tolerable security that it shall enjoy the fruits of its 
 own labour.’’ On the perfection of this security for the applica¬ 
 tion of labour and capital to the work of improvement, depends 
 the progress of a nation in prosperity and civilisation.