CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 18 July 1873)

§ LORD COLONSAY

said, the Bill looked like an attempt to reconcile two things which were in themselves irreconcilable—namely, the conversion of feu tenure and the preservation of the right of superiority. Hitherto the superiors had in law been held to be the proprietors of the land, subject to the burden of such feus as had been granted, and as such they had been in the enjoyment of important rights. That system had hitherto worked well. It was now proposed to divest the superiors of these rights, and to leave them only the name. This clause went to upset the existing systems, to which no objection had been taken, but which, to judge by the reception this Bill had met with, was popular in Scotland. Men of business throughout the country were opposed to the change. Petitions against it had been presented from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other places in Scotland, where feuing was much resorted to. It was the favourite practice of persons who had been successful in trade to feu small pieces of land for the purpose of building dwelling-houses which they could call their own and of which they could never be deprived. They preferred land on this tenure to leases of any length; feus were rights in perpetuity and maintained their value throughout, whereas leases were temporary rights and diminished in value with the efflux of time. But the provisions of this Bill interfered so much with the safety of superiors in regard to feus that they would be compelled to limit themselves to the granting of leases only, which would be much less satisfactory to the people. Feu duties were at present a favourite investment, and money could be borrowed upon them on more favourable terms than on leases; but he was informed that since this Bill had been introduced this species of property had fallen two, three, and even four Years' purchase. Nobody in Scotland wanted this change, and for himself he doubted much whether it would be an improvement. He certainly thought that before accepting a legislative change of this kind, there ought to be some Parliamentary inquiry whether the change was wanted. It seemed to him that it was a mere speculative view, opposed to the Report of a Royal Commission made in 1838, and also opposed to the opinion both of those interested 600 and of those who were best qualified to judge of the effects of such a change. He therefore felt bound to move the omission of the clause.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that notwithstanding the high authority of the noble and learned Lord, he felt bound to differ from him. The Bill would certainly introduce changes in the existing system of land conveyancing in Scotland, but he did not believe that these changes would have any but a beneficial effect upon such transactions. It was not intended to alter substantially any of the rights of the superiors or their feuars. What was intended by the Bill was to introduce a system whereby those rights might be more conveniently enjoyed. However, to meet the wishes of the noble and learned Lord, he had no objection to omit from the clause the definitions of estates of superiority and property, and leave only that portion of the clause which provided that estates of property should, with respect to title, be independent of any estate of superiority.