Lords Sitting of 27 July 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* (235); Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* (236).
Second Reading—Chelsea Bridge* (217).
Committee—Entail Amendment (Scotland) (214).
Committee—Report—Statute Law Revision* (194).
Report—Pharmacy* (209).
Third Reading—Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution)* (216) and passed.

ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 214.) COMMITTEE.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now go into Committee."
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that having been absent at the second reading of the Bill he would, with the permission of the House, now offer a few observations in regard to it. To its general principles he yielded a full assent, but from some of its details he was obliged to disagree. In the first place, he might say that he thought it very reasonable that the age at which a young man should be empowered to join in cutting off an entail should be reduced from 25 to 21, because he considered that he was quite able at that age to form a judgment on this as well as upon other questions. He thought, however, that the provisions made for the purpose of charging the estate by the life tenant went a little too far; whereas in other respects the Bill did not go far enough. They were giving enormous powers of charging the estate, which might in some cases amount to 11 years' purchase. He thought that if they gave the life tenant a power to charge the estate so largely, they ought also to give to the heir considerable borrowing powers towards the costs of improvements. With that view he should propose some Amendments in Committee.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee according to Order.
Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Court empowered to authorize heir of entail to defray the money to defray the cost of improvements on the entailed estate.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that in the second sub-section of the clause it was provided that—
"The court shall be satisfied with respect to any improvements in the course of execution, or contemplated, that the same, if well executed, will be of a substantial nature and beneficial to the estate."
He thought this term very vague, and that it would not be easy to determine what improvements were beneficial to the permanent value.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that there could be no injustice in charging the estate with the cost of substantial improvements, seeing that any large expenditure on the mansion-house, for example, would be for the enjoyment of the person who ultimately came into the whole estate.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGHsaid, that for that very reason, he could not

85
see the justice of charging the cost to the whole of the estate.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEalso said it would operate very unjustly to relatives having charges on the whole estate that there should be a charge placed upon it for the improvement of the mansion.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKthought it was very desirable that a distinction should be made between improvements which were temporary and those which were permanent.
THE LORD CHANCELLORproposed to insert in the first sub-section words to meet the objection of noble Lords by adding after the words "beneficial to the estate," the words "as at the date of the application to the extent of at least the sum authorized to be borrowed."
Amendment agreed to; words added.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEmoved, at the end of the Clause, to add—
("Provided also, that nothing in this Act shall authorize any heir of entail to charge the entailed estate with money expended on any improvement which may have been executed more than twenty years before the application for authority to charge the estate in respect of such improvement shall have been made to the court.")
Amendment agreed to; words added.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Heir of entail with authority of the Court may grant bond over the estate; form and effect of bond.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNproposed to substitute for the power given by the Clause a power to the limited owner to grant a bond binding himself and heirs of entail to repay the loan by an annual rent for 25 years, payable half-yearly, and to be at the rate of £7 2s. per annum for every £100 authorized to be borrowed. The noble Earl said it would be unjust to the remaindermen to allow the limited owner to charge upon them an improvement which he himself might have derived all the benefit of, and which might have been exhausted in his lifetime.
Amendment moved, in page 7, lines 3, 4, and 5, leave out—
("the amount of the loan authorised by the court, by granting in favour of any creditor who may advance such amount") and insert ("a bond of annual rent, binding himself and his heirs of tailzie to make payment of an annual rent for twenty-five years from and after the
86
date of such authority of the court, or, where the money has been consigned as aforesaid, from and after the expiration of two years from the date of consignation, such annual rent to be payable by equal moieties half-yearly, and to be at the rate of seven pounds two shillings per annum for every one hundred pounds so authorised to be borrowed, and so in proportion for any greater or less sum; or, in the option of such heir in possession, and in lieu of such bond of annual rent, with")
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was of public policy that improvements should be made; and if the improvement was beneficial to the estate, there did not appear to be any injustice in charging it on the estate. It was really a question between the public and the estate rather than between the improver and his successor. The Scotch Members, on behalf of their constituents, had been so anxious that the Bill should pass, that they had agreed to forego Amendments, especially relating to these charges, in order that it might go up to their Lordships' House as quickly as possible. But the noble Earl's Amendment amounted almost to this—that nothing should be done.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKopposed the Amendment and hoped the Government would stand by the proposals of the Bill which authorized the limited owner to charge the estate for the purpose of permanent improvements. The Bill seemed to him to be one of the greatest utility, its object being to place the limited owners of the entailed estates in Scotland in the same position as absolute owners in fee simple. There existed at the present moment urgent reasons why limited owners should be furnished with the means of doing their duty to the estate by enabling them to raise money on easy terms; and he firmly believed that no injury would result to the future heirs of entail. One of these reasons was to be found in the great increase which of late years had taken place in the cost of agricultural operations—of labour, of carriage, of manures, and, in short, of everything. It was also of the greatest importance that all permanent improvements should be done by the landlords, and particularly those which concerned the erection of dwellings for the labourers and farm buildings. One-third of the labouring population of Scotland still occupied dwellings of only one room, and another third of only two rooms. A further

87
reason was the new charges which modern legislation placed upon land. Under the Pollution of Rivers Bill—[A noble LORD: That Bill is withdrawn]—yes; but it was to be introduced next Session in a more perfect form. There was not a cottage, a farmhouse, or a mansion in Scotland which did not, directly or indirectly, pour its sewage into the streams; and the cost of diversion probably in many cases would fall in great part upon the limited owner. Then as to farm buildings and offices, none would in these days be erected which would not stand from 60 to 100 years. England was full of farm buildings in tenantable condition more than a century old. The Bill was also valuable as it allowed money to be raised not only for buildings and improvements entirely agricultural, but for habitations for rural mechanics and other classes of inhabitants. Some of these improvements might not possibly be of a remunerative character; but if the heir were thus in some way injured, he would find consolation in the improvement which would be made in the dwellings of the people on his estate.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENopposed the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, the fact that the Bill had been passed through the other House without debate had been cited as a proof of its acceptableness to the Scotch Members; but surely this very circumstance imposed upon their Lordships the duty of carefully examining the provisions of the measure. In Scotland, he understood they had two modes of raising money on entailed estates—one like that adopted in England, with a sinking fund to extinguish the debt; and another by which, with the consent of the Court of Session, they might raise for a particular purpose a burden to be charged in perpetuity upon the estate, but only to the amount of two-thirds. Surely that was a most liberal power of raising money at the expense of the remainder-man. It was urged that this might be done for some useful public purpose, but the suggestion was quite a new one that they should endow the people of Scotland out of the funds of remainder-men. If the people of Scotland wished to be better housed do not let them throw the expense on a future generation for whom there was nobody to speak.
THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that there was a wide difference between the old Scotch entails and the English entailed estates. The former were at one time absolutely inalienable estates; and as the Rutherford Act made provision for a gradual opening of these entails, it was a question for Parliament to consider whether it would not go further in the same direction.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses, agreed to.
Bill passed.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 237.)

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask the Government whether they would be willing to re-consider the question of the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, said, that great interest was felt in both Houses of Parliament on the subject to which it referred; nevertheless, they had been informed that it was one of those Bills which would have to be abandoned in consequence of there being no time to pass it in the present Session. The measure was one in which the general public had taken the greatest and deepest interest; and, though he was aware that the Government had introduced and carried through many measures of great importance this Session, there was no one of greater importance or interest to the country than the Merchant Shipping Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would either be induced to re-consider their determination to withdraw the Bill, or to give an assurance to their Lordships that some temporary measure would be introduced this Session for the purpose of securing that safety to human life which the urgency of the case demanded; and would assure the country that the larger measure should be introduced and, if possible, passed next Session.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, in reply, said, that the Question which had been asked by the noble Earl had reference to an important subject. Her Majesty's Government had been obliged to withdraw the Merchant Shipping

  89
  Bill simply because it was found that at this advanced period of the Session it would be impossible to pass it. The Bill consisted of many clauses, and there were no fewer than 180 Amendments proposed upon it by Members on both sides of the other House of Parliament. It was with the deepest regret that Her Majesty's Government found themselves compelled to withdraw it. The course they had determined to take was to introduce a short Bill for the purpose of conferring on the Board of Trade stronger powers than it now possessed for stopping unseaworthy ships from proceeding to sea. Next Session a Bill would be introduced at an early period to deal with the whole question, and, if possible, to place it on a permanent and satisfactory foundation.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREthought that, under the circumstances, the Government had taken the best possible course. The question was of pressing interest, and he hoped it would be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. England was not the only country from which ships were sent to sea in an unfit state; the practice extended to the Colonies, and he trusted that if a strong measure passed here for the prevention of the evil the example would be followed elsewhere. He hoped the Government would not be content with introducing measures to provide for the safety of life at sea, but would also endeavour to codify the whole of the existing laws relating to merchant shipping.
  After a few words from the Earl of LEITRIM,
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the statement of the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal was to some extent satisfactory; but it was impossible to deny that the whole question remained in a most unsatisfactory position owing to the course which Her Majesty's Government had seen fit to take. It was a misconception to suppose that the abandoned Merchant Shipping Bill was so important a measure as had been represented—it would not, in fact, have done more than a very little in the direction of rendering the lives of seamen more safe at sea than at present. It was also a misconception to suppose that nothing had already been done in this matter. The Act passed by the late Government in 1873 conferred upon the Board of Trade stringent powers to prevent ships from
  90
  proceeding to sea which, either from defective condition of hull, equipment, or loading, were deemed to be unseaworthy, and it was upon the policy of that Act and on the same lines that the Bill of Her Majesty's Government had proceeded. The course which the Government had taken would, he feared, have a most unfortunate influence upon the course of legislation in reference to the question of merchant shipping—especially having regard to the interest felt by the working classes in this question. If it was not possible to pass the whole Bill, the Government would have acted wisely by making an effort to pass those clauses only which dealt with the safety of life at sea. Not having taken this course, the Government might, he feared, be driven, owing to the lateness of the Session, into hasty, wild, and bad legislation upon a subject of the first importance, or else they would create a feeling among the constituencies that the safety of the sailors had been neglected, which would only operate mischievously upon the course of all future legislation in reference to the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not propose to follow the noble Lord in discussing a Bill which was not before their Lordships' House. As had been stated by his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, it was intended to introduce a short measure which would, he thought, command approbation for its general principles, and would, he hoped, prove efficacious in preventing the sailing of unseaworthy ships from British ports. The Bill which had been dropped was one of great magnitude, and raised questions about which much difference of opinion prevailed. When its progress was suspended there was a very large number of Amendments on the Paper—he had heard them stated at 180—so that a great deal of time would have been occupied in pushing the Bill through. No doubt its provisions were of very different degrees of importance, but they all required careful consideration, and it was in order to avoid hasty legislation that the Government had postponed the complete measure until next Session. In the meantime, he hoped that the necessities of the case would be provided for by the Bill which was about to be introduced.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.