§ Captain George Fergussonmoved the further consideration of the Report.
The Lord Advocateopposed the Bill. He was understood to object that it gave the tenant the power of determining the improvements that were necessary on the estates. He hoped the gallant Member would not press his Motion, as he (the Lord Advocate) had scarcely had sufficient time to consider of its provisions. If his hon. Friend pressed the Motion, he should be obliged to move that the Report be reconsidered that day three months.
Captain Gordonsaid, that last Session the learned Lord asked for delay. It had been before the House the whole of the present Session, and yet the learned Lord asked for further time. This was the more to be regretted, since the subject was one of great importance in many parts of Scotland. He (Captain Gordon) thought that the learned Lord was quite mistaken, if he supposed that the Bill would give the tenant the power of determining what improvements were needed on the estate. The Bill proposed to carry into effect the agreement between the landlord and tenant, therefore it was the landlord who was to determine. The tenant was to pay for the improvements in the course of his lease, and at the end of the lease the landlord was to pay for 343 them. The object was to burden the estate which was benefited by the improvements, and to extend those improvements—that was the whole nature of the Bill. He must say, in conclusion, that he thought the learned Lord might have found time, in the course of the three Sessions, to consider the Bill.
The Lord Advocaterepeated, that, in his opinion, the Bill ought not to pass; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would impute it to no unwillingness on his part to study the provisions of the Bill, if, retaining as he did, the objections which he had stated last year, he persisted in his opposition.
§ The House divided on the Motion:—Ayes 19; Noes 89; Majority 70.
§ Bill thrown out.