COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 July 1873)

§ MR. GORDON
said, he had received an assurance that as that was a Bill that involved the laws of settlement in England as well as in Scotland, it would not be proceeded with until it had been further discussed. Not only that, but he had been given to understand there was to be a morning sitting for that and the kindred English Bill upon the same subject, as the two ought to be taken together. He had received a distinct assurance to that effect, and he regretted it had not been kept.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he should be sorry if there was any misapprehension upon the subject. He was not conscious of having entered into any engagement reserving the Bill for a morning sitting, and all that was said was that the Bill would not be proceeded with at a very late hour, but the last discussion which engaged the House closed considerably before 12. If the Bill was kept for a morning sitting, great inconvenience would result, and they were anxious to get on not only from the fact that they were pressed by Scotch opinion, but that they were anxious to get the opinion of the House on the Bill. He must, therefore, en- 1832 courage the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to proceed.

§ MR. GORDON
said, the Bill involved interests of the greatest importance to the two countries, and the Government ought to let the House clearly understand what it intended doing with regard to England. It struck him that if the proposals in the Bill with regard to the law of settlement were good for Scotland, they ought to be good for England also; and his own view was that legislation on the subject for Scotland ought not to take place until inquiry by means of a Select Committee should be made into the whole subject with the view of legislating for England as well. Do not let them interfere with vested rights, unless they could do so on just and clear grounds, common to both countries. The public had a deep interest in the Bill, especially in one provision of it, and in regard to that provision he wished to ask should there not be the greatest liberty given to heirs in entail to borrow money to improve their property at the ordinary rates of interest? Then, as to the law of mort-main. By a clause of the Bill it was proposed to get up a sort of law of this kind for the whole of Scotland. He had presented numerous Petitions against the Bill on behalf of numerous educational and other institutions. Many of those institutions were charitable, and they were excellently managed. Were they not to be allowed to hold real property? Was that the principle on which they were to proceed? He strongly objected to the 11th clause, which would extinguish the law of entail—a system which was well understood and prized in Scotland. Then they had introduced the law of settlement in England. Well, they had that already, and what was the benefit the Government expected would be derived from it? He altogether denied that he expected the House would go into Committee that night, and he hoped no steps would be taken until they considered the law of settlement in England, and resolved to put both countries on an equal footing.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
doubted if he quite understood the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As far as he understood the views of the Scotch Members, they considered the Bill did not go far enough, and while they approved of it as far as it went, they hoped 1833 it would yet go farther. He did not, therefore, think that the opinions of his hon. and learned Friend with reference to the measure were likely to meet with much favour in Scotland. He maintained that the laws in both countries had been placed on an equal footing in that matter a considerable time ago, although there were things which might be done in England which could not be done in Scotland. A father, for instance, was tied up during the whole of his lifetime by the entail, and he could not move even with the consent of his son. This was done in order to benefit the unborn grandchild. He should propose, if it would please Parliament to pass the Bill, to enable any father, with the consent of his son, to deal with the estate in such a way as they agreed upon. The Bill, moreover, was not intended to prevent people being charitable to public institutions, but it was intended to prevent them from conveying part of the soil of the country to trustees to hold in perpetuity for charitable purposes.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, hon. Members had not the least opportunity of considering the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had placed on the Table that night.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he was not going to ask the House to proceed with those Amendments that night.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
suggested that the Bill should be committed pro formâ for the purpose of inserting these Amendments, and then reprinted in its amended form.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he could not accede to that course.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
moved that the House do now adjourn, as it was twenty minutes past 1 o'clock, and it was impossible to go on with the discussion of the Bill.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, the Session was so far advanced that he must lose no opportunity of making progress with it. If they got into Committee, Progress should at once be reported.

§ MR. GORDON
expressed a hope that the Bill would not be proceeded with again for some days, in order that the people of Scotland might have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments which the Lord Advocate had laid on the Table that night.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, full opportunity should be afforded, and he would accordingly not take the Bill again until Thursday in next week.