ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 6 May 1853)

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, that he had an Amendment to propose to this Bill, which was in all respects an excellent Bill. The entail of an estate held in his family was executed after the 1st of August, 1848. The next heir was the eldest son, born a year before the execution of the entail, and until his eldest son was twenty-five years old, no lease for building a dwelling-house could be granted. That must be a period in all probability of half a century. The estate was near a village; and the labourers employed in improving the estate had to be kept in hovels, owing to the want of power to grant leases. To meet this state of things, he begged to propose to leave out certain words, for the purpose of introducing others, so as to give additional powers to the Court of Session.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said the House was doubtless aware that till 1848 entails were in perpetuity, except under the Montgomery Act and another Statute. The question was then carefully considered; 1285 and one of the provisions of the Statute then passed was, that the provisions of the Montgomery Act, under which power was given, in certain circumstances, to grant feus on entailed estates, should not apply to entails after the 1st of August, 1848. The Bill, however, did not profess to disturb the arrangements under that Act in any way whatever. It was intended to facilitate procedure. The Amendment substantially proposed to alter the 10th Clause of the 11th and 12th Victoria. It was not desirable to disturb so recent and deliberate a settlement of the question, and therefore he hoped the Amendment of his hon. Friend would not be pressed. If it was, he must oppose it, for the reason that the Bill only proposed to regulate process, and this Amendment was a modification of the Statute of 1848.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he would refer to the title of the Bill for the purpose of showing that it proposed to do more than regulate procedure; and the Amendment only gave a power which the Bill of Lord Rutherfurd did not give. He trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Dunlop) would divide the House on the subject, and ascertain whether they were sitting under a Government who were willing to improve the laws of the country or not.

§ MR. CUMMING BRUCE
said, he thought the better course would be for the hon. Gentleman to bring in a separate Bill to effect the object he was desirous of attaining. The present Bill was simply a measure to facilitate the procedure under Lord Rutherfurd's Act of 1848. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had sent the Bill to his constituents, and they had informed him that they highly approved of it. The Amendment now proposed had nothing whatever to do with the object of the Bill.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to proceed. If it was thought desirable to extend the law of Scotland, it should be done, as had been suggested, by a separate measure. He would submit that the Bill ought not to be defeated by such an Amendment as was then before them.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, that all he sought to do was to extend to one class of entails, which had been excluded from the Act of 1848, the provisions which this Bill proposed to make as to another class.