HC Deb 12 May 1873 vol 215 cc1841-3

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Interpretation).

MR. GORDON

objected to proceeding with a Bill of such serious importance at so late an hour. Most of the learned bodies of Scotland—the Writers to the Signet, the Solicitors of Dundee, and the Advocates of Aberdeen—had condemned the provisions of the Bill. He thought time should be given for the introduction of Amendments to give effect to the resolutions of those bodies.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he did not wish to press the measure forward at any untimely hour, but at the same time he thought some progress ought to be made. He was not prepared to adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, nor to make any material alterations in the provisions of the Bill, which had had his attentive consideration.

MR. GORDON

thereon moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Gordon.)

After a short discussion,

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 67: Majority 21.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Estates of superiority and property to be separate).

MR. GORDON,

in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he did not know why they should depart from the Report of the Law Commissioners on this matter. The Lord Advocate proposed to deal with this matter by abolishing all relation between superiors and feuars; while he (Mr. Gordon) proposed to give the superior certain rights under the statute, but he provided for the forfeiting of fens after two years' non-payment. This provision he thought a very essential one, not because the fens were ever forfeited, but the power to raise a declaration of forfeiture was useful to secure for the superior the payment of feu-duties. It was quite contrary to the Report of the Commissioners to take away the rights of superiors, and then to re-enact them. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving in page 2, line 39, after "Act," to leave out to "the" on page 3, line 3.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

opposed the Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted simply provided that the holder of the land should have a real right with respect to the superior, and therefore gave to the real holder of the land an independence of tithe—and that was the very object of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CRAUFURD

moved an Amendment, of which the object was to secure the priority of the superior with respect to the heritable right.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, after "shall," insert "as from the date of the creation of the feu, whether before or after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Craufurd).

Amendment agreed to.

After short further consideration, House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.