The Earl of Roseberry,in moving that their Lordships should take into consideration the report of the Select Committee on the Report of the Lords of Session upon the Scotch Entail Bills, observed, that he entirely concurred in the short Report made by the Select Committee, although he regretted that it did not go further, and enter more at length into the subject, instead of merely recommending an alteration in the existing law. He fully admitted the ability, and duly estimated the assiduity and laborious attention, which the Lords of Session had brought to the consideration of this subject, although he differed from them on two points, one of a legal nature, the other of a general character. The noble Earl then proceeded to enumerate the many technical difficulties that were connected with efficient legislation on this subject, and expressed a wish that some Member of his Majesty's Government, or some person holding a high judicial situation, would undertake the task, since he found, from his own experience, that it was impossible for any unsupported individual Member of their Lordships' House to effect the object which he had sought to attain. If any other noble Lord would take up the subject, he would endeavour, before the next Session of Parliament, to remodel the two Bills which he had had the honour to introduce, and to remove from them those provisions to which objections had been chiefly made. It was, he conceived, necessary, that any measure on this subject should embody the 171 three following principles;—first, to prevent, in future, Entails in perpetuity being made in Scotland; secondly, to afford facilities for the exchange of lands to heirs in succession; and thirdly, to grant to heirs in possession (to an extent to be determined by Parliament) the power of selling, for the purpose of clearing off in-cumbrances which had been created under the existing law.
Lord Broughamsaid, there were great difficulties in legislating upon the subject; but a great and beneficial relaxation of the present law might be made, even as regarded existing Entails. The English law knew of no such thing as perpetuity, except in the cases of creations by Act of Parliament, as the Marlborough and Strathfieldsay estates, and of a person holding an estate, with remainder to the Crown. There were various expedients to tie up an heir, but they operated within very narrow limits. He recollected one instance of the hardships frequently inflicted by the Scotch Law of Entail. A lady in Lancashire, brought up in luxury, and surrounded with all the conveniences and comforts of life, married a gentleman having two Entailed estates. She had but a few marks jointure. The husband died, and her son supported her. He also died, and the next heir was an infant, and the guardian could not give her a farthing. She applied to him to procure her the situation of companion to an old lady. She died soon afterwards, and, he believed, very much in consequence of what she suffered on account of the present Scotch Law of Entail. This was only one instance out of many hundreds. The great difficulty was that of vested interests. He was surprised the Lords of Sessions fell into the error they did with respect to perpetuity in England. The abolition of the Law of Entail could not reduce the price of land, because no person would be compelled to sell. His noble Friend should have his best assistance in furthering the measure whenever he should propose it.