putting L10,000 in the hands of two trustees in the funds. Should the
trustees prove rascals, sell the stock, and decamp with the money, my
daughter will lose everything; the purchaser from the trustees can
hold the stock clear of all charges or liability. But if I provide
for my daughter by charging an estate with L300 a year for her, then
however wrongfully that estate may be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise
dealt with, she gets safely her L300 a year. If the bank B has
advanced money on mortgage on that estate, not knowing the existence
of the charge of L300 a year for my daughter's benefit, the law
simply says to the bank, "It was your business to know; you should
have completely investigated the title before you advanced your
money."

It follows, therefore, that if, with a Government Land Registry
Office (say one for each county), you required the purchaser only to
get in the legal estate, _i.e._ holding him not responsible for the
trusts or the application of the purchase money, then land could be
transferred exactly as money in the funds is now, in spite of all the
complications of our law (or rather custom) of entail.

The law of entail in England (so called) is not what the popular
orators suppose. The eldest son inherits really; that is, if there be
no will, no settlement, or other disposition of the property. But
there nearly always is. It is a very rare thing for the heir-at-law
to take land (except some very small pieces) by the law of
inheritance. As to entail, it is practically carried out by a
continued system of surrender and re-settlement--a device of lawyers
which is, in its historical development, an evasion (rather than a
part) of the law. Nevertheless, I think it is a matter of importance
that the shackles which fetter land should be loosened, and that the