§ THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be committed pro formâ, said: I propose that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, merely in order to admit of Amendments being made, as the result of suggestions of the different legal bodies. There is one objection which has been very much pressed upon me by many of the superiors—namely, that after the Bill passes, superiors will find it very difficult after a transfer to know who are their vassals, and to whom, therefore, they are to look for payment of their feu-duties. At present a vassal remains liable for his feu-duties, &c, to his superior until a new vassal takes out a charter. After the Bill passes, however, no charter is necessary, the infeftment of a proprietor being made equivalent to a charter. It was suggested to me, on behalf of the superiors, that their object might be effected by suspending the effect of the charter, which under the Act is implied from infeftment being taken by the new proprietor, till the new proprietor should intimate his acquisition of the property. My objection to this was that it suspended indefinitely the effect of the statute as regarded entry with the superior, and made that entry depend on something without the statute—namely, on a notice being given of the purchase. I feel, however, that there was some force in the objection by the superiors in this matter, and I have in the meantime endeavoured, in one of the Amendments to be added to the Bill, to apply a remedy, which, while securing that the superiors shall receive a notice of every 304 change of ownership, will not be open to the objection of suspending the effect of the Act as regards the implied entry with the superior. The remedy I have proposed is that the last entered vassal and his representatives shall remain—as they do at present, until an entry is taken out by the new proprietor—liable personally for payment of the feu-duties, &c., affecting the feu, until notice is given by the seller of the change of ownership. I think, looking to the benefits conferred by the statute on vassals, this is not an unreasonable requisition upon them, and I also think that it will secure all that the superior is legitimately entitled to expect in the way of notice, and of the effects which should result from neglect to give it. While I have made this proposal as the best which occurred to me, I need hardly say I shall be prepared to receive and consider any suggestions which the legal bodies or others interested may offer on this special point.
§ Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 105]; re-committed for Thursday, 4th June.