THIRD READING. (Hansard, 14 August 1871)

§ LORD REDESDALE
appealed to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who had charge of the Bill, not to proceed with it further this Session. It was a Bill of very considerable importance, and had been only 12 days before the House. It would make a serious change in the law of Scotland, and had been opposed by a noble and learned Lord connected with Scotland (Lord Colonsay) who had left town. He very much doubted whether the people of Scotland could be at all aware of the nature of the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he was anxious that his noble Friend should have all the facts connected with this Bill clearly and completely before him. The case stood thus. In February last year the Lord Advocate introduced a Bill dealing with a number of questions relating to the feudal tenure of land in Scotland, as to some of which there was a diversity of opinion. Amongst other provisions the Bill contained two clauses relating to reductions of deeds on the objection to their having been executed ex capite lecti. That Bill was sent round among the profession, as was invariably the custom with Scotch law Bills, and no objection to it was stated. This year the Lord Advocate of the late Government took great interest in the matter, and brought in a Bill precisely similar in object, but going, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought, rather too far, for its action was made retrospective. The present Lord Advocate brought in his Bill nearly in the same shape as last Session; but finding, from the opposition to certain other measures, that little hope could be entertained of getting so long a Bill passed, he selected from it the two subjects to which there was no opposition, in order to deal with them as in this Bill. He did not think a stronger case could be made out for any measure. He regretted the absence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay), whom he had specially requested to draw up such an Amendment as he desired to see introduced; but he declined to do so, and had left the Bill to its fate. It was therefore a little too much to say that his authority should stand as conclusive against the wish of the profession and the Scotch Members of the House of Commons.

§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, he did not think the people of Scotland could be aware of the operation of this Bill, or 1566 the effect it would have in reference to bequests to religious and charitable institutions. He certainly thought their Lordships should reserve that part of it for future deliberation which removed the protection from death beds in Scotland which existed in England. He had heard no reason assigned for its removal, and he did not believe the people of Scotland desired that it should be removed.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he could not admit that either the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) or the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) could be regarded as likely to be better informed of the wishes of the people of Scotland in this matter than the Lord Advocate who had been named by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he must remind the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that this Bill had never been discussed in the other House of Parliament. Nobody in Scotland, therefore, could know what the Bill contained. The Bill had passed through the House of Commons in a manner which rendered it impossible to know what had been done. It was brought in on the 20th of July, and under a different title. It consisted of two clauses — one for the abolition of "reductions ex capite lecti," and the second for the abolition of "deeds of conquest." As introduced the Bill took its title from the 2nd clause. It was read a second time on the 27th of July, after midnight, and was committed on the 28th, also after midnight. Then the 2nd clause was struck out—the title of the Bill was changed to the subject of the 1st clause, and the Bill was considered on the 31st after 12 at night, and read a third time on the 1st of August. What could the people of Scotland know of such a Bill? It came up to that House on the 3rd of August. It was proposed for a second reading on the 7th, and was objected to by an authority who was most conversant with the matter. He thought the proceeding on the part of the Lord Advocate was objectionable, and there was no necessity for going on with the Bill at this late period.