VOLUME XVI SLICE II Lamennais, Robert de to Latini, Brunetto (continued 4)

The law as to Ejectment is dealt with under that heading.

Statutory Provisions.—Reference may be made, in conclusion, to a few modern statutes which have affected the law of landlord and tenant. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 (which repeals the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1883, 1900 and 1906) gives to the agricultural tenant a right to compensation for (i.) certain specified improvements made by him with the landlord’s previous consent in writing; and (ii.) certain other classes of improvements although the landlord’s consent has not been obtained. As examples of class (i.) may be mentioned—erection or enlargement of buildings, laying down of permanent pasture, making of gardens or fences, planting of hops, embankments and sluices; as examples of (ii.)—chalking of land, clay burning, application to land of purchased artificial or purchased manure, except they have been made for the purpose of making provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration. In the case of proposed drainage improvements, notice in writing must be given to the landlord, who may then execute the improvements himself and charge the tenant with interest not exceeding 5% per annum on the outlay, or such annual instalments, payable for a period of twenty-five years, and recoverable as rent, as will repay the outlay, with interest at the rate of 3% a year. Under s. 11 of the act a tenant is entitled to compensation for disturbance, when he is compelled to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. An agricultural tenant may not contract himself out of his statutory right to compensation, but “contracting out” is apparently not prohibited with regard to the right given him by the acts of 1883 and 1900 to remove fixtures which he has erected and for which he is not otherwise entitled to compensation, after reasonable notice to the landlord, unless the latter elects to purchase such fixtures at a valuation. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 conferred upon every tenant (with slight exceptions) entire freedom of cropping and of disposal of produce, notwithstanding any custom of the county or explicit agreement to the contrary. (See further the articles Ejectment, Fixtures, Rent.) The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, which repealed previous acts of 1887, 1890 and 1907, deals, on terms similar to those of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908, with small holdings and allotments (the expression “small holding” meaning an agricultural holding which exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is at the date of sale or letting of an annual value for the purposes of income tax not exceeding fifty pounds; the expression “allotment” includes a field garden). Section 47 of the act gives the tenant the same rights to compensation as if his holding had been a holding under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908 (vide supra). Compensation was given to market gardeners for unexhausted improvements by the Market Gardeners’ Compensation Act 1895 and by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 for improvements effected before the commencement of that act on a holding cultivated to the knowledge of the landlord as a market garden, if the landlord had not dissented in writing to the improvements. The important sections of these acts were incorporated in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908, s. 42.

Scots Law.—The original lease in Scots law took the form of a grant by the proprietor or lessor. But, with advancing civilization and the consequent increase in the number of the conditions to be imposed on both parties, leases became mutual contracts, bilateral in form. The law of Scotland as to landlord and tenant may be considered under two main heads:—I. Ordinary Leases, Common Law and Statutory; II. Building or Long Leases.

I. Ordinary Leases, Common Law and Statutory.—A verbal lease for a year is good. Such a lease for more than a year is not effectual even for a year, except where the lessee has taken possession. At common law, while a lease was binding on the grantor and his heirs, it was not good against “singular successors,” i.e. persons acquiring by purchase or adjudication, and the lessee was liable to be ejected by such persons, unless (a precaution usually taken) sasine of the subjects demised was expressly conferred on him by the lease. To obviate this difficulty, the Scots Act 1449, c. 18, made possession of the subjects of the lease equivalent to sasine. This enactment applies to leases of agricultural subjects, houses, mills, fisheries and whatever is fundo annexum; provided that (a) the lease, when for more than one year, must be in writing, (b) it must be definite as to subject, rent (which may consist of money, grain or services, if the reddendum is not illusory) and term of duration, (c) possession must follow on the lease. Special powers of granting leases are conferred by statute on trustees. (Trusts [Scotland] Act 1867, s. 2), curatores bonis (Judicial Factors [Scotland] Act 1889) and heirs of entail (cf. Entail Act 1882, ss. 5, 6, 8, 9). The requisites of the statutory leases, last mentioned, are similar to those imposed in England upon tenants for life by the Settled Land Acts (v. sup. p. 3). The rent stipulated for must not be illusory, and must fairly represent the value of the subjects leased, and the term of the lease must not be excessive (as to rent generally, see Rent). A life-renter can only grant a lease that is effectual during the subsistence of the life-rent. There is practically no limitation, but the will of the parties, as to the persons to whom a lease may be granted. A lease granted to a tenant by name will pass, on his death during the subsistence of the term to his heir-at-law, even if the lease contains no destination to heirs. The rights and obligations of the lessor and the tenant (e.g. as to the use of the produce, the payment of rent, the quiet possession of the subjects demised, and as to the payment of rates and taxes) are similar to those existing under English law. An agricultural lease does not, apart from stipulation, confer any right to kill game, other than hares and rabbits (as to which, see the Ground Game Act 1880, and Game Laws) or any right of fishing. A tenant is not entitled, without the landlord’s consent, to change the character of the subjects demised, and, except under an agricultural lease, he is bound to quit the premises on the expiration of the lease. In the case of urban leases, however, ejectment (q.v.)—called in Scots Law “removing”—will not be authorized unless the tenant received 40 days’ warning before the term of removal. In the absence of such notice, the parties are held, if there be nothing in their conduct or in the lease inconsistent with this presumption, to renew their agreement in all its terms, and so on from year to year till due notice is given. This is called “tacit relocation.” A lease may be transmitted (i.) by “assignation,” intimated to the landlord, and followed by possession on the part of the assignee; (ii.) by sub-lease—the effect of which is equivalent to that of under-lease in English law; (iii.) by succession, as of the heir of a tenant; (iv.) in the case of agricultural holdings, by bequest (Agricultural Holdings [Scotland] Act 1883, s. 29). A lease terminates (i.) by the expiration of its term or by advantage being taken by the party in whose favour it is stipulated, of a “break” in the term; (ii.) by the occurrence of an “irritancy” of ground of forfeiture, either conventional, or statutory, e.g. where a tenant’s rent is in arrear, or he fails to remove on the expiry of his lease (Act of Sederunt, 14th of Dec. 1756: Agricultural Holdings Act 1883, s. 27); (iii.) by the bankruptcy or insolvency of the tenant, at the landlord’s option, if it is so stipulated in the lease; (iv.) by the destruction, e.g. by fire, of the subject leased, unless the landlord is bound to restore it. Complete destruction of the subject leased, e.g. where a house is burnt down, or a farm is reduced to “sterility” by flood or hurricane, discharges the tenant from the obligation to pay rent. The effect of partial destruction has given rise to some uncertainty. “The distinction seems to be that if the destruction be permanent, though partial, the failure of the subject let will give relief by entitling the tenant to renounce the lease, unless a deduction shall be allowed, but that if it be merely temporary or occasional, it will not entitle the tenant to relief” (Bell’s Prin. s. 1208). Agricultural leases usually contain special provisions as to the order of cropping, the proper stocking of the farm, and the rights of the incoming and outgoing tenant with regard to the waygoing crop. Where the rent is in money, it is generally payable at Whitsunday and Martinmas—the two “legal terms.” Sometimes the term of payment is before the crop is reaped, sometimes after. “The terms thus stipulated are called ‘the conventional terms’; the rent payable by anticipation being called ‘forehand rent,’ that which is payable after the crop is reaped, ‘back rent.’ Where the rent is in grain, or otherwise payable in produce, it is to be satisfied from the produce of the farm, if there be any. If there be none the tenant is bound and entitled to deliver fair marketable grain of the same kind.” (Bell’s Principles, ss. 1204, 1205). The general rule with regard to “waygoing crops” on arable farms is that the tenant is entitled to reap the crop sown before the term of removal (whether or not that be the natural termination of the lease), the right of exclusive possession being his during seed time. But he is not entitled to the use of the barns in threshing, &c., the corn.

The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1883 and 1900, already referred to incidentally, contain provisions—similar to those of the English acts—as to a tenant’s right to compensation for unexhausted improvements, removal for non-payment of rent, notice to quit at the termination of a tenancy, and a tenant’s property in fixtures. The Crofters’ Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1886, 1887 and 1888, confer on “crofters” special rights. A crofter is defined as “a tenant of a holding”—being arable or pasture land, or partly arable and partly pasture land—“from year to year who resides on his holding, the annual rent of which does not exceed £30 in money, and which is situated in a ‘crofting parish.’” Nearly all the parishes in Argyll, Inverness, Ross, Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness and Orkney and Shetland answer to this description. The crofter enjoys a perpetual tenure subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions as to payment of rent, non-assignment of tenancy, &c., and to defeasance at his own option on giving one year’s notice to the landlord. A Crofters’ Commission constituted under the acts has power to fix fair rents, and the crofter on renunciation of his tenancy or removal from his holding is entitled to compensation for permanent improvements. The Small Holdings Act 1892 applies to Scotland.

Under the law of Scotland down to 1880, a landlord had as security for rent due on an agricultural lease a “hypothec”—i.e. a preferential right over ordinary creditors, and extending, subject to certain limitations, over the whole stock and crop of the tenant. This right was enforceable by sequestration and sale. It was abolished in 1880 as regards all leases entered into after the 11th of November 1881, where the land demised exceeded two acres in extent, and the landlord was left to remedies akin to ejectment (Hypothec Abolition, Scotland, Act 1880).

II. Building or Long Leases.—Under these leases, the term of which is usually 99 and sometimes 999 years, the tenant is to a certain extent in the position of a fee simple proprietor, except that his right is terminable, and that he can only exercise such rights of ownership as are conferred on him either by statute or by the terms of his lease. Extensive powers of entering into such leases have been given by statute to trustees subject to the authority of the Court (Trusts [Scotland] Act 1867, s. 3) and to heirs of entail (Entail Acts 1840, 1849, 1882). Where long leases are “probative,” i.e. holograph or duly tested, do not exceed 31 years, or, except as regards leases of mines and minerals, and of lands held by burgage tenure, relate to an extent of land exceeding 50 acres, and contain provisions for renewal, they may be recorded for publication in the Register of Sasines, and such publication has the effect of possession (Registration of Leases [Scotland] Act 1857).

Ireland.—The law of landlord and tenant was originally substantially the same as that described for England is. But the modern Land Acts have readjusted the relation between landlords and tenants, while the Land Purchase Acts have aimed at abolishing those relations by enabling the tenant to become the owner of his holding. The way was paved for these changes by the existence in Ulster of a local custom having virtually the force of law, which had two main features—fixity of tenure, and free right of sale by the tenant of his interest. These principles, with the addition of that of fair rents settled by judicial means, were gradually established by the Land Acts of 1870 and subsequent years, and the whole system was remodelled by the Land Purchase Acts (see Ireland).

United States.—The law of landlord and tenant in the United States is in its principles similar to those of English law. It is only possible to indicate, by way of example, some of the points of similarity. The relationship of landlord and tenant is created, altered and dissolved in the same way, and the rights and duties of parties are substantially identical. A lease must contain, either in itself or by clear reference, all the terms of a complete contract—the names of the parties, description of the property let, the rent (see Rent) and the conditions. The date is not essential. That is a matter of identification as to time only. In Pennsylvania, parol evidence of the date is allowed. The general American doctrine is that where the contract is contained in separate writings they must connect themselves by reference, and that parol evidence is not admissible to connect them. The English doctrine that a verbal lease may be specifically enforced if there has been part performance by the person seeking the remedy has been fully adopted in nearly all the American states. The law as to the rights and obligations of assignees and sub-lessees and as to surrender is the same as in England. Forfeiture only renders a lease void as regards the lessee; it may be waived by the lessor, and acceptance by the landlord of rent due after forfeiture, with notice of such forfeiture, amounts to waiver. Where there is a lease for a certain period, no notice to quit is necessary. In uncertain tenancies there must be reasonable notice—i.e. at common law six months generally. The notice necessary to determine a monthly or weekly tenancy is generally a month or a week (see further under Lodger; Lodgings). In the United States, as in England, the covenant for quiet enjoyment only extends, so far as relates to the acts of third parties, to lawful acts of disturbance in the enjoyment of the subject agreed to be let.

Laws of other Countries.—It is impossible here to deal with the systems of land tenure in force in other countries. Only the question of the legal relations between landlord and tenant can be touched upon. In France, the Code Civil recognizes two such relationships, the letting to hire of houses (bail à loyer) and the letting to farm of rural properties (bail à ferme). To a certain extent, both forms of tenancy are governed by the same rules. The letting may be either written or verbal. But a verbal lease presents this disadvantage that, if it is unperformed and one of the parties denies its existence, it cannot be proved by witnesses. The party who denies the letting can only be put to his oath (Arts. 1714-1715). It may further be noted that in the case of a verbal lease, notice to quit is regulated by the custom of the place (Art. 1736). The tenant or farmer has the right of underletting or assigning his lease, in the absence of prohibiting stipulation (Art. 1717). The lessor is bound by the nature of his contract and without the need of any particular stipulation (i.) to deliver to the lessee the thing hired in a good state of repair; (ii.) to maintain it in a state to serve the purpose for which it has been hired; (iii.) to secure to the lessee peaceable enjoyment during the continuance of the lease (Arts. 1719-1720). He is bound to warrant the lessee against, and to indemnify him for, any loss arising from any faults or defects in the thing hired which prevent its use, even though he was not aware of them at the time of the lease (Art. 1721). If during the continuance of the letting, the thing hired is entirely destroyed by accident, the lease is cancelled. In case of partial destruction, the lessee may, according to circumstances, demand either a diminution of the price, or the cancellation of the lease. In neither case is there ground for damages (Art. 1722). The lessor cannot, during the lease, change the form of the thing hired (Art. 1723). The lessee is bound, on his side (i.) to use the thing hired like a good head of a household (bon père de famille), in accordance with the express or presumed purpose of the hiring; (ii.) to pay the price of the hiring at the times agreed (Art. 1728). On breach of the former obligation, the lease may be judicially cancelled (Art. 1729). As to the consequences of breach of the latter, see Rent. If a statement of the condition of the property (état des lieux) has been prepared, the lessee must give it up such as he received it according to the statement, except what has perished or decayed by age or by means of force majeure (Art. 1730). In the absence of an état des lieux, the lessee is presumed to have received the thing hired in a good state of tenantable repair, and must so yield it up, saving proof to the contrary (Art. 1731). He is liable for injuries or losses happening during his enjoyment, unless he prove that they have taken place without his fault (Art. 1732); in particular, for loss by fire unless he show that the fire happened by accident, force majeure, or defect of construction, or through communication from a neighbouring house (Art. 1733). The lessee is liable for injuries and losses happening by the act of persons belonging to his house or of his sub-tenants (Art. 1735). A lease terminates (i.) at the expiration of the prescribed term (Art. 1737)—if at that period the lessee remains and is left in possession, there is, in the case of written leases, a tacit renewal (tacite reconduction) of the lease as a verbal lease (Arts. 1738-1739); (ii.) by the loss of the thing hired and by the default of the lessor or lessee in the fulfilment of their respective obligations (Art. 1741), but (iii.) not by the death either of the lessor or of the lessee (1742). The conditions of Ejectment are stated under that heading. The special rules (Arts. 1752-1762) relative to the hire of houses are touched upon in Lodger and Lodgings. It only remains here to refer to those applicable to leases to farm. The lessee is bound to stock the farm with the cattle and implements necessary for its husbandry (Art. 1766), and to stack in the places appointed for the purpose in the lease (Art. 1767). A lessee, who farms on condition of dividing the produce with the lessor, can only underlet or assign if he is expressly empowered to do so by the lease (Art. 1763). The lessee must give notice to the lessor of any acts of usurpation committed on the property (Art. 1768). If at least half of the harvest in any year is destroyed by accident, the lessee (a) in the case of a lease for several years, obtains, at the end of his lease, a refund of rent, by way of indemnity, unless he has been indemnified by preceding harvests; (b) in the case of a lease for a year only, may secure a proportional abatement of the current rent. No refund is payable if the produce was severed before the accident, unless the lessor was entitled to a portion of it, when he must bear his share of the loss, provided the lessee was not in morâ as regards the delivery of the lessor’s portion. The lessee has no right to a refund when the cause of damage was existing and known at the date of the lease (Arts. 1769-1771). Liability for loss by “accidents” may be thrown on the lessee by express stipulation (Art. 1772). “Accidents” here mean ordinary accidents only, such as hail, lightning or frost, and the lessee will not be answerable for loss caused by extraordinary accidents such as war or floods, unless he has been made liable for all accidents, foreseen or unforeseen (Art. 1773). A verbal lease is deemed to be for the term necessary to enable the lessee to gather in all the produce, thus for a year in the case of a meadow or vineyard; in the case of lands leased in tillage, where they are divided into shifts or seasons, for as many years as there are shifts (Art. 1774). The outgoing must leave for the incoming tenant convenient housing and other facilities for the labours of the year following; the incoming must procure for the outgoing tenant conveniences for the consumption of his fodder and for the harvests remaining to be got in. In either case the custom of the place is to be followed (Art. 1777). The outgoing tenant must leave the straw and manure of the year, if he received them at the beginning of his lease, and even where he has not so received them, the owner may retain them according to valuation (Art. 1778). A word must be added as to letting by cheptel (bail à cheptel)—a contract by which one of the parties gives to the other a stock of cattle to keep under conditions agreed on between them (Art. 1800). There are several varieties of the contract, (i.) simple cheptel (cheptel simple) in which the whole stock is supplied by the lessor—the lessee taking half the profit and bearing half the loss (Art. 1804); (ii.) cheptel by moiety (cheptel à moietié)—here each of the contracting parties furnishes half of the stock, which remains common for profit or loss (Art. 1818); (iii.) cheptel given to a farmer (fermier) or participating cultivator (colon partiaire)—in the cheptel given to the farmer (also called cheptel de fer) stock of a value equal to the estimated price of the stock given must be left at the expiry of the lease (Art. 1821); cheptel given to the participating cultivator resembles simple cheptel, except in points of detail (Arts. 1827-1830); (iv.) the term “cheptel” is also improperly applied to a contract by which cattle are given to be housed and fed—here the lessor retains the ownership, but has only the profit of the calves (Art. 1831).

The French system just described is in force in its entirety in Belgium (Code Civil, Arts. 1713 et seq.) and has been followed to some extent in Italy (Civil Code, Arts. 1568 et seq.), Spain (Civil Code, Arts 1542 et seq.), and Portugal (Civil Code, Arts. 1298 et seq., 1595 et seq.). In all these countries there are varieties of emphyteutic tenure; and in Italy the mezzadria or metayer system (see Civil Code, Arts. 1647 et seq.) exists. The German Civil Code adopts the distinction between bail à loyer (Miehl, Arts. 535 et seq.) and bail à ferme (Pacht, Arts. 581 et seq.). Dutch law also (Civil Code, Arts. 1583 et seq.) is similar to the French.

The Indian law of landlord and tenant is described in the article Indian Law. The laws of the various British colonies on the subject are too numerous and too different to be dealt with here. In Mauritius, the provisions of the Code Civil are in force without modification. In Quebec (Civil Code, Arts. 1605 et seq.) and St Lucia (Civil Code, Arts. 1512 et seq.) they have been reproduced by the local law. In many of the colonies, parts of the English law of landlord and tenant, common law and statutory, have been introduced by local enactments (cf. British Guiana, Ord. 4 of 1846; Jamaica, 1 Vict. c. 26). In others (e.g. Victoria, Landlord and Tenant Act 1890, No. 1108; Ontario, Rev. Stats. 1897, c. 170) consolidating statutes have been passed.

Authorities.—English Law: Wolstenholme, Brinton and Cherry, Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts (London, 9th ed., 1905); Hood and Challis, Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts (London, 7th ed., 1909); Foà, on Landlord and Tenant (London, 4th ed., 1907); Woodfall, on Landlord and Tenant (London, 18th ed., 1907); Fawcett, Landlord and Tenant (London, 3rd ed., 1905). Scots Law: Hunter, on Landlord and Tenant (Edinburgh, 4th ed., 1876); Rankine, on Land Ownership (Edinburgh, 3rd ed., 1891); Rankine, on Leases (Edinburgh, 2nd ed., 1893); Hunter, Landlord and Tenant (4th ed. G. Guthrie, Edinburgh, 1876). Irish Law: Kelly’s Statute Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland (Dublin, 1898); Barton and Cherry’s Land Act 1896 (Dublin, 1896); Quill, Hamilton and Longworth, Irish Land Acts of 1903 and 1904 (Dublin, 1904). American Law: Bouvier, Law Dictionary (ed. Rawle) (London, 1897); McAdam, Rights, Remedies and Liabilities of Landlord and Tenant (New York, 1900); Wood, Law of Landlord and Tenant (New York, 1888). Foreign and Colonial Laws: Field, Landholding and the relation of Landlord and Tenant in various Countries; Ruling Cases (American Notes), (London and Boston, 1894-1901).

(A. W. R.)

LANDON, CHARLES PAUL (1760-1826), French painter and art-author, was born at Nonant in 1760. He entered the studio of Regnault, and won the first prize of the Academy in 1792. After his return from Italy, disturbed by the Revolution, he seems to have abandoned painting for letters, but he began to exhibit in 1795, and continued to do so at various intervals up to 1814. His “Leda” obtained an award of merit in 1801, and is now in the Louvre. His “Mother’s Lesson,” “Paul and Virginia Bathing,” and “Daedalus and Icarus” have been engraved; but his works on painting and painters, which reach nearly one hundred volumes, form his chief title to be remembered. In spite of a complete want of critical accuracy, an extreme carelessness in the biographical details, and the feebleness of the line engravings by which they are illustrated, Landon’s Annales du Musée, in 33 vols., form a vast repertory of compositions by masters of every age and school of permanent value. Landon also published Lives of Celebrated Painters, in 22 vols.; An Historical Description of Paris, 2 vols.; a Description of London, with 42 plates; and descriptions of the Luxembourg, of the Giustiniani collection, and of the gallery of the duchesse de Berry. He died at Paris in 1826.

LANDON, LETITIA ELIZABETH (1802-1838), English poet and novelist, better known by her initials L. E. L. than as Miss Landon or Mrs Maclean, was descended from an old Herefordshire family, and was born at Chelsea on the 14th of August 1802. She went to a school in Chelsea where Miss Mitford also received her education. Her father, an army agent, amassed a large property, which he lost by speculation shortly before his death. About 1815 the Landons made the acquaintance of William Jerdan, and Letitia began her contributions to the Literary Gazette and to various Christmas annuals. She also published some volumes of verse, which soon won for her a wide literary fame. The gentle melancholy and romantic sentiment her writings embodied suited the taste of the period, and would in any case have secured her the sympathy and approval of a wide class of readers. She displays richness of fancy and aptness of language, but her work suffered from hasty production, and has not stood the test of time. The large sums she earned by her literary labours were expended on the support of her family. An engagement to John Forster, it is said, was broken off through the intervention of scandalmongers. In June 1838 she married George Maclean, governor of the Gold Coast, but she only survived her marriage, which proved to be very unhappy, by a few months. She died on the 15th of October 1838 at Cape Coast from an overdose of prussic acid, which, it is supposed, was taken accidentally.

For some time L. E. L. was joint editor of the Literary Gazette. Her first volume of poetry appeared in 1820 under the title The Fate of Adelaide, and was followed by other collections of verses with similar titles. She also wrote several novels, of which the best is Ethel Churchill (1837). Various editions of her Poetical Works have been published since her death, one in 1880 with an introductory memoir by W. B. Scott. The Life and Literary Remains of Letilia Elizabeth Landon, by Laman Blanchard, appeared in 1841, and a second edition in 1855.

LANDOR, WALTER SAVAGE (1775-1864), English writer, eldest son of Walter Landor and his wife Elizabeth Savage, was born at Warwick on the 30th of January 1775. [He was sent to Rugby school, but was removed at the headmaster’s request and studied privately with Mr Langley, vicar of Ashbourne. In 1793 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge. He adopted republican principles and in 1794 fired a gun at the windows of a Tory for whom he had an aversion. He was rusticated for a year, and, although the authorities were willing to condone the offence, he refused to return. The affair led to a quarrel with his father in which Landor expressed his intention of leaving home for ever. He was, however, reconciled with his family through the efforts of his friend Dorothea Lyttelton. He entered no profession, but his father allowed him £150 a year, and he was free to live at home or not as he pleased.]

In 1795 appeared in a small volume, divided into three books, The Poems of Walter Savage Landor, and, in pamphlet form of nineteen pages, an anonymous Moral Epistle, respectfully dedicated to Earl Stanhope. No poet at the age of twenty ever had more vigour of style and fluency of verse; nor perhaps has any ever shown such masterly command of epigram and satire, made vivid and vital by the purest enthusiasm and most generous indignation. Three years later appeared the first edition of the first great work which was to inscribe his name for ever among the great names in English poetry. The second edition of Gebir appeared in 1803, with a text corrected of grave errors and improved by magnificent additions. About the same time the whole poem was also published in a Latin form, which for might and melody of line, for power and perfection of language, must always dispute the palm of precedence with the English version. [His father’s death in 1805 put him in possession of an independent fortune. Landor settled in Bath. Here in 1808 he met Southey, and the mutual appreciation of the two poets led to a warm friendship.] In 1808, under an impulse not less heroic than that which was afterwards to lead Byron to a glorious death in redemption of Greece and his own good fame, Landor, then aged thirty-three, left England for Spain as a volunteer to serve in the national army against Napoleon at the head of a regiment raised and supported at his sole expense. After some three months’ campaigning came the affair of Cintra and its disasters; “his troop,” in the words of his biographer, “dispersed or melted away, and he came back to England in as great a hurry as he had left it,” but bringing with him the honourable recollection of a brave design unselfishly attempted, and the material in his memory for the sublimest poem published in our language, between the last masterpiece of Milton and the first masterpiece of Shelley—one equally worthy to stand unchallenged beside either for poetic perfection as well as moral majesty—the lofty tragedy of Count Julian, which appeared in 1812, without the name of its author. No comparable work is to be found in English poetry between the date of Samson Agonistes and the date of Prometheus Unbound; and with both these great works it has some points of greatness in common. The superhuman isolation of agony and endurance which encircles and exalts the hero is in each case expressed with equally appropriate magnificence of effect. The style of Count Julian, if somewhat deficient in dramatic ease and the fluency of natural dialogue, has such might and purity and majesty of speech as elsewhere we find only in Milton so long and so steadily sustained.

In May 1811 Landor had suddenly married Miss Julia Thuillier, with whose looks he had fallen in love at first sight in a ball-room at Bath; and in June they settled for a while at Llanthony Abbey in Monmouthshire, from whence he was worried in three years’ time by the combined vexation of neighbours and tenants, lawyers and lords-lieutenant; not before much toil and money had been nobly wasted on attempts to improve the sterility of the land, to relieve the wretchedness and raise the condition of the peasantry. He left England for France at first, but after a brief residence at Tours took up his abode for three years at Como; “and three more wandering years he passed,” says his biographer, “between Pisa and Pistoja, before he pitched his tent in Florence in 1821.”

In 1835 he had an unfortunate difference with his wife which ended in a complete separation. In 1824 appeared the first series of his Imaginary Conversations, in 1826 “the second edition, corrected and enlarged”; a supplementary third volume was added in 1828; and in 1829 the second series was given to the world. Not until 1846 was a fresh instalment added, in the second volume of his collected and selected works. During the interval he had published his three other most famous and greatest books in prose: The Citation and Examination of William Shakespeare (1834), Pericles and Aspasia (1836), The Pentameron (1837). To the last of these was originally appended The Pentalogia, containing five of the very finest among his shorter studies in dramatic poetry. In 1847 he published his most important Latin work, Poemata et inscriptiones, comprising, with large additions, the main contents of two former volumes of idyllic, satiric, elegiac and lyric verse; and in the same golden year of his poetic life appeared the very crown and flower of its manifold labours, the Hellenics of Waller Savage Landor, enlarged and completed. Twelve years later this book was re-issued, with additions of more or less value, with alterations generally to be regretted, and with omissions invariably to be deplored. In 1853 he put forth The Last Fruit off an Old Tree, containing fresh conversations, critical and controversial essays, miscellaneous epigrams, lyrics and occasional poems of various kind and merit, closing with Five Scenes on the martyrdom of Beatrice Cenci, unsurpassed even by their author himself for noble and heroic pathos, for subtle and genial, tragic and profound, ardent and compassionate insight into character, with consummate mastery of dramatic and spiritual truth. In 1856 he published Antony and Octavius—Scenes for the Study, twelve consecutive poems in dialogue which alone would suffice to place him high among the few great masters of historic drama.

In 1858 appeared a metrical miscellany bearing the title of Dry Sticks Fagoted by W. S. Landor, and containing among other things graver and lighter certain epigrammatic and satirical attacks which reinvolved him in the troubles of an action for libel; and in July of the same year he returned for the last six years of his life to Italy, which he had left for England in 1835. [He was advised to make over his property to his family, on whom he was now dependent. They appear to have refused to make him an allowance unless he returned to England. By the exertions of Robert Browning an allowance was secured. Browning settled him first at Siena and then at Florence.] Embittered and distracted by domestic dissensions, if brightened and relieved by the affection and veneration of friends and strangers, this final period of his troubled and splendid career came at last to a quiet end on the 17th of September 1864. In the preceding year he had published a last volume of Heroic Idyls, with Additional Poems, English and Latin,—the better part of them well worthy to be indeed the “last fruit” of a genius which after a life of eighty-eight years had lost nothing of its majestic and pathetic power, its exquisite and exalted loveliness.

A complete list of Landor’s writings, published or privately printed, in English, Latin and Italian, including pamphlets, fly-sheets and occasional newspaper correspondence on political or literary questions, it would be difficult to give anywhere and impossible to give here. From nineteen almost to ninety his intellectual and literary activity was indefatigably incessant; but, herein at least like Charles Lamb, whose cordial admiration he so cordially returned, he could not write a note of three lines which did not bear the mark of his “Roman hand” in its matchless and inimitable command of a style at once the most powerful and the purest of his age. The one charge which can ever seriously be brought and maintained against it is that of such occasional obscurity or difficulty as may arise from excessive strictness in condensation of phrase and expurgation of matter not always superfluous, and sometimes almost indispensable. His English prose and his Latin verse are perhaps more frequently and more gravely liable to this charge than either his English verse or his Latin prose. At times it is well-nigh impossible for an eye less keen and swift, a scholarship less exquisite and ready than his own, to catch the precise direction and follow the perfect course of his rapid thought and radiant utterance. This apparently studious pursuit and preference of the most terse and elliptic expression which could be found for anything he might have to say could not but occasionally make even so sovereign a master of two great languages appear “dark with excess of light”; but from no former master of either tongue in prose or verse was ever the quality of real obscurity, of loose and nebulous incertitude, more utterly alien or more naturally remote. There is nothing of cloud or fog about the path on which he leads us; but we feel now and then the want of a bridge or a handrail; we have to leap from point to point of narrative or argument without the usual help of a connecting plank. Even in his dramatic works, where least of all it should have been found, this lack of visible connexion or sequence in details of thought or action is too often a source of sensible perplexity. In his noble trilogy on the history of Giovanna queen of Naples it is sometimes actually difficult to realize on a first reading what has happened or is happening, or how, or why, or by what agency—a defect alone sufficient, but unhappily sufficient in itself, to explain the too general ignorance of a work so rich in subtle and noble treatment of character, so sure and strong in its grasp and rendering of “high actions and high passions,” so rich in humour and in pathos, so royally serene in its commanding power upon the tragic mainsprings of terror and of pity. As a poet, he may be said on the whole to stand midway between Byron and Shelley—about as far above the former as below the latter. If we except Catullus and Simonides, it might be hard to match and it would be impossible to overmatch the flawless and blameless yet living and breathing beauty of his most perfect elegies, epigrams or epitaphs. As truly as prettily was he likened by Leigh Hunt “to a stormy mountain pine which should produce lilies.” His passionate compassion, his bitter and burning pity for all wrongs endured in all the world, found only their natural and inevitable outlet in his lifelong defence or advocacy of tyrannicide as the last resource of baffled justice, the last discharge of heroic duty. His tender and ardent love of children, of animals and of flowers makes fragrant alike the pages of his writing and the records of his life. He was as surely the most gentle and generous as the most headstrong and hot-headed of heroes or of men. Nor ever was any man’s best work more thoroughly imbued and informed with evidence of his noblest qualities. His loyalty and liberality of heart were as inexhaustible as his bounty and beneficence of hand. Praise and encouragement, deserved or undeserved, came yet more readily to his lips than challenge or defiance. Reviled and ridiculed by Lord Byron, he retorted on the offender living less readily and less warmly than he lamented and extolled him dead. On the noble dramatic works of his brother Robert he lavished a magnificence of sympathetic praise which his utmost self-estimate would never have exacted for his own. Age and the lapse of time could neither heighten nor lessen the fulness of this rich and ready generosity. To the poets of his own and of the next generation he was not readier to do honour than to those of a later growth, and not seldom of deserts far lower and far lesser claims than theirs. That he was not unconscious of his own, and avowed it with the frank simplicity of nobler times, is not more evident or more certain than that in comparison with his friends and fellows he was liable rather to undervalue than to overrate himself. He was a classic, and no formalist; the wide range of his just and loyal admiration had room for a genius so far from classical as Blake’s. Nor in his own highest mood or method of creative as of critical work was he a classic only, in any narrow or exclusive sense of the term. On either side, immediately or hardly below his mighty masterpiece of Pericles and Aspasia, stand the two scarcely less beautiful and vivid studies of medieval Italy and Shakespearean England. The very finest flower of his immortal dialogues is probably to be found in the single volume comprising only “Imaginary Conversations of Greeks and Romans”; his utmost command of passion and pathos may be tested by its transcendent success in the distilled and concentrated tragedy of Tiberius and Vipsania, where for once he shows a quality more proper to romantic than classical imagination—the subtle and sublime and terrible power to enter the dark vestibule of distraction, to throw the whole force of his fancy, the whole fire of his spirit, into the “shadowing passion” (as Shakespeare calls it) of gradually imminent insanity. Yet, if this and all other studies from ancient history or legend could be subtracted from the volume of his work, enough would be left whereon to rest the foundation of a fame which time could not sensibly impair.

(A. C. S.)

Bibliography.—See The Works and Life of Walter Savage Landor (8 vols., 1846), the life being the work of John Forster. Another edition of his works (1891-1893), edited by C. G. Crump, comprises Imaginary Conversations, Poems, Dialogues in Verse and Epigrams and The Longer Prose Works. His Letters and other Unpublished Writings were edited by Mr Stephen Wheeler (1897). There are many volumes of selections from his works, notably one (1882) for the “Golden Treasury” series, edited by Sidney Colvin, who also contributed the monograph on Landor (1881) in the “English Men of Letters” series. A bibliography of his works, many of which are very rare, is included in Sir Leslie Stephen’s article on Landor in the Dictionary of National Biography (vol. xxxii., 1892).

(M. Br.)

LANDOUR, a hill station and sanatorium in India, in Dehra Dun district of the United Provinces, adjoining Mussoorie. Pop. (1901) 1720, rising to 3700 in the hot season. Since 1827 it has been a convalescent station for European troops, with a school for their children.

LAND REGISTRATION, a legal process connected with the transfer of landed property, comprising two forms—registration of deeds and registration of title, which may be best described as a species of machinery for assisting a purchaser or mortgagee in his inquiries as to his vendor’s or mortgagor’s title previously to completing his dealing, and for securing his own position afterwards. The expediency of making inquiry into the vendor’s title before completing a purchase of land (and the case of a mortgage is precisely similar) is obvious. In the case of goods possession may ordinarily be relied on as proof of full ownership; in the case of land, the person in ostensible possession is very seldom the owner, being usually only a tenant, paying rent to someone else. Even the person to whom the rent is paid is in many cases—probably, in England, in most cases—not the full owner, but only a life owner, or a trustee, whose powers of disposing of the property are of a strictly limited nature. Again, goods are very seldom the subject of a mortgage, whereas land has from time immemorial been the frequent subject of this class of transaction. Evidently, therefore, some sort of inquiry is necessary to enable a purchaser to obtain certainty that the land for which he pays full price is not subject to an unknown mortgage or charge which, if left undiscovered, might afterwards deprive him of a large part or even the whole of its value. Again, the probability of serious consequences to the purchaser ensuing from a mistake as to title is infinitely greater in the case of land than in the case of goods. Before the rightful owner can recover misappropriated goods, he has to find out where they are. This is usually a matter of considerable difficulty. By the time they have reached the hands of a bonâ fide purchaser all chance of their recovery by the true owner is practically at an end. But with land the case is far otherwise. A dispossessed rightful owner never has any difficulty in tracing his property, for it is immovable. All he has to do is to bring an action for ejectment against the person in possession. For these reasons, among others, any attempt to deal with land on the simple and unsuspecting principles which obtain in regard to goods would be fraught with grave risks.

Apart from very early and primitive social conditions, there appear to be only two ways in which the required certainty as to title to land can be obtained. Either the purchaser must satisfy himself, by an exhaustive scrutiny and review of all the deeds, wills, marriages, heirships and other documents and events by which the property has been conveyed, mortgaged, leased, devised or transmitted during a considerable period of time, that no loophole exists whereby an adverse claim can enter or be made good—this is called the system of private investigation of title—or the government must keep an authoritative list or register of the properties within its jurisdiction, together with the names of the owners and particulars of the encumbrances in each case, and must protect purchasers and others dealing with land, on the faith of this register, from all adverse claims. This second system is called Registration of Title. To these two alternatives may perhaps be added a third, of very recent growth—Insurance of Title. This is largely used in the United States. But it is in reality only a phase of the system of private investigation. The insurance company investigates the title, and charges the purchaser a premium to cover the expense and the risk of error. Registration of deeds is an adjunct of the system of private investigation, and, except in England, is a practically invariable feature of it. It consists in the establishment of public offices in which all documents affecting land are to be recorded—partly to preserve them in a readily accessible place, partly to prevent the possibility of any material deed or document being dishonestly concealed by a vendor. Where registration is effected by depositing a full copy of the deed, it also renders the subsequent falsification of the original document dangerous. Registration of deeds does not (except perhaps to a certain extent indirectly) cheapen or simplify the process of investigation—the formalities at the registry add something to the trouble and cost incurred—but it prevents the particular classes of fraud mentioned.

The history of land registration follows, as a general rule, a fairly uniform course of development. In very early times, and in small and simple communities, the difficulty afterwards found in establishing title to land does not arise, owing to the primitive habit of attaching ceremony and publicity to all dealings. The parties meet on the land, with witnesses; symbolical acts (such as handing over a piece of earth, or the bough of a tree) are performed; and a set form of words is spoken, expressive of the intention to convey. By this means the ownership of each estate in the community becomes to a certain extent a matter of common knowledge, rendering fraud and mistake difficult. But this method leaves a good deal to be desired in point of security. Witnesses die, and memory is uncertain; and one of the earliest improvements consists in the establishment of a sort of public record kept by the magistrate, lord or other local authority, containing a series of contemporary notes of the effect of the various transactions that take place. This book becomes the general title-deed of the whole community, and as long as transactions remain simple, and not too numerous, the results appear to be satisfactory. Of this character are the Manorial Court Rolls, which were in the middle ages the great authorities on title, both in England and on the continent. The entries in them in early times were made in a very few words. The date, the names of the parties, the name or short verbal description of the land, the nature of the transaction, are all that appear. In the land registry at Vienna there is a continuous series of registers of this kind going back to 1368, in Prague to 1377, in Munich to 1440. No doubt there are extant (though in a less easily accessible form) manorial records in England of equal or greater antiquity. This may be considered the first stage in the history of Land Registration. It can hardly be said to be in active operation at the present day in any civilized country—in the sense in which that term is usually understood. Where dealings become more numerous and complicated, written instruments are required to express the intentions of the parties, and afterwards to supply evidence of the landowner’s title. It appears, too, that as a general rule the public books already described continue to be used, notwithstanding this change; only (as would be expected) the entries in them, once plain and simple, either grow into full copies of the long and intricate deeds, or consist of mere notes stating that such and such deeds have been executed, leaving the persons interested to inquire for the originals, in whose custody soever they may be found. This system, which may be regarded as the second stage in the history of land registration, is called Registration of Deeds. It prevails in France, Belgium, parts of Switzerland, in Italy, Spain, India, in almost all the British colonies (except Australasia and Canada), in most of the states of the American Union, in the South American republics, in Scotland and Ireland, and in the English counties of Yorkshire and Middlesex. Where it exists, there is generally a law to the effect that in case of dispute a registered deed shall prevail over an unregistered one. The practical effect is that a purchaser can, by searching the register, find out exactly what deeds he ought to inquire for, and receives an assurance that if, after completion, he registers his own conveyance, no other deeds—even if they exist—will prevail against him.

The expenses and delays, not to mention the occasional actual losses of property through fraud or mistake, attendant on the system of making every purchaser responsible for the due examination of his vendor’s title—whether or not assisted by registration of deeds—have induced several governments to establish the more perfect system of Registration of Title, which consists in collecting the transactions affecting each separate estate under a separate head, keeping an accurate account of the parcels of which each such estate is composed, and summarizing authoritatively, as each fresh transaction occurs, the subsisting rights of all parties in relation to the land itself. This system prevails in Germany, Austria, Hungary, parts of Switzerland, the Australasian colonies, nearly the whole of Canada, some of the states of the American Union, to a certain extent in Ireland, and is in course of establishment in England and Wales. The Register consists of three portions:—(1) The description of the land, usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by a reference to a map; (2) the ownership, giving the name and address of the person who can sell and dispose of the land; and (3) the encumbrances, in their order of priority, and the names of the persons for the time being entitled to them. When any fresh transaction takes place the instrument effecting it is produced, and the proper alterations in, or additions to, the register are made: if it be a sale, the name of the vendor is cancelled from the register, and that of the purchaser is entered instead; if it be a mortgage, it is added to the list of encumbrances; if a discharge, the encumbrance discharged is cancelled; if it is a sale of part of the land, the original description is modified or the plan is marked to show the piece conveyed, while a new description or plan is made and a new register is opened for the detached parcel. In the English and Australian registries a “land certificate” is also issued to the landowner containing copies of the register and of the plan. This certificate takes the place more or less of the old documents of title. On a sale, the process is as follows: The vendor first of all produces to the purchaser his land certificate, or gives him the number of his title and an authority to inspect the register. In Austria and in some colonial registries this is not necessary, the register being open to public inspection, which in England is not the case. The purchaser, on inspecting this, can easily see for himself whether the land he wishes to buy is comprised in the registered description or plan, whether the vendor’s name appears on the register as the owner of the land, and whether there are any encumbrances or other burdens registered as affecting it. If there are encumbrances, the register states their amount and who are entitled to them. The purchaser then usually1 prepares a conveyance or transfer of the land (generally in a short printed form issued by the registry), and the vendor executes it in exchange for the purchase money. If there are mortgages, he pays them off to the persons named in the register as their owners, and they concur in a discharge. He then presents the executed instruments at the registry, and is entered as owner of the land instead of the vendor, the mortgages, if any, being cancelled. Where “land certificates” are used (as in England and Australia), a new land certificate is issued to the purchaser showing the existing state of the register and containing a copy of the registered plan of the land. The above is only a brief outline of the processes employed. For further information as to practical details reference may be made to the treatises mentioned at the end of this article.

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 to The Times advocating the same thing on the general lines afterwards adopted.2 In 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 of deeds was 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 the registry 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 of title. But prior to the year 1857 they had only registration of deeds, 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 of title was 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 of title at 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 of deeds, 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 of deeds is 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. Indefeasible title 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 Land Transfer Acts (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.)

1 In Prussia all conveyances are verbal, made in person or by attorney before the registrar, who forthwith notes them in his books.

2 This 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.

3 Full 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).

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).

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.”1 Edwin 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’s Annals 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, and quasi-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’s Catalogue of the Works of the late Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A. (London, n.d.); Frederic G. Stephens’s Sir Edwin Landseer (1880); W. Cosmo Monkhouse’s The Studies of Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A., with a History of his Art-Life (London, n.d.); W. P. Frith’s My Autobiography and Reminiscences (1887); Vernon Heath’s Recollections (1892); and James A. Manson’s “Sir Edwin Landseer, R.A.,” The Makers of British Art (London, 1902).

1 John 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); and Geschichte 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 these soldiers, 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 Swabian landsknechte came 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 fact landsknecht, and more particularly its French corruption lansquenet, became in western Europe a general term for mercenary foot-soldiers. It is owing to the lange 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 further Army).