England and Wales.—The first attempt to introduce general registration of conveyances appears to have been made by the Statute of Enrolments, passed in the 27th year of Henry VIII. But this was soon found to be capable of evasion, and it became a dead letter. A Registration Act applying to the counties of Lancaster, Chester and Durham was passed in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, but failed for want of providing the necessary machinery for its observance. The subject reappeared in several bills during the Commonwealth, but these failed to pass, owing, it would seem, to the objection of landowners to publicity. In 1669 a committee of the House of Lords reported that one cause of the depreciation of landed property was the uncertainty of titles, and proposed registration of deeds as a remedy, but nothing was done.During the next thirty years numerous pamphlets for and against a general registry were published. In 1704 the first Deed Registry Act was passed, applying to the West Riding of Yorkshire. In 1707 the system was extended to the East Riding, and in 1708 to Middlesex. These Middlesex and Yorkshire registries (modified considerably in practice, but not seriously in principle, by the Yorkshire Registries Acts 1884, 1885, and Land Registry [Middlesex Deeds] Act 1891) remain in operation, and are greatly valued by the smaller proprietors and mortgagees, owing to the security against fraud which they provide at a trifling cost. The selection of these counties seems capricious: its probable explanation is that in them trade was flourishing, and the fortunes made were frequently invested in land, and a protection against secret encumbrances was most in demand. In 1728 and 1732 Surrey and Derby petitioned, unsuccessfully, for local registries. In 1735 the North Riding Deed Registry Act was passed. In 1739 a General Registry bill passed the Commons, but did not reach the Lords. Next year the Lords passed a similar bill, but it did not reach the Commons. In 1759 a General Registry bill was thrown out by a majority of one. In 1784 Northumberland unsuccessfully petitioned for a local registry. After this the subject went almost out of sight till the Real Property Commission of 1828. They reported in 1830 in favour of a general register of deeds, but though several bills were introduced, none were passed. In 1846 a committee of the House of Lords reported that the marketable value of real property was seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process of the transfer of land, and that a registry of title to all real property was essential to the success of any attempt to simplify the system of conveyancing. In 1850 a Royal Commission reported in favour of a general register of deeds, and in 1851 Lord Campbell introduced a bill accordingly, but it was opposed, and was dropped. In 1853 Lord Cranworth introduced a bill, which passed the Lords but not the Commons.Hitherto only registration of deeds had been considered, but in 1854 a new Royal Commission was appointed, which reported in 1857 in favour of a register of title. The scheme they recommended was substantially embodied in a bill introduced in 1859 by Lord Cairns—then Solicitor-General—but a dissolution stopped its progress. In 1862 Lord Westbury had the satisfaction of carrying the first act for registration of title. This act enabled any landowner to register an indefeasible title on production of strict proof. The proof required was to be such as the court of chancery would force an unwilling purchaser to accept. Only a few hundred titles were registered under this act, and in 1868 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of its failure. They reported in 1870, making various suggestions of detail, and especially adverting to the great expense caused by the strictness of the official investigation of title before a property could be admitted to the register. In the same year Lord Hatherley introduced a Transfer of Land Bill, but it was not proceeded with. In 1873 Lord Selborne introduced a Land Titles and Transfer Bill, following more or less the recommendations of the report of 1870, proposing for the first time compulsory registration of title upon every next sale after a prescribed date. Lord Cairns again introduced this bill (with some modifications) in 1874, but it had to be dropped. In 1875 Lord Cairns’s Land Transfer Act of that year was passed, which was much the same as the former bill, but without compulsion. This act had no better success in the way of voluntary general adoption than the act of 1862, but as its adoption has since been made compulsory, its provisions are important. Its most noticeable feature, from a practical point of view, is the additional prominence given to an expedient called “Possessory” registration (which also existed under another name in Lord Westbury’s Act), whereby is removed the great initial difficulty of placing titles on the register in the first instance. Two sorts of registration were established, “Absolute” and “Possessory.” The effect of an absolute registration was immediately to destroy all claims adverse to the registered title. But this was only to be granted on a regular investigation of title, which, though not so strict as under the former act, yet necessarily involved time and cost. Possessory registration, however, was to be granted to any one who could show a prima facie title—a quick and cheap process. But the effect of such registration would not be immediately felt. It would not destroy existing adverse claims. It would only prevent new difficulties from arising. In course of time such a title would be practically as good as an absolute one. In 1885 the duke of Marlborough introduced a bill for a registry of titles, and in the following vacation Lord Davey wrote three letters toThe Timesadvocating the same thing on the general lines afterwards adopted.2In 1887 Lord Halsbury, by introducing his Land Transfer Bill, commenced a struggle with the opponents of reform, which, after ten years of almost continuous effort, resulted in the passing of his act of 1897, establishing compulsory registration of title. Lord Halsbury introduced bills in 1887, 1888 and 1889. Lord Herschell, who succeeded him after the change of government, introduced bills in 1893, 1894 and 1895, these last three being unanimously passed by the House of Lords on every occasion. The bill of 1895 reached committee in the Commons, but was stopped by the dissolution of parliament. In 1897 Lord Halsbury (who had returned to the woolsack) again introduced the same bill with certain modifications which caused the Incorporated Law Society to withdraw its opposition in the House of Commons, and the act was finally passed on the last day of the session. Under it the Privy Council has power to issue orders declaring that on a certain date registration of title is to be compulsory on sale in a given district. The effect of such an order is to oblige every purchaser of land in the district after that date to register a “possessory title,” immediately after his purchase. The compulsory provisions of the act extend to freeholds and (by a rule afterwards made) to leaseholds having forty years to run. No order except the first can be made, save on the request of a county council. The first order was made in July 1898. It embraced the whole administrative county of London (including the City of London), proceeding gradually by groups of parishes. Under this order upwards of 122,000 titles had been registered by 1908, representing a value exceeding one hundred millions sterling.Under the operation of this act, at the expense of a slightly increased cost on all transactions during a few years, persons dealing with land in the county will ultimately experience great relief in the matter both of cost and of delay. The costs of a sale (including professional assistance, if required) will ultimately be for the vendor about one-fifth, and for the purchaser (at the most usual values) less than half, of the present expenses. The delay will be no more than in dealings with stock. Mortgagees will also be protected from risks of fraud, which at present are very appreciable, and of which the Redgrave and Richards cases are recent examples. Further particulars of the practical operation of the acts will be found in the Registrar’s Reports of 1902 and 1906, embracing the period from 1899 to 1905 inclusive, with comments on the general position, suggestions for future legislation, &c. In the autumn of 1908 a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord St Aldwyn, was appointed to inquire into the working of the Land Transfer Acts. The evidence given before them in October, November and December 1908 comprised a general exposition by the registrar of the origin and history of the acts, and the principles of their working, and suggestions for amendments in certain details. It also comprised the experience of several landowners and others, who had found the acts highly beneficial, and who had carried through a large number of dealings under absolute titles, without professional help, very quickly, and at a greatly reduced cost.Scotland.—In Scotland registration ofdeedswas established by an act of 1617, which remained unaltered till 1845. There are also acts of 1868 and 1874. The registry is in Edinburgh. Deeds are registered almost invariably by full copy. The deeds are indexed according to properties—each property having a separate number and folio called a “search sheet,” on which all deeds affecting it are referred to. About 40,000 deeds are registered annually. The consequence of the existence of this register is to render fraud in title absolutely unknown. Forty years is the usual period investigated. The investigation can, if desired, be made from the records in theregistry alone. The fees are trifling, but suffice to pay the expenses of the office, which employs between 70 and 80 permanent officers in addition to temporary assistants. The total costs of conveyancing amount, roughly speaking, to between 1 and 2% on the purchase money, and are equally shared between vendor and purchaser. In 1906 a royal commission was appointed, with Lord Dunedin as chairman, to inquire into the expediency of instituting in Scotland a system of registration of title.Australia and New Zealand.—These states now furnish the most conspicuous examples in the British empire of the success of registration oftitle. But prior to the year 1857 they had only registration ofdeeds, and the expense, delay and confusion resulting from the frequent dealings appear to have been a crying evil. Sir Robert Torrens, then registrar of deeds in South Australia, drew up and carried an act establishing a register of title similar to the shipping register. The act rapidly became popular, and was adopted (with variations) in all the other Australasian states in the years 1861, 1862, 1870 and 1874. Consolidating and amending acts have since been passed in most of these states. Only absolute title is registered. All land granted by government, after the passing of the several acts, is placed on the register compulsorily. But voluntary applications are also made in very large numbers. It is said ordinary purchasers will not buy land unless the vendor first registers the title. The fees are very low—£1 to £3 is a usual maximum—though in some states,e.g.Victoria, the fees rise indefinitely,ad valorem, at a rate of about 10s. per £1000. Insurance funds are established to provide compensation for errors. At a recent date they amounted to over £400,000, while only £14,600 odd had been paid in claims. All the registries pay their own expenses. Bankers and men of business generally are warm in their appreciation of the acts, which are popularly called Torrens Acts, after their originator, who, though not a lawyer, originated and carried through this important and difficult legal work.Canada.—Registration oftitlewas introduced in Vancouver Island in 1861, was extended to the rest of British Columbia in 1870, and was in 1885 adopted by Ontario, Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Only Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island retain the old English system, plus registration of deeds. The three provinces which have adopted registration of title have adopted it in somewhat different forms. In British Columbia it is similar to Lord Westbury’s Act of 1862. The North-West Territories follow closely the Torrens Acts. The Ontario Act is almost a transcript of Lord Cairns’s Act of 1875. The fees are very low, seldom exceeding a few shillings, but all expenses of the office are paid from this source. The Ontario registry has five district offices, as well as the central one at Toronto. This is apparently the only colonial registry not open to public inspection.Other British Colonies.—In the other British colonies private investigation of title, plus registration of deeds, is the prevailing system, but registration of title has been introduced in one or two instances.Germany and Austria-Hungary.—By far the most important examples of registration oftitleat present existing—because they show how the system works when applied to large European communities, with all the intricacies and complications of modern civilized life—are to be found in Germany and Austria-Hungary. In some parts of these countries registration of title has been established for several centuries—notably in Bohemia; in most parts it has existed for the greater part of the 19th century; in some districts, again, notably Tirol and the Rhine Provinces, it is still in course of introduction. In all cases it appears to have been preceded by a system of deed registration, which materially facilitated its introduction. In some cases, Prussia, for instance, the former registers were kept in such a way as to amount in themselves to little short of a registry of title. Very low scales of fees suffice to pay all official expenses. In Prussia the fees for registering sales begin at 5d. for a value of £1; at £20 the fee is 2s 7d.; at £100 it is 7s. 3d.; at £1000 it is £1, 10s.; at £5000, £4, 5s., and so on. In case of error, the officials are personally liable; failing these, the state. Other states are very similar. In 1894, 1,159,995 transactions were registered in Prussia. In 1893, 938,708 were registered in Austria. Some idea of the extent to which small holdings prevail in these countries may be gathered from the fact that 36% of the sales and mortgages in Austria were for under £8, 6s. 8d. value—74% were for under £50. Owing to the ease and simplicity of the registers, it is not always necessary to employ professional help. When such help is required, the fees are low. In Vienna £1 is a very usual fee for the purchaser’s lawyer. £10 is seldom reached. In Germany the register is private. In Austria it is open to public inspection. In these registers may be found examples of large estates in the country with numerous charges and encumbrances and dealings therewith; peasants’ properties, in numerous scattered parcels, acquired and disposed of at different times, and variously mortgaged; town and suburban properties, flats, small farms, rights to light and air, rights of way, family settlements, and dealings of all sorts—inheritances and wills, partitions, bankruptcies, mortgages, and a great variety of dealings therewith. The Continental systems are usually administered locally in districts, about 20 to 30 m. across, attached to the local law courts. In Baden and Württemberg every parish (commune) has its own registry. All ordinary dealings are transacted with the greatest expedition. Security is absolute.3The United States.—Up to a late date the ordinary English system, with registration ofdeeds, was universal in the United States. The registries appear to go back practically to the original settlement of the country. Registration is by full copy. It is said that in the large towns the name indexes were often much overgrown owing to the want of subdivision into smaller areas corresponding to the parishes into which the Middlesex and Yorkshire indexes are divided. In the New York registry not many years ago 25,000 deeds were registered annually. At the same time 35,000 were registered in Middlesex. Complaints are made by American lawyers of want of accuracy in the indexes also. In 1890 an act was passed in New York for splitting the indexes into “blocks,” which is believed to have given much relief. The average time and cost of an examination of title, as estimated by a committee of the Bar Association of New York in 1887, was about thirty days and 150 dollars (about £30). A later State Commission in Illinois estimates the law costs of a sale there at about 25 dollars (£5); the time may run into many months. Allusion has already been made to the insurance of title companies. The rates of insurance are substantial,e.g.65 dollars (£13) on the first 3000 dollars (£600), and 5 dollars (£1) on each additional 1000 dollars (£200). This would amount to £20 on £2000 value, £110 on £20,000, £510 on £100,000. The guarantee given is very ample, and may be renewed to subsequent owners at one-third of the fee. Registration of title has lately been introduced, on a voluntary basis, into the states of California, Oregon, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Colorado, and also into Hawaii and the Philippines.France.—In France registration ofdeedsis universal. Sales, mortgages, gifts and successions; easements, leases of over eighteen years, and transactions affecting the land to the extent of three years’ rent may lose priority if not registered. Wills need not be registered. Mortgages must be re-registered every ten years. Purchase deeds are registered by filing full copies. Registries are established in all the considerable towns. The duty on sales amounts to the high figure of about 6½% on the value. Part of this is allocated to registration, in addition to which a fixed fee of one franc, and stationers’ charges averaging 6 francs are also chargeable. The title can usually be fully investigated from the documents in the registry. Official searches for mortgages are commonly resorted to, at a cost of about 5 francs. Under the monarchy the land system was practically copyhold tenure, but greater validity was attached to the Court Rolls than was the case in England. The present system was established by a law of 1790 after the abolition of seigniorial institutions in 1789. This was modified by the Code Napoleon, and further perfected by a law of 1855. The average value of transactions in France is very small. Probably at the present time four-fifths of the properties are of under £25 value. The costs of a sale for 200 francs (£8) would be about as follows: Duty, 13 fr.; Notary (1%), 2 fr.; expenses, 12 fr.—total 27 fr. A sale for 1000 fr. (£40) would cost about 110 fr. Taking all values, the cost of conveyance and duty reaches the high figure of 10% in the general run of transactions. The vendor as a rule has no costs.Indefeasibletitle is not obtainable, but frauds are almost unknown. A day or two usually suffices for all formalities. On large sales a further process known as the “purge” is undergone, which requires a few weeks and more expense, in order to guard against possible claims against which the deed registries afford no protection, such as dowries of wives, claims under guardianships, &c. A commission (Commission Extraparlementaire du Cadastre), appointed in 1891 to consider the revision of the government cadastral maps (which are in very serious arrear) and the establishment of registration of title, collected, in nine volumes of Comptes Rendus, a great mass of most interesting particulars relating to land questions in France, and in 1905 reported in favour of the general establishment of a register of title, with a draft of the necessary enactment.Authorities.—A very complete list of some 114 English publications from 1653 to 1895 will be found in R. Burnet Morris,Land Registration(1895); Parliamentary Publications:Second Report of the Real Property Commissioners(1831);Report of the Registration and Conveyancing Commission(1850);Report of the Registration of Title Commission(1857);Report of the Land Transfer Commission(1870);Reports on Registration of Title in Australasian Colonies(1871 and 1881);Report on Registration of Title in Germany and Austria-Hungary(1896);The Registrar’s Reports of 1902 and 1906 on the Formation of a Register in London;Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, Minutes of Evidence(1909). General reviews of land registration in the British Isles, the Colonies, and in foreign countries: R. Burnet Morris, as above, and C. F. Brickdale,Land Transfer in Various Countries(1894). Books on practice: England—Brickdale and Sheldon,The Land Transfer Acts(2nd ed., 1905); Cherry and Marigold,The LandTransferActs(1898); Hay,Land Registration under the Land Transfer Acts(1904);Land Transfer, &c.(1901); C. F. Brickdale,Registration in Middlesex(1892).Australia—The Australian Torrens System; Hogg,The Transfer of Land Act 1890(Melbourne). Prussia—Oberneck,Die Preussischen Grundbuchgesetze(Berlin). Austria—Das allgemeine Grundbuchsgesetz, &c. (Vienna); Bartsch,Das Oesterreichische allgemeine Grundbuchsgesetz in seiner practischen Anwendung(Vienna). Saxony—Siegmann,Sächsische Hypothekenrecht(Leipzig). Statistics—Oesterreichische Statistik(Grundbuchs-ämter) (Vienna, annually).
England and Wales.—The first attempt to introduce general registration of conveyances appears to have been made by the Statute of Enrolments, passed in the 27th year of Henry VIII. But this was soon found to be capable of evasion, and it became a dead letter. A Registration Act applying to the counties of Lancaster, Chester and Durham was passed in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, but failed for want of providing the necessary machinery for its observance. The subject reappeared in several bills during the Commonwealth, but these failed to pass, owing, it would seem, to the objection of landowners to publicity. In 1669 a committee of the House of Lords reported that one cause of the depreciation of landed property was the uncertainty of titles, and proposed registration of deeds as a remedy, but nothing was done.
During the next thirty years numerous pamphlets for and against a general registry were published. In 1704 the first Deed Registry Act was passed, applying to the West Riding of Yorkshire. In 1707 the system was extended to the East Riding, and in 1708 to Middlesex. These Middlesex and Yorkshire registries (modified considerably in practice, but not seriously in principle, by the Yorkshire Registries Acts 1884, 1885, and Land Registry [Middlesex Deeds] Act 1891) remain in operation, and are greatly valued by the smaller proprietors and mortgagees, owing to the security against fraud which they provide at a trifling cost. The selection of these counties seems capricious: its probable explanation is that in them trade was flourishing, and the fortunes made were frequently invested in land, and a protection against secret encumbrances was most in demand. In 1728 and 1732 Surrey and Derby petitioned, unsuccessfully, for local registries. In 1735 the North Riding Deed Registry Act was passed. In 1739 a General Registry bill passed the Commons, but did not reach the Lords. Next year the Lords passed a similar bill, but it did not reach the Commons. In 1759 a General Registry bill was thrown out by a majority of one. In 1784 Northumberland unsuccessfully petitioned for a local registry. After this the subject went almost out of sight till the Real Property Commission of 1828. They reported in 1830 in favour of a general register of deeds, but though several bills were introduced, none were passed. In 1846 a committee of the House of Lords reported that the marketable value of real property was seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process of the transfer of land, and that a registry of title to all real property was essential to the success of any attempt to simplify the system of conveyancing. In 1850 a Royal Commission reported in favour of a general register of deeds, and in 1851 Lord Campbell introduced a bill accordingly, but it was opposed, and was dropped. In 1853 Lord Cranworth introduced a bill, which passed the Lords but not the Commons.
Hitherto only registration of deeds had been considered, but in 1854 a new Royal Commission was appointed, which reported in 1857 in favour of a register of title. The scheme they recommended was substantially embodied in a bill introduced in 1859 by Lord Cairns—then Solicitor-General—but a dissolution stopped its progress. In 1862 Lord Westbury had the satisfaction of carrying the first act for registration of title. This act enabled any landowner to register an indefeasible title on production of strict proof. The proof required was to be such as the court of chancery would force an unwilling purchaser to accept. Only a few hundred titles were registered under this act, and in 1868 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of its failure. They reported in 1870, making various suggestions of detail, and especially adverting to the great expense caused by the strictness of the official investigation of title before a property could be admitted to the register. In the same year Lord Hatherley introduced a Transfer of Land Bill, but it was not proceeded with. In 1873 Lord Selborne introduced a Land Titles and Transfer Bill, following more or less the recommendations of the report of 1870, proposing for the first time compulsory registration of title upon every next sale after a prescribed date. Lord Cairns again introduced this bill (with some modifications) in 1874, but it had to be dropped. In 1875 Lord Cairns’s Land Transfer Act of that year was passed, which was much the same as the former bill, but without compulsion. This act had no better success in the way of voluntary general adoption than the act of 1862, but as its adoption has since been made compulsory, its provisions are important. Its most noticeable feature, from a practical point of view, is the additional prominence given to an expedient called “Possessory” registration (which also existed under another name in Lord Westbury’s Act), whereby is removed the great initial difficulty of placing titles on the register in the first instance. Two sorts of registration were established, “Absolute” and “Possessory.” The effect of an absolute registration was immediately to destroy all claims adverse to the registered title. But this was only to be granted on a regular investigation of title, which, though not so strict as under the former act, yet necessarily involved time and cost. Possessory registration, however, was to be granted to any one who could show a prima facie title—a quick and cheap process. But the effect of such registration would not be immediately felt. It would not destroy existing adverse claims. It would only prevent new difficulties from arising. In course of time such a title would be practically as good as an absolute one. In 1885 the duke of Marlborough introduced a bill for a registry of titles, and in the following vacation Lord Davey wrote three letters toThe Timesadvocating the same thing on the general lines afterwards adopted.2In 1887 Lord Halsbury, by introducing his Land Transfer Bill, commenced a struggle with the opponents of reform, which, after ten years of almost continuous effort, resulted in the passing of his act of 1897, establishing compulsory registration of title. Lord Halsbury introduced bills in 1887, 1888 and 1889. Lord Herschell, who succeeded him after the change of government, introduced bills in 1893, 1894 and 1895, these last three being unanimously passed by the House of Lords on every occasion. The bill of 1895 reached committee in the Commons, but was stopped by the dissolution of parliament. In 1897 Lord Halsbury (who had returned to the woolsack) again introduced the same bill with certain modifications which caused the Incorporated Law Society to withdraw its opposition in the House of Commons, and the act was finally passed on the last day of the session. Under it the Privy Council has power to issue orders declaring that on a certain date registration of title is to be compulsory on sale in a given district. The effect of such an order is to oblige every purchaser of land in the district after that date to register a “possessory title,” immediately after his purchase. The compulsory provisions of the act extend to freeholds and (by a rule afterwards made) to leaseholds having forty years to run. No order except the first can be made, save on the request of a county council. The first order was made in July 1898. It embraced the whole administrative county of London (including the City of London), proceeding gradually by groups of parishes. Under this order upwards of 122,000 titles had been registered by 1908, representing a value exceeding one hundred millions sterling.
Under the operation of this act, at the expense of a slightly increased cost on all transactions during a few years, persons dealing with land in the county will ultimately experience great relief in the matter both of cost and of delay. The costs of a sale (including professional assistance, if required) will ultimately be for the vendor about one-fifth, and for the purchaser (at the most usual values) less than half, of the present expenses. The delay will be no more than in dealings with stock. Mortgagees will also be protected from risks of fraud, which at present are very appreciable, and of which the Redgrave and Richards cases are recent examples. Further particulars of the practical operation of the acts will be found in the Registrar’s Reports of 1902 and 1906, embracing the period from 1899 to 1905 inclusive, with comments on the general position, suggestions for future legislation, &c. In the autumn of 1908 a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord St Aldwyn, was appointed to inquire into the working of the Land Transfer Acts. The evidence given before them in October, November and December 1908 comprised a general exposition by the registrar of the origin and history of the acts, and the principles of their working, and suggestions for amendments in certain details. It also comprised the experience of several landowners and others, who had found the acts highly beneficial, and who had carried through a large number of dealings under absolute titles, without professional help, very quickly, and at a greatly reduced cost.
Scotland.—In Scotland registration ofdeedswas established by an act of 1617, which remained unaltered till 1845. There are also acts of 1868 and 1874. The registry is in Edinburgh. Deeds are registered almost invariably by full copy. The deeds are indexed according to properties—each property having a separate number and folio called a “search sheet,” on which all deeds affecting it are referred to. About 40,000 deeds are registered annually. The consequence of the existence of this register is to render fraud in title absolutely unknown. Forty years is the usual period investigated. The investigation can, if desired, be made from the records in theregistry alone. The fees are trifling, but suffice to pay the expenses of the office, which employs between 70 and 80 permanent officers in addition to temporary assistants. The total costs of conveyancing amount, roughly speaking, to between 1 and 2% on the purchase money, and are equally shared between vendor and purchaser. In 1906 a royal commission was appointed, with Lord Dunedin as chairman, to inquire into the expediency of instituting in Scotland a system of registration of title.
Australia and New Zealand.—These states now furnish the most conspicuous examples in the British empire of the success of registration oftitle. But prior to the year 1857 they had only registration ofdeeds, and the expense, delay and confusion resulting from the frequent dealings appear to have been a crying evil. Sir Robert Torrens, then registrar of deeds in South Australia, drew up and carried an act establishing a register of title similar to the shipping register. The act rapidly became popular, and was adopted (with variations) in all the other Australasian states in the years 1861, 1862, 1870 and 1874. Consolidating and amending acts have since been passed in most of these states. Only absolute title is registered. All land granted by government, after the passing of the several acts, is placed on the register compulsorily. But voluntary applications are also made in very large numbers. It is said ordinary purchasers will not buy land unless the vendor first registers the title. The fees are very low—£1 to £3 is a usual maximum—though in some states,e.g.Victoria, the fees rise indefinitely,ad valorem, at a rate of about 10s. per £1000. Insurance funds are established to provide compensation for errors. At a recent date they amounted to over £400,000, while only £14,600 odd had been paid in claims. All the registries pay their own expenses. Bankers and men of business generally are warm in their appreciation of the acts, which are popularly called Torrens Acts, after their originator, who, though not a lawyer, originated and carried through this important and difficult legal work.
Canada.—Registration oftitlewas introduced in Vancouver Island in 1861, was extended to the rest of British Columbia in 1870, and was in 1885 adopted by Ontario, Manitoba and the North-West Territories. Only Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island retain the old English system, plus registration of deeds. The three provinces which have adopted registration of title have adopted it in somewhat different forms. In British Columbia it is similar to Lord Westbury’s Act of 1862. The North-West Territories follow closely the Torrens Acts. The Ontario Act is almost a transcript of Lord Cairns’s Act of 1875. The fees are very low, seldom exceeding a few shillings, but all expenses of the office are paid from this source. The Ontario registry has five district offices, as well as the central one at Toronto. This is apparently the only colonial registry not open to public inspection.
Other British Colonies.—In the other British colonies private investigation of title, plus registration of deeds, is the prevailing system, but registration of title has been introduced in one or two instances.
Germany and Austria-Hungary.—By far the most important examples of registration oftitleat present existing—because they show how the system works when applied to large European communities, with all the intricacies and complications of modern civilized life—are to be found in Germany and Austria-Hungary. In some parts of these countries registration of title has been established for several centuries—notably in Bohemia; in most parts it has existed for the greater part of the 19th century; in some districts, again, notably Tirol and the Rhine Provinces, it is still in course of introduction. In all cases it appears to have been preceded by a system of deed registration, which materially facilitated its introduction. In some cases, Prussia, for instance, the former registers were kept in such a way as to amount in themselves to little short of a registry of title. Very low scales of fees suffice to pay all official expenses. In Prussia the fees for registering sales begin at 5d. for a value of £1; at £20 the fee is 2s 7d.; at £100 it is 7s. 3d.; at £1000 it is £1, 10s.; at £5000, £4, 5s., and so on. In case of error, the officials are personally liable; failing these, the state. Other states are very similar. In 1894, 1,159,995 transactions were registered in Prussia. In 1893, 938,708 were registered in Austria. Some idea of the extent to which small holdings prevail in these countries may be gathered from the fact that 36% of the sales and mortgages in Austria were for under £8, 6s. 8d. value—74% were for under £50. Owing to the ease and simplicity of the registers, it is not always necessary to employ professional help. When such help is required, the fees are low. In Vienna £1 is a very usual fee for the purchaser’s lawyer. £10 is seldom reached. In Germany the register is private. In Austria it is open to public inspection. In these registers may be found examples of large estates in the country with numerous charges and encumbrances and dealings therewith; peasants’ properties, in numerous scattered parcels, acquired and disposed of at different times, and variously mortgaged; town and suburban properties, flats, small farms, rights to light and air, rights of way, family settlements, and dealings of all sorts—inheritances and wills, partitions, bankruptcies, mortgages, and a great variety of dealings therewith. The Continental systems are usually administered locally in districts, about 20 to 30 m. across, attached to the local law courts. In Baden and Württemberg every parish (commune) has its own registry. All ordinary dealings are transacted with the greatest expedition. Security is absolute.3
The United States.—Up to a late date the ordinary English system, with registration ofdeeds, was universal in the United States. The registries appear to go back practically to the original settlement of the country. Registration is by full copy. It is said that in the large towns the name indexes were often much overgrown owing to the want of subdivision into smaller areas corresponding to the parishes into which the Middlesex and Yorkshire indexes are divided. In the New York registry not many years ago 25,000 deeds were registered annually. At the same time 35,000 were registered in Middlesex. Complaints are made by American lawyers of want of accuracy in the indexes also. In 1890 an act was passed in New York for splitting the indexes into “blocks,” which is believed to have given much relief. The average time and cost of an examination of title, as estimated by a committee of the Bar Association of New York in 1887, was about thirty days and 150 dollars (about £30). A later State Commission in Illinois estimates the law costs of a sale there at about 25 dollars (£5); the time may run into many months. Allusion has already been made to the insurance of title companies. The rates of insurance are substantial,e.g.65 dollars (£13) on the first 3000 dollars (£600), and 5 dollars (£1) on each additional 1000 dollars (£200). This would amount to £20 on £2000 value, £110 on £20,000, £510 on £100,000. The guarantee given is very ample, and may be renewed to subsequent owners at one-third of the fee. Registration of title has lately been introduced, on a voluntary basis, into the states of California, Oregon, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Colorado, and also into Hawaii and the Philippines.
France.—In France registration ofdeedsis universal. Sales, mortgages, gifts and successions; easements, leases of over eighteen years, and transactions affecting the land to the extent of three years’ rent may lose priority if not registered. Wills need not be registered. Mortgages must be re-registered every ten years. Purchase deeds are registered by filing full copies. Registries are established in all the considerable towns. The duty on sales amounts to the high figure of about 6½% on the value. Part of this is allocated to registration, in addition to which a fixed fee of one franc, and stationers’ charges averaging 6 francs are also chargeable. The title can usually be fully investigated from the documents in the registry. Official searches for mortgages are commonly resorted to, at a cost of about 5 francs. Under the monarchy the land system was practically copyhold tenure, but greater validity was attached to the Court Rolls than was the case in England. The present system was established by a law of 1790 after the abolition of seigniorial institutions in 1789. This was modified by the Code Napoleon, and further perfected by a law of 1855. The average value of transactions in France is very small. Probably at the present time four-fifths of the properties are of under £25 value. The costs of a sale for 200 francs (£8) would be about as follows: Duty, 13 fr.; Notary (1%), 2 fr.; expenses, 12 fr.—total 27 fr. A sale for 1000 fr. (£40) would cost about 110 fr. Taking all values, the cost of conveyance and duty reaches the high figure of 10% in the general run of transactions. The vendor as a rule has no costs.Indefeasibletitle is not obtainable, but frauds are almost unknown. A day or two usually suffices for all formalities. On large sales a further process known as the “purge” is undergone, which requires a few weeks and more expense, in order to guard against possible claims against which the deed registries afford no protection, such as dowries of wives, claims under guardianships, &c. A commission (Commission Extraparlementaire du Cadastre), appointed in 1891 to consider the revision of the government cadastral maps (which are in very serious arrear) and the establishment of registration of title, collected, in nine volumes of Comptes Rendus, a great mass of most interesting particulars relating to land questions in France, and in 1905 reported in favour of the general establishment of a register of title, with a draft of the necessary enactment.
Authorities.—A very complete list of some 114 English publications from 1653 to 1895 will be found in R. Burnet Morris,Land Registration(1895); Parliamentary Publications:Second Report of the Real Property Commissioners(1831);Report of the Registration and Conveyancing Commission(1850);Report of the Registration of Title Commission(1857);Report of the Land Transfer Commission(1870);Reports on Registration of Title in Australasian Colonies(1871 and 1881);Report on Registration of Title in Germany and Austria-Hungary(1896);The Registrar’s Reports of 1902 and 1906 on the Formation of a Register in London;Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, Minutes of Evidence(1909). General reviews of land registration in the British Isles, the Colonies, and in foreign countries: R. Burnet Morris, as above, and C. F. Brickdale,Land Transfer in Various Countries(1894). Books on practice: England—Brickdale and Sheldon,The Land Transfer Acts(2nd ed., 1905); Cherry and Marigold,The LandTransferActs(1898); Hay,Land Registration under the Land Transfer Acts(1904);Land Transfer, &c.(1901); C. F. Brickdale,Registration in Middlesex(1892).Australia—The Australian Torrens System; Hogg,The Transfer of Land Act 1890(Melbourne). Prussia—Oberneck,Die Preussischen Grundbuchgesetze(Berlin). Austria—Das allgemeine Grundbuchsgesetz, &c. (Vienna); Bartsch,Das Oesterreichische allgemeine Grundbuchsgesetz in seiner practischen Anwendung(Vienna). Saxony—Siegmann,Sächsische Hypothekenrecht(Leipzig). Statistics—Oesterreichische Statistik(Grundbuchs-ämter) (Vienna, annually).
(C. F.-Br.)
1In Prussia all conveyances are verbal, made in person or by attorney before the registrar, who forthwith notes them in his books.2This summary is an abridgement (with permission) of pp. 7 to 26 of Mr R. Burnet Morris’s book referred to at the end of this article.3Full information as to the German and Austrian systems is to be found in a Parliamentary Report of 1896 (C.—8139) on the subject.
1In Prussia all conveyances are verbal, made in person or by attorney before the registrar, who forthwith notes them in his books.
2This summary is an abridgement (with permission) of pp. 7 to 26 of Mr R. Burnet Morris’s book referred to at the end of this article.
3Full information as to the German and Austrian systems is to be found in a Parliamentary Report of 1896 (C.—8139) on the subject.
LANDSBERG AM LECH,a town in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the river Lech, 38 m. by rail W. by S. of Munich. Pop. (1905) 6505. It has eight Roman Catholic churches, among them the Liebfrauen Kirche dating from 1498, several monasteries, and a fine medieval town-hall, with frescoes by Karl von Piloty and a painting by Hubert von Herkomer. Here also are a fine gateway, the Bayer-Tor, an agricultural and other schools. Brewing, tanning and the manufacture of agricultural machinery are among the principal industries.
See Schober,Landsberg am Lech und Umgebung(1902); and Zwerger,Geschichte Landsbergs(1889).
See Schober,Landsberg am Lech und Umgebung(1902); and Zwerger,Geschichte Landsbergs(1889).
LANDSBERG-AN-DER-WARTHE,a town in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, at the confluence of the Warthe and the Kladow, 80 m. N.E. of Berlin by rail. Pop. (1905) 36,934. It has important engine and boiler works and iron-foundries; there are also manufactures of tobacco, cloth, carriages, wools, spirits, jute products and leather. An active trade is carried on in wood, cattle and the produce of the surrounding country. Landsberg obtained civic privileges in 1257, and later was besieged by the Poles and then by the Hussites.
See R. Eckert,Geschichte von Landsberg-Warthe(1890).
See R. Eckert,Geschichte von Landsberg-Warthe(1890).
LANDSBERG BEI HALLE,a town in Prussia on the Strengbach, on the railway from Berlin to Weissenfels. Pop. (1905) 1770. Its industries include quarrying and malting, and the manufacture of sugar and machinery. Landsberg was the capital of a small margraviate of this name, ruled in the 12th century by a certain Dietrich, who built the town. Later it belonged to Meissen and to Saxony, passing to Prussia in 1814.
LANDSEER, SIR EDWIN HENRY(1802-1873), English painter, third son of John Landseer, A.R.A., a well-known engraver and writer on art, was born at 71 Queen Anne Street East (afterwards 33 Foley Street), London, on March 7th 1802. His mother was Miss Potts, who sat to Sir Joshua Reynolds as the reaper with a sheaf of corn on her head, in “Macklin’s Family Picture,” or “The Gleaners.”1Edwin Henry Landseer began his artistic education under his father so successfully that in his fifth year he drew fairly well, and was familiar with animal character and passion. Drawings of his, at South Kensington, dated by his father, attest that he drew excellently at eight years of age; at ten he was an admirable draughtsman and his work shows considerable sense of humour. At thirteen he drew a majestic St Bernard dog so finely that his brother Thomas engraved and published the work. At this date (1815) he sent two pictures to the Royal Academy, and was described in the catalogue as “Master E. Landseer, 33 Foley Street.” Youth forbade his being reckoned among practising artists, and caused him to be considered as the “Honorary Exhibitor” of “No. 443, Portrait of a Mule,” and “No. 584, Portraits of a Pointer Bitch and Puppy.” Adopting the advice of B. R. Haydon, he studied the Elgin Marbles, the animals in the Tower of London and Exeter ‘Change, and dissected every animal whose carcass he could obtain. In 1816 Landseer was admitted a student of the Royal Academy schools. In 1817 he sent to the Academy a portrait of “Old Brutus,” a much-favoured dog, which, as well as its son, another Brutus, often appeared in his later pictures. Even at this date Landseer enjoyed considerable reputation, and had more work than he could readily perform, his renown having been zealously fostered by his father in James Elmes’sAnnals of the Fine Arts. At the Academy he was a diligent student and a favourite of Henry Fuseli’s, who would look about the crowded antique school and ask, “Where is my curly-headed dog-boy?” Although his pictures sold easily from the first, the prices he received at this time were comparatively small. In 1818 Landseer sent to the Society of Painters in Oil and Water Colours, which then held its exhibitions in Spring Gardens, his picture of “Fighting Dogs getting Wind.” The sale of this work to Sir George Beaumont vastly enhanced the fame of the painter, who soon became “the fashion.” This picture illustrates the prime strength of Landseer’s earlier style. Unlike the productions of his later life, it displays not an iota of sentiment. Perfectly drawn, solidly and minutely finished, and carefully composed, its execution attested the skill acquired during ten years’ studies from nature. Between 1818 and 1825 Landseer did a great deal of work, but on the whole gained little besides facility of technical expression, a greater zest for humour and a larger style. The work of this stage ended with the production of the painting called “The Cat’s Paw,” which was sent to the British Institution in 1824, and made an enormous sensation. The price obtained for this picture, £100, enabled Landseer to set up for himself in the house No. 1 St John’s Wood Road, where he lived nearly fifty years and in which he died. During this period Landseer’s principal pictures were “The Cat Disturbed”; “Alpine Mastiffs reanimating a Distressed Traveller,” a famous work engraved by his father; “The Ratcatchers”; “Pointers to be”; “The Larder Invaded”; and “Neptune,” the head and shoulders of a Newfoundland dog. In 1824 Landseer and C. R. Leslie made a journey to the Highlands—a momentous visit for the former, who thenceforward rarely failed annually to repeat it in search of studies and subjects.
In 1826 Landseer was elected an A.R.A. In 1827 appeared “The Monkey who has seen the World,” a picture which marked the growth of a taste for humorous subjects in the mind of the painter that had been evoked by the success of the “Cat’s Paw.” “Taking a Buck” (1825) was the painter’s first Scottish picture. Its execution marked a change in his style which, in increase of largeness, was a great improvement. In other respects, however, there was a decrease of solid qualities; indeed, finish, searching modelling, and elaborate draughtsmanship rarely appeared in Landseer’s work after 1823. The subject, as such, soon after this time became a very distinct element in his pictures; ultimately it dominated, and in effect the artist enjoyed a greater degree of popularity than technical judgment justified, so that later criticism has put Landseer’s position in art much lower than the place he once occupied. Sentiment gave new charm to his works, which had previously depended on the expression of animal passion and character, and the exhibition of noble qualities of draughtsmanship. Sentimentality ruled in not a few pictures of later dates, andquasi-human humour, or pathos, superseded that masculine animalism which rioted in its energy, and enabled the artist to rival Snyders, if not Velazquez, as a painter of beasts. After “High Life” and “Low Life,” now in the Tate Gallery, London, Landseer’s dogs, and even his lions and birds, were sometimes more than half civilized. It was not that these later pictures were less true to nature than their forerunners, but the models were chosen from different grades of animal society. As Landseer prospered he kept finer company, and his new patrons did not care about rat-catching and dog-fighting, however vigorously and learnedly those subjects might be depicted. It cannot be said that the world lost much when, in exchange for the “Cat Disturbed” and “Fighting Dogs getting Wind,” came “Jack in Office,” “The Old Shepherd’s Chief Mourner,” and “The Swannery invaded by Eagles,” three pictures which are types of as many diverse moods of Landseer’s art, and each a noble one.
Landseer was elected a Royal Academician in 1831. “Chevy Chase” (1826), which is at Woburn, “The Highland Whisky Still” (1829), “High Life” (1829) and “Low Life” (1829), besides other important works, had appeared in the interval. Landseer had by this time attained such amazing mastery that he painted “Spaniel and Rabbit” in two hours and a half, and “Rabbits,” which was at the British Institution, in three-quarters of an hour; and the fine dog-picture “Odin” (1836)was the work of one sitting,i.e.painted within twelve hours. But perhaps the most wonderful instance of his rapid but sure and dexterous brush-handling was “The Cavalier’s Pets” (1845), the picture of two King Charles’s spaniels in the National Gallery, which was executed in two days. Another remarkable feat consisted in drawing, simultaneously, a stag’s head with one hand and a head of a horse with the other. “Harvest in the Highlands,” and that masterpiece of humour, “Jack in Office,” were exhibited in 1833. In 1834 a noble work of sentiment was given to the world in “Suspense,” which is now at South Kensington, and shows a dog watching at the closed door of his wounded master. Many think this to be Landseer’s finest work, others prefer “The Old Shepherd’s Chief Mourner” (1837). The over-praised and unfortunate “Bolton Abbey in the Olden Time,” a group of portraits in character, was also shown in 1834, and was the first picture for which the painter received £400. A few years later he sold “Peace” and “War” for £1500, and for the copyrights alone obtained £6000. In 1881 “Man proposes, God Disposes” (1864) was resold for 6300 guineas, and a cartoon of “The Chase” (1866) fetched 5000 guineas. “A Distinguished Member of the Humane Society,” a dog reclining on a quay wall (1838), was succeeded by “Dignity and Impudence” (1839). The “Lion Dog of Malta,” and “Laying down the Law” appeared in 1840. In 1842 was finished the capital “Highland Shepherd’s Home” (Sheepshanks Gift), together with the beautiful “Eos,” a portrait of Prince Albert’s most graceful of greyhounds, to which Thomas Landseer added an ineffable charm and solidity not in the painting. The “Rout of Comus” was painted in the summerhouse of Buckingham Palace garden in 1843. The “Challenge” was accompanied (1844) by “Shoeing the Bay Mare” (Bell Gift), and followed by “Peace” and “War,” and the “Stag at Bay” (1846). “Alexander and Diogenes,” and a “Random Shot,” a dead kid lying in the snow, came forth in 1848. In 1850 Landseer received a national commission to paint in the Houses of Parliament three subjects connected with the chase. Although they would have been worth three times as much money, the House of Commons refused to grant £1500 for these pictures, and the matter fell through, more to the artist’s profit than the nation’s gain. The famous “Monarch of the Glen” (1851) was one of these subjects. “Night” and “Morning,” romantic and pathetic deer subjects, came in due order (1853). For “The Sanctuary” (1842) the Fine Arts jury of experts awarded to the artist the great gold medal of the Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1855.
The “Dialogue at Waterloo” (1850), which he afterwards regarded with strong disapproval, showed how Landseer, like nearly all English artists of original power and considerable fertility, owed nothing to French or Italian training. In the same year he received the honour of knighthood. Next came “Geneva” (1851), “Titania and Bottom” (1851), which comprises a charming queen of the fairies, and the “Deer Pass” (1852), followed by “The Children of the Mist” (1853), “Saved” (1856), “Braemar,” a noble stag, “Rough and Ready,” and “Uncle Tom and his Wife for Sale” (1857). “The Maid and the Magpie” (1858), the extraordinarily large cartoon called “Deer Browsing” (1857), “The Twa Dogs” (1858), and one or two minor paintings were equal to any previously produced by the artist. Nevertheless, signs of failing health were remarked in “Doubtful Crumbs” and a “Kind Star” (1859). The immense and profoundly dramatic picture called “A Flood in the Highlands” (1860) more than reinstated the painter before the public, but friends still saw ground for uneasiness. Extreme nervous excitability manifested itself in many ways, and in the choice (1864) of the dreadful subject of “Man Proposes, God Disposes,” bears clumsily clambering among relics of Sir John Franklin’s party, there was occult pathos, which some of the artist’s intimates suspected, but did not avow. In 1862 and 1863 Landseer produced nothing; but “A Piper and a Pair of Nutcrackers” (1864) revealed his old power. He declined the presidentship of the Royal Academy in 1865, in succession to Sir Charles Eastlake. In 1867 the four lions which he had modelled for the base of the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar Square, London, were unveiled, and with “The Swannery invaded by Eagles” (1869) he achieved his last triumph. After four years more, full of suffering, mainly of broken art and shattered mental powers, Sir Edwin Landseer died on the 1st of October 1873, and was buried, ten days later, in St Paul’s Cathedral. Those who would see the full strength of Landseer’s brush should examine his sketches and the like in the Victoria and Albert Museum and similar works. In these he shows himself endowed with the strength of Paul Potter.
See Algernon Graves’sCatalogue of the Works of the late Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A. (London, n.d.); Frederic G. Stephens’sSir Edwin Landseer(1880); W. Cosmo Monkhouse’sThe Studies of Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A., with a History of his Art-Life(London, n.d.); W. P. Frith’sMy Autobiography and Reminiscences(1887); Vernon Heath’sRecollections(1892); and James A. Manson’s “Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A.,”The Makers of British Art(London, 1902).
See Algernon Graves’sCatalogue of the Works of the late Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A. (London, n.d.); Frederic G. Stephens’sSir Edwin Landseer(1880); W. Cosmo Monkhouse’sThe Studies of Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A., with a History of his Art-Life(London, n.d.); W. P. Frith’sMy Autobiography and Reminiscences(1887); Vernon Heath’sRecollections(1892); and James A. Manson’s “Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A.,”The Makers of British Art(London, 1902).
1John Landseer died February 29, 1852, aged ninety-one (or eighty-three, according to Cosmo Monkhouse). Sir Edwin’s eldest brother Thomas, an A.R.A. and a famous engraver, whose interpretations of his junior’s pictures have made them known throughout the world, was born in 1795, and died January 20, 1880. Charles Landseer, R.A., and Keeper of the Royal Academy, the second brother, was born in 1799, and died July 22, 1879. John Landseer’s brother Henry was a painter of some reputation, who emigrated to Australia.
1John Landseer died February 29, 1852, aged ninety-one (or eighty-three, according to Cosmo Monkhouse). Sir Edwin’s eldest brother Thomas, an A.R.A. and a famous engraver, whose interpretations of his junior’s pictures have made them known throughout the world, was born in 1795, and died January 20, 1880. Charles Landseer, R.A., and Keeper of the Royal Academy, the second brother, was born in 1799, and died July 22, 1879. John Landseer’s brother Henry was a painter of some reputation, who emigrated to Australia.
LAND’S END,a promontory of Cornwall, forming the western most point of England. It is a fine headland of granite, pierced by a natural arch, on a coast renowned for its cliff scenery. Dangerous reefs lie off the point, and one group a mile from the mainland is marked by the Longships Lighthouse, in 50° 4′ N. 5° 43′ W. The Land’s End is the westernmost of the granite masses which rise at intervals through Cornwall from Dartmoor. The phenomenon of a raised beach may be seen here, but indications of a submerged forest have also been discovered in the neighbourhood.
LANDSHUT,a town in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the right bank of the Isar, 40 m. N.E. of Munich on the main line of railway to Regensburg. Pop. (1905) 24,217. Landshut is still a quaint, picturesque place; it consists of an old and a new town and of four suburbs, one part of it lying on an island in the Isar. It contains a fine street, the Altstadt, and several interesting medieval buildings. Among its eleven churches the most noteworthy are those of St Martin, with a tower 432 ft. high, of St Jodocus, and of the Holy Ghost, or the Hospital church, all three begun before 1410. The former Dominican convent, founded in 1271, once the seat of the university, is now used as public offices. The post-office, formerly the meeting-house of the Estates, a building adorned with old frescoes; the royal palace, which contains some very fine Renaissance work; and the town-hall, built in 1446 and restored in 1860, are also noteworthy. The town has monuments to the Bavarian king, Maximilian II., and to other famous men; it contains a botanical garden and a public park. On a hill overlooking Landshut is the castle of Trausnitz, called also Burg Landshut, formerly a stronghold of the dukes of Lower Bavaria, whose burial-place was at Seligenthal also near the town. The original building was erected early in the 13th century, but the chapel, the oldest part now existing, dates from the 14th century. The upper part of the castle has been made habitable. The industries of Landshut are not important; they include brewing, tanning and spinning, and the manufacture of tobacco and cloth. Market gardening and an extensive trade in grain are also carried on.
Landshut was founded about 1204, and from 1255 to 1503 it was the principal residence of the dukes of Lower Bavaria and of their successors, the dukes of Bavaria-Landshut. During the Thirty Years’ War it was captured several times by the Swedes and in the 18th century by the Austrians. In April 1809 Napoleon defeated the Austrians here and the town was stormed by his troops. From 1800 to 1826 the university, formerly at Ingolstadt and now at Munich, was located at Landshut. Owing to the three helmets which form its arms the town is sometimes called “Dreihelm Stadt.”
See Staudenraus,Chronik der Stadt Landshut, (Landshut 1832); Wiesend,Topographische Geschichte von Landshut(Landshut, 1858); Rosenthal,Zur Rechtsgeschichte der Städte Landshut und Straubing(Würzberg, 1883); Kalcher,Führer durch Landshut(Landshut, 1887); Haack,Die gotische Architektur und Plastik der Stadt Landshut(Munich, 1894); andGeschichte der Stadt Landshut(Landshut, 1835).
See Staudenraus,Chronik der Stadt Landshut, (Landshut 1832); Wiesend,Topographische Geschichte von Landshut(Landshut, 1858); Rosenthal,Zur Rechtsgeschichte der Städte Landshut und Straubing(Würzberg, 1883); Kalcher,Führer durch Landshut(Landshut, 1887); Haack,Die gotische Architektur und Plastik der Stadt Landshut(Munich, 1894); andGeschichte der Stadt Landshut(Landshut, 1835).
LANDSKNECHT,a German mercenary foot-soldier of the 16th century. The name (German for “man of the plains”) was given to mark the contrast between the force of thesesoldiers, formed by the emperor Maximilian I. about the end of the 15th century, and the Swiss, the “men of the mountains,” at that time the typical mercenary infantry of Europe. After the battles of Marignan and Pavia, where the military reputation of the Swiss had been broken, the Swabianlandsknechtecame to be considered the best fighting troops in Europe. Though primarily a German force and always the mainstay of imperial armies, they served in organized bodies as mercenaries elsewhere in Europe; in France they fought for the League and for the Protestants indiscriminately. In factlandsknecht, and more particularly its French corruptionlansquenet, became in western Europe a general term for mercenary foot-soldiers. It is owing to thelange Spiesse(long pike or lance), the typical weapon with which they were armed, that the corrupted French form, as well as a German form,lanzknecht, and an English “lance-knight” came into use.
The landsknechts were raised by colonels (Oberst), to whom the emperor issued recruiting commissions corresponding to the English “indents”; they were organized in regiments made up of a colonel, lieut.-colonel and regimental staff, with a varying number of companies, “colours” (Fähnlein), commanded by captains (Hauptmann); subaltern officers were lieutenants and ensigns (Fähnrich). In thus defining the titles and duties of each rank, and in almost every detail of regimental customs and organization, discipline and interior economy, the landsknechts may be considered as the founders of the modern military system on a regimental basis (see furtherArmy).
LANDSKRONA, a seaport of Sweden, on the east side of the Sound, 15 m. N.E. of Copenhagen. Pop. (1900) 14,399. The harbour is excellent, giving a depth of 35 ft., with 15 ft. beside the quays. The town is among the first twelve manufacturing centres of Sweden in value of output, the principal industries being tanning and sugar manufacture and refining from beetroot. On the little island of Hven, immediately opposite the town, Tycho Brahe built his famous subterranean observatory of Uranienborg in the second half of the 16th century. Landskrona, originally called Landora or Landör, owed its first importance to King Erik XIII., who introduced a body of Carmelite monks from Germany in 1410, and bestowed on the place the privileges of a town. During the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries it played too conspicuous a part for its own prosperity. On the 24th of July 1677 a great naval battle was fought in the neighbourhood in which the Swedes defeated the Danes.
LANDSTURM, the German equivalent of thelevée en masse, or general levy of all men capable of bearing arms and not included in the other regularly organized forces, standing army or its second line formations, of Continental nations.
LANDWEHR, a German word meaning “defence of the country”; but the term as applied to an insurrectional militia is very ancient, and “lantveri” are mentioned inBaluzii Capitularia, as quoted in Hallam’sMiddle Ages, i. 262, 10th ed. The landwehr in Prussia was first formed by a royal edict of the 17th of March 1813, which called up all men capable of bearing arms between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and not serving in the regular army, for the defence of the country. After the peace of 1815 this force was made an integral part of the Prussian army, each brigade being composed of one line and one landwehr regiment. This, however, retarded the mobilization and diminished the value of the first line, and by the re-organization of 1859 the landwehr troops were relegated to the second line. In Austria the landwehr is a totally different organization. It is in reality acadreforce existing alongside the regular army, and to it are handed over such recruits as, for want of vacancies, cannot be placed in the latter. In Switzerland the landwehr is a second line force, in which all citizens serve for twelve years, after passing twelve in the “Auszug” or field army.
LANE, EDWARD WILLIAM(1801-1876), English Arabic scholar, son of Dr Theophilus Lane, prebendary of Hereford, was born on the 17th of September 1801. He was educated at Bath and Hereford grammar schools, where he showed marked mathematical ability, and was designed for Cambridge and the church, but this purpose was abandoned, and for some time he studied the art of engraving. Failure of health compelled him to throw aside the burin, and in 1825 he started for Egypt, where he spent three years, twice ascended the Nile, proceeding as far as the second cataract, and composed a complete description of Egypt, with a portfolio of one hundred and one drawings. This work was never published, but the account of the modern Egyptians, which formed a part of it, was accepted for separate publication by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. To perfect this work Lane again visited Egypt in 1833-1835, residing mainly in Cairo, but retiring to Luxor during the plague of 1835. Lane took up his residence in the Mahommedan quarter, and under the name of Mansur Effendi lived the life of an Egyptian scholar. He was fortunate in the time when he took up his work, for Cairo had not then become a modern city, and he was thus able to describe aspects of Arabian life that no longer exist there. Perfected by the additional observations collected during these years, theModern Egyptiansappeared in 1836, and at once took the place which it has never lost as the best description of Eastern life and an Eastern country ever written. It was followed from 1838 to 1840 by a translation of theArabian Nights, with notes and illustrations, designed to make the book a sort of encyclopaedia of Eastern manners. The translation itself is an admirable proof of scholarship, but is characterized by a somewhat stilted mannerism, which is not equally appropriate to all parts of the motley-coloured original. The character of some of the tales and the tedious repetitions of the same theme in the Arabic collection induced Lane to leave considerable parts of the work untranslated. The value of his version is increased by the exhaustive notes on Mahommedan life and customs. In 1840 Lane married a Greek lady. A useful volume ofSelections from the Kur-ānwas published in 1843, but before it passed through the press Lane was again in Egypt, where he spent seven years (1842-1849) collecting materials for a great Arabic lexicon, which the munificence of Lord Prudhoe (afterwards duke of Northumberland) enabled him to undertake. The most important of the materials amassed during this sojourn (in which he was accompanied by his wife and by his sister, Mrs Poole, authoress of theEnglishwoman in Egypt, with her two sons, afterwards well known in Eastern letters) was a copy in 24 thick quarto volumes of Sheikh Murtadā’s great lexicon, theTāj el ‘Arūs, which, though itself a compilation, is so extensive and exact that it formed the main basis of Lane’s subsequent work. The author, who lived in Egypt in the 18th century, used more than a hundred sources, interweaving what he learned from them with theal-Qāmūsof Fairūzābādī in the form of a commentary. By far the larger part of this commentary was derived from theLisān el ‘Arabof Ibn Mokarram, a work of the 13th century, which Lane was also able to use while in Cairo.
Returning to England in 1849, Lane devoted the remaining twenty-seven years of his life to digesting and translating his Arabic material in the form of a great thesaurus of the lexicographical knowledge of the Arabs. In spite of weak health he continued this arduous task with unflagging diligence till a few days before his death at Worthing on the 10th of August 1876. Five parts appeared during his lifetime (1863-1874), and three posthumous parts were afterwards edited from his papers by S. Lane-Poole. Even in its imperfect state theLexiconis an enduring monument, the completeness and finished scholarship with which it is executed making each article an exhaustive monograph. Two essays, the one on Arabic lexicography and the other on Arabic pronunciation, contributed to the magazine of the German Oriental Society, complete the record of Lane’s publications. His scholarship was recognized by many learned European societies. He was a member of the German Oriental Society, a correspondent of the French Institute, &c. In 1863 he was awarded a small civil list pension, which was after his death continued to his widow. Lane was not an original mind; his powers were those of observation, industry and sound judgment. His personal character was elevated and pure, his strong sense of religious and moral duty being of the type thatcharacterized the best circles of English evangelicalism in the early part of the 19th century.