ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 214.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 27 July 1875)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
said, 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.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, 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 CHANCELLOR
thought 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 BUCCLEUGH
said, 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 AIRLIE
also 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 ETTRICK
thought it was very desirable that a distinction should be made between improvements which were temporary and those which were permanent.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
proposed 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."

THE EARL OF AIRLIE
moved, 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.")

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
proposed 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.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, 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 ETTRICK
opposed 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 ABERDEEN
opposed the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT CARDWELL
said, 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 CHANCELLOR
pointed 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.