In my last December’s letter, I promised, for January, some statement
of real beginning of operations by our Company; but, as usual, was
hindered from fulfilling my promise at the time I intended. And the
hindrance lay, as in all useful business it is pretty sure in some
measure to lie, in the state of British law. An acre of ground, with
some cottages on it, has been given me for our Company; but it is not
easy to find out how the Company is to lay hold of it. I suppose the
conveyancing will cost us, in the end, half a dozen times the value of
the land; and in the meantime I don’t care to announce our possession
of it, or say what I mean to do with it. I content myself for the
present with reprinting, and very heartily, as far as my experience
holds, ratifying, the subjoined portions of a letter, sent me the other
day out of a country paper. The writer is speaking, at the point where
my quotation begins, of the difficulty of getting a good bankruptcy act
passed:—
“The reason alleged is that almost any lawyer is ready to help any
lying and false-trading person to drive his coach and four through any
Act, however good in intention it may be. This is a sad state of
things, and is wasteful of more things than money or good temper. It
is, however, on the matter of conveyancing that we wish to say a few
words....
“We are accustomed to look at the matter as a very simple one. We have
before us the deeds of our dwelling-house. The real point is, why can
we not sell these papers to, say John Smith, for £1,000, if John is
satisfied that our little cottage, with all its admirable rooms so well
arranged, is worth that amount? Why can’t we sell him this matter in a
simple and clear way? Or, for a case the least bit complicated, take
our six shops in the chief street. Why can’t we sell one each to Brown,
Jones, Robinson, Thompson, Atkinson, or Williams, their respective and
respectable tenants, in an equally simple way? The English law steps in
and says that we must have a cumbrous deed prepared for each case, and
the total cost to all of us, without stamps, would be about one hundred
pounds, at a reasonable computation. What do we get for this large sum?
Absolutely nothing but jargon on parchment, instead of plain and simple
English, which all the Smiths and Browns might understand, and get for
a tenth of the cost. This is all the more irritating, because sensible
people are agreed that our present plan is a cumbrous farce, and,
moreover, nobody laughs at it but the lawyers who get the picking. Any
six honest, clear-headed, educated men could devise a system in a month
which would put an end to the needless and costly worry entailed by the
existing legal paraphernalia. We have never yet seen any tangible
objections to the simple system, nor any salient and satisfactory
reasons for retaining the present circumlocutory, wasteful, and foolish
one.
“Another monstrous anomaly is that we might sell each of our
before-mentioned shops in our chief street, and yet retain the original
deed untouched; so that after drawing cash from each of our present
tenants, we could mortgage the whole block again, and clear off with
the double cash. [7]
“But even the present system might be made endurable, and herein lies
its greatest blame, namely—that you never know what you are going to
pay for the foolish and needless work you are having done. You are
entirely at the mercy of the lawyer. When we consider that this
so-called difficult and skilful work is always managed in the best
offices by a mere clerk, and seldom, if ever, by the principal, we have
a reasonable ground of complaint against the enormous and unfair
charges usually made for work so done by wholesale.
“We will conclude with a practical suggestion or two. Building clubs
have been a great boon to the saving element in our community. It is
the wish of most people to have a house of their own, and these clubs
find, for hundreds, the readiest means to that end. They have made easy
the borrowing and the paying back of money, and they have been the
means of simplifying mortgage deeds which, for clubs, are only £2 ,,
5s., and if got up simpler, and printed, instead of being written,
might easily and profitably be done for a guinea. Could not they confer
a still greater boon on the community by combining, and compelling by a
strong voice, the lawyers to systematize and cheapen the present mode
of conveyancing? This would be a great work, and might be done. Still
better would it be to combine to send up suggestions to Parliament for
a simpler and better plan, such as would lead to the passing of an Act
for the embodiment of this great and much-needed reform.”