HC Deb 15 April 1886 vol 304 cc1716-47

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 13 (Available land).

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

Mr. Courtney, I beg, Sir, without any remarks, to move the Amendment which I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was in the act of moving when the Sitting was suspended the other day.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 8, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "it," in line 10.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

I do not propose to review in any detail the arguments on this subject, but simply to say that while we have thought fit to make a reservation in the case of lands held under existing leases for agricultural or pastoral purposes, we considered that when it comes to an assignment of land necessary for the occupation of the inhabitants close by, a lease for deer forest purposes should not stand in the way. We think that this is a reasonable exception, and that reservation which may be appropriate in the case of arable land, and even land let for pastoral farms, is not appropriate in the case of a great tract of country let for merely sporting purposes, and out of which a portion may be assigned for agricultural purposes.

Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

I should like, before we go to a division upon this Amendment, to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate one question. I am not going to enter into an argument as to whether it is equitable suddenly to throw upon persons in this country an absolute breaking up of contracts into which they have entered, and contracts under which they may have expended, and certainly have expended, very large sums of money. It is quite obvious that by this clause the interests of those who have taken land as a deer forest must necessarily be seriously affected; and I want to know from the Lord Advocate whether he contemplates that, under this Bill, the fact being that large slices of a deer forest may be cut out, and that the express purposes for which it was let may practically be at an end, the tenant is to be free from his contract or not, and, if he is to be free from his contract, whether the landlord is to receive any compensation? It seems to me it would be a most extraordinary thing if a contract is to be broken up, and land, which has been let for 19 years two years ago, is to be completely destroyed for the purposes for which it was let, and no compensation given to the landlord.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I would refer my right hon. and learned Friend to page 15 of the Amendments, on which we have placed a proposal as to how the interests of the tenant is to be dealt with, and as regards the interests of the landlord. I have only to repeat that our view is this—that, while we think it is quite proper not to interfere with the letting of parts of the country where there is no competition for the reasonable use of land for the purposes of deer forests, when we come to a part of the country which is needful for the use of the inhabitants, it is not—although it may be in law a legal contract—a legitimate contract in a larger sense. Interference, therefore, with such a contract, would not only be admissible, but proper, though it would not be admissible or proper in another case.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I am astonished at the doctrine just laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. He draws a distinction between contracts which, he says, are legal, and which ought to be kept, and contracts which, though legal, are in the larger spirit of legislation such that ought not to be kept. Now, what are these contracts which the Lord Advocate says we ought not to keep? They are contracts allowed by the Legislature from time immemorial. They are contracts under which hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent by the tenants, and I am utterly at a loss to understand—if the principle of legislation laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is accepted—what possible security any man can henceforth have when he enters into a contract with another man, and how it will be possible for any one of Her Majesty's subjects to expend money on the strength of a contract made with some other party, with any assured prospect that he will be allowed to reap the benefit. Is there anything so monstrous in a deer forest which calls for this strange exceptional treatment? ["Yes!"] From what point of view? The Lord Advocate must be perfectly well aware, that if deer forests are destroyed by the operation of this Bill, the result will be that the food supply of the country will not be increased, but diminished. Are hon. Members so ignorant of the way in which sheep farming is at present conducted on high ground, as not to know that if they destroy the deer forests they will not be able to let the land to the crofters, either for sheep farming, or any other purpose? If the land now occupied by deer—and it does provide food now to a certain extent—[A laugh]—I do not know if hon. Members opposite ever ate venison—if they destroy the deer forests, the land cannot be turned to any other purpose. That is the only proper use to which a great deal of the land of the Highlands can be devoted; and, beyond that, deer forests actually employ a much larger number of men than sheep-farms, and give them higher wages. Thus the poor will materially suffer, if deer forests are abolished; and I am at a loss to understand, therefore, why, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are not only to be discouraged, but are to be done away with as far as possible, and are beneath the care of legislation. I suppose the real objection is that deer forests are a luxury, enjoyed chiefly, if not entirely, by the rich. I believe that is really at the bottom of the whole thing. But, then, I want to know why this principle should be applied to deer forests, and not to other industries?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

They are not an industry.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

They are as much an industry as are sheep farms. I admit that they are a luxury; but does that make them any the less an industry? The same argument would apply to all industries which produced luxuries; and in some places whole towns exist for the production of luxuries. But the real test of an industry is the effect which it produces on those engaged in it, and I say that deer forests are far better industries for the Highlands than the sheep farms. Every man with even the most rudimentary acquaintance with the Highlands knows that to destroy deer forests will, indeed, be an injury; but it will be a far greater injury to the poor, and I venture to say that you who deny that show a radical ignorance of life in the Higlands.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I did hope that we were going to make progress with this Bill to-night, and therefore I did not reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke before; but the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has challenged a reply. Well, I am able to speak from careful personal examination on this matter, because some years ago I examined into the subject very fully—not through the information of gamekeepers or gillies, but from personal observation, and I published a letter on the subject. I found that, whether as regards the money return, the population, or the food, the conversion of deer forests into sheep farms would give a double return. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, it is a question of strong assertion on either side; but I am prepared to prove what I have said before a Committee, if such is appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of deer forests as an industry. I always understood that an industry was that which produced something. What does a deer forest produce?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

A luxury.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

What luxury does it produce?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Has the hon. Member never shot deer?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

It is purely and essentially a destructive business. Deer forests banish the population, and everybody who has travelled through the Highlands and has seen the ruined houses of the former inhabitants will say so. It demoralizes the people by bringing up the young men as gillies—idle, loafing fellows—not at all the kind of people we want to have in Scotland. The people of Scotland generally look upon deer forests as a curse to the country. Deer-stalking in its proper aspect is not incompatible with the existence of sheep farms and grouse moors; but deer forests for the indiscriminate slaughter of deer—where the deer serve merely as targets—ought to be condemned as contrary to the public good. I assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that a very strong feeling is growing up in Scotland on this subject; and I believe that, unless some change is agreed to, it will necessarily lead to a demand for the total abolition of the Game Laws. I have always been in favour of a moderate preservation of game; but at the last General Election I was made aware of a very strong feeling in favour of the total abolition of deer forests. The existence of deer forests depends wholly upon the Game Laws, and they would be worth nothing were those laws abolished; and that is within the competence of Parliament. I warn hon. Members opposite who may have an interest in deer forests, that unless they give the people some remedy for the grievances of which they complain they will find themselves face to face with a determined movement for the total abolition of the Game Laws.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I am glad that the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. J. W. Barclay) replied to my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because I do think that this is a matter of great importance to the Highlands. He says that there is a great feeling growing up against these deer forests, and that we are ignorant of it. Well, I differ from him altogether on that point. We are aware that much prejudice exists in Scotland against deer forests; but we know that that prejudice is based upon much misapprehension, complete misunderstanding, and total ignorance of the whole question. The hon. Member began by making an assertion which I am able to contradict on the authority of the Royal Commission. He stated that he was able to prove that sheep farms produced a return of food double as much as that which is produced by deer forests. Well, I cannot enter into details; but, according to the Report of the Royal Commission which has just been issued, the difference is "absolutely infinitesimal"—that is the expression of the Commissioners themselves—and that "it is not worthy of consideration." The food argument of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, falls to the ground. Then as to the Committee of 1872, the hon. Member has said he thinks its opinion was not worth anything, because, he said, it was composed of landlords and game preservers. I do not think that is a respectful way of referring to a Committee appointed by the unanimous voice of this House; but I am not surprised at the statement, because the hon. Member gave evidence before that Committee, and the statements he made were of so absurd and contradictory a character that he was knocked into a "cocked hat" altogether. Well, the hon. Member wants to know what deer forests produce. Well, they produce a good many deer in parts of the Highlands which will produce nothing else besides deer, and they also introduce an immense amount of wealth, an immense amount of employment, and an immense amount of capital into the country. They produce, moreover, a large wage fund for distribution among the native population in addition to the revenue accruing from deer forests in the Highlands. Then the hon. Member says they abolish the population. There never was a statement more contrary to the fact. How does he prove that? By pointing to the traces of human habitations of former days. I acknowledge that such traces exist; but these habitations were not abolished for deer forests. They were abolished in order to make room for sheep farms, of which the hon. Member has posed as the foremost and most consistent supporter ever since he has been in this House. Well, there is further evidence bearing on this point in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Gentlemen composing the Committee inquired very carefully for over a year on this point; and what do they tell us? They say that they only found one single case in which it had been shown that human habitations and crofters' holdings had been destroyed for the purpose of making a deer forest, and that occurred at least 30 years ago, and that in each case where crofters were removed provision was made for them elsewhere. Then the hon. Member says that deer forests demoralize the people. Is it to be said, then, in this House of Commons, that sport in itself is demoralizing? I never heard a more absurd, a more ludicrous, or a more un-English statement in the whole course of my life. Well, he was asked why they were demoralizing, and he said that the men were able to get higher wages during three months of the year. Then, because the people are able to get higher wages during three months of the year, that is demoralizing. I do not think that will commend itself to the people of the Highlands, and I should like to hear what the wage-earners of that part of the country say to a statement like that? Then he said that deer forests were not incompatible with sheep farming.

Mr. J. W. BARCLAY

I said "with deer stalking."

MR. CHAPLIN

With deer stalking? Well, I admit that is different; but I can tell the hon. Member that deer stalking, under those circumstances, would amount to this—that you would only get the sport perhaps once or twice, or, at the most, three or four times, in the course of the season; and I hardly think that would be sufficient inducement for people to invest their money in deer forests, and to visit the Highlands. Then the hon. Member went on to talk of deer stalking resulting in the indiscriminate slaughter of deer. Well, I do not know what the experience of the hon. Member is, but he must have been remarkably fortunate. If the hon. Gentleman has often indulged in that pursuit I think he will know that, so far from indiscriminate slaughter occuring, he may consider himself a very fornate, and not only a very fortunate, but also a very skilful sportsman, if, after 10 or 12 or 14 hours' hard work in the course of the day, he succeeds in bringing home a single good head. I turn from the hon. Member, whose observations were, perhaps, hardly worth notice, to some remarks which fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate at the commencement of his observations; and what he said was this, that the principle upon which the Government had embarked was that there was land which might be needful for purposes of grazing, and which they wished to retain powers within this Bill to take, and that, at the same time, there were large districts which were useful for no other purposes than those of maintaining deer. But I find nothing whatever in the Bill which will impose upon the Commissioners the necessity of drawing any distinction whatever between these two classes of land. On the contrary, my complaint has been this—that, according to the way in which the Bill is drawn, there is not one single forest within any one of the five counties named in the measure which will not come within the operation of its provisions. Well, Sir, what will be the result of that?—and I do think these are matters to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, on the part of the Government, may well give his serious attention, and offer some observations in answer to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If you interfere with all these forests, as you will interfere with them if the Bill is made use of—if its provisions are put into operation—the first result will be that every shooting lease in Scotland will be broken and interfered with, and at once thrown upon the landlord's hands. I say, if that occurs, or if anything approaching to it occurs, you will be inflicting on that part of the Highlands the greatest mischief and injury that it is possible for you to inflict. The Committee, I hope, before these discussions are ended, will understand, however much they may be prejudiced against the system of deer forests, that there are immense tracts in the Highlands that may be devoted to that purpose with use and advantage to the community, and which can be devoted to no other purpose whatsoever. What I am afraid of is that if you insist upon this Bill in its present form, and refuse to allow to us the reasonable concession we ask, and which we honestly ask for only in what we believe to be the interests of the Highlands themselves, you will, instead of conferring a benefit, be doing the greatest injury in the world to that part of Scotland. I do not wish to delay the Committee; but before I sit down will hon. Members allow me to put before them just one instance that has come under my own personal observation, and which, I think, will go far to convince them of the truth of what I have been saying on this subject? It so happens that some eight or ten years ago a certain district in the Northern Highlands—[Cries of "Name!"]—it was in the county of Sutherland; I need not publicly mention the names of the individuals concerned, though I should be ready to give them in private to any hon. Member who wishes to know them—I say a certain district that had for years before been devoted to sheep farming became vacant. How did it become vacant? Why, it became vacant because, for two or three years in succession, the winters had been so severe, the frost so prolonged, and the snow so deep, that the sheep died in enormous numbers. What deer there were on the ground died in great quantities too. The sheep farmer, being nearly ruined by his loss, declined to go on with the farm on any terms, and in that way the whole of the district was without a tenant, It was a part of the country in which the wildest enthusiast in the cause of the crofters could not imagine it to be within the competence of anyone to establish a settlement of crofters within it. Well, an individual came forward and said—"As there is nothing else to be done with it, I am ready to take the sheep lease off the sheep farmer's hands provided I may clear it of sheep and convert it into a deer forest." This was done, and what was the result? Thousands of pounds of capital were spent on the place. A road was made for 15 miles, paths were cut all over the district, houses were built—keepers houses were constructed in addition—and a resident population—of course, a small one—was established in what otherwise would have been destitute of human beings and human habitations, and from that time to this that district has given large employment to a considerable number of people, not only throughout the sporting season, but throughout many months of the year besides. That is an instance within my own knowledge of what has occurrred; and that is not a solitary instance. What has happened in that case has happened in hundreds of other cases. What I want to impress upon the Committee is this—that if, by your Bill, you arbitrarily put a stop to the enjoyment of deer forests—if you abolish this kind of expenditure in that part of the Highlands for ever—I venture to say you will be doing—what I have said three or four times already—not a benefit, but the greatest injury you can possibly do to the Highlands.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I am not going to take up the time of the Committee with any lengthened comment upon the excited speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not recollect seeing the right hon. Gentleman so excited since that great shock was given to the British Constitution—the passing of the Hares and Rabbits Bill. I wish to say a few words in regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour). This is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has tried to persuade the House that the most beneficent thing that could be done to the Highlands of Scotland would be to convert them into one vast deer forest.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

If what I said is capable of that interpretation, I must have expressed myself very badly. I never even thought of such a thing.

MR. MACFARLANE

I do not say the right hon. Gentleman used those words. He, however, made the statement, over and over again, that instead of being a loss the deer forests were an immense gain to the Highland people, and that if you were to take away these deer forests you would deprive the people of large incomes. The right hon. Gentleman referred to them as a profitable industry existing in the Highlands of Scotland. Well, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer this question. In all other places where profitable industries exist they are popular with the people, Can that test be applied in the case of deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman show that the deer forests are popular? If they are, why is this agitation kept up against them? If they are profitable to the people, why is there an agitation against them? Do the people in that part of the world appreciate less than others the advantages derived from monetary expenditure amongst them? Certainly not; but the fact is they do not derive monetary advantage from these deer forests, the advantage being altogether in the possession of the landowners. Not a tithe ever reaches the general population. And I say that the logical conclusion to draw from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that the best thing which could be done with the Highlands would be to turn them into a magnificent deer forest. The right hon. Gentleman says deer forests employ more people on the area——

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Than sheep farms.

MR. MACFARLANE

The right hon. Gentleman always rides off on this—and he is, perhaps, entitled to do so—that the depopulation of the Highlands took place in favour of sheep, and that that depopulation is perpetuated now in favour of deer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite gets very excited about these holdings being matters of contract, and as to the proposal being that the law should interfere and restore to the people the whole of the deer forests. I have no objection to deer forests by themselves where they have not been taken from the people, and where they consist of land not suitable for agricultural tenants. I only object to them where they are in the place of the evicted Highlanders, and where the land is suitable for the people. This Bill proposes to place in the hands of the Commissioners discriminating power to take the land at present forming deer forests for the benefit of the crofters, and I think it a very justifiable thing to confer that power upon the Commissioners.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

I do not rise for the purpose of carrying on the discussion, but to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate if he will answer a question put to him. It is a matter of business upon which I put a question to him, and not one of sentiment or discussion of any kind. I want to know this. Under this Bill a tenant is to be obliged to give up certain lands which he possesses under contract. The landlord is to be obliged to accept such modification of rent as the Land Commission may fix in respect of that land—or that, I understand, is the effect of a clause to be afterwards moved. My question—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered—is this, Is the tenant, or is he not, entitled to say—"You have taken away part of the subject for which I contracted—you have taken away part of that on which I depend for getting my return as a tenant; I propose to give up the holding altogether." Would he not be entitled to do that under this Bill; or does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to compel him to hold under his contract, though it is broken under the law? I want to know that, in the first place, as to the tenant; then, if the tenant is not to be obliged to hold on, but may say—"As my contract is broken; as I can no longer have the subject for which I contracted—a part has been taken away—and as I do not care for a piece of it, I will give up the whole," is the landlord, who has entered into the contract with the tenant, in the event of the whole of the land, save that which is taken by the Commissioners, being thrown upon his hands and losing the rent hitherto paid to him—is he to have no compensation?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

I should be glad to answer the question without continuing the discussion, which has already gone over three nights. So far as the Bill and the Amendments proposed by the Government at present stand, there is no proposal entitling the tenant absolutely to renounce his lease; because, in our opinion, the Amendment we propose to make in Clause 15 for abatement of rent would meet the case. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it desirable that in such a case as he has stated a tenant should have the right to renounce his lease, we will favourably consider the point. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD: No, no.] Yes. The Bill, as it stands, would not, I think, give that power; but if my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it would be desirable to introduce such a provision, I will consider it favourably. Our anticipation is that in the execution of this Bill there will be no destruction of deer forests in places where they are morally or socially right, and that only in those places where there ought not to be deer forests will the land be reserved for the uses for which it is naturally applicable. With regard to the case of the landlord, the answer is, that he will receive in respect of the land reserved from the deer forest such rent as it is worth.

SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (Renfrew, W.)

I would only detain the Committee for one moment. I should be very sorry, indeed, that it should go forth, at any rate to Scotland, that all on this side are not willing that this Bill should give to the Highlanders all that it can give. I think it would be advantageous if some arrangement could be made by which an existing deer forest, when dealt with under this Bill, should not be cut in two in the centre, but should have the outside portions taken first. In this way the arrangement would be good for all parties; and knowing that the land would all be taken in one way the landlords would have less objection to the thing being done than would otherwise be the case. Deer forests are not made in places where the landlords can get other rents for them. I am sure of that. I do not own them myself; I know nothing about them; but I am satisfied that the landlords would be glad to see their land occupied in the best manner possible. I think that, instead of allowing them to give holdings to crofters in the centre of deer forests which exist at the present moment, some instruction should be given to the Commissioners to begin at the fringe, as it were, without breaking up the whole concern. If that were decided upon, I am convinced that we should arrive at an adequate agreement upon this question.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

—[Cries of "Divide!"] I think, if the Committee will listen to me for two or three moments, I shall be able to say something that may facilitate the harmonious conclusion of this discussion. I can assure hon. Members I have no desire to detain them with any other intention. It seems to me that the replies given by the right hon. Gentlemen below me have been provoked by extreme statements on the other side. I hope hon. Members opposite will observe this—that some of us on this side are desirous of aiding the Government in bringing this Bill to something like a practical conclusion; and I hope, therefore, they will not say that all that comes from us is dictated by selfish considerations. There is, no doubt, a prevailing feeling in favour of extensions of land being given to a certain class of poor agriculturists; and if those extensions can be given, they must be given even on principles that violate the canons of political economy. This Bill from the first—from beginning to end—has certainly attracted much attention; and we are not unwilling that exceptional measures should be taken to improve the condition of the crofters. It seems to me that the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir Archibald Campbell) is met in the Bill, because in the first part of this clause we read— Land shall not be deemed available pasture or grazing land for the purposes of this Act unless it lies contiguous or near to land already in the occupation of a crofter. It is clear from this that it would be impossible to cut into the middle of a deer forest. Then, again, it is apparent from a statement I have here, put forward by the Protection Association, that only a small number of acres out of the total devoted to deer forests could be taken—that only the foot of the glens running down to the low country would be available for arable land. Only a small portion of the deer forests will be available. If the Land Commission is to be worthy of confidence at all, it is clear that it could not take up the enormous areas of the deer forests and turn them into sheep farms. This statement of the Protection Association points out that the greater portion of the deer forests are quite above the line that is available for grazing; and when hon. Gentlemen talk about land being taken from profitable uses and converted into deer forests, I would point out that it is notorious that pasturage which is useful for deer is not useful for sheep, and that no animal but deer can browse on land that is used for deer forests. If we could come to an agreement on this question I think it would be very valuable. I cannot think that, with the clause proposed by the Lord Advocate, there is very much in this matter at all. It certainly would be a very wrong thing indeed that a contract entered into between two persona according to law should be interfered with without due safeguards. I repeat that what will be done will be to give the crofters extensions at the bottom of the glens—pasturage on the lower slopes—which will not interfere with those great areas which can only be profitably used as deer forests.

MR. G. W. BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

Though I agree to a great extent with the remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Baronet behind me (Sir James Fergusson), I must say it seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate deals out a different measure to deer forests according to the nature of the argument he has in hand at the moment. When we were on the question of fair rent he declined to introduce words into the Bill to define what a fair rent was, lest an excuse should be given for forcing up the rent, in view of the possibility of higher offers from non-agricultural tents. What he feared, as I understand it, was that competition might arise for land from those who wished to throw it into deer forests—that the owners of deer forests, in order to round off their property, would be prepared to give a very high price for outlying land, much more than its proper agricultural value, to the prejudice of the crofter. That was the view he took of outlying skirts of deer forests in the discussion of the question of fair rent; but now that he is discussing another point it appears that outlying portions of deer forests have no value at all—or next to none—and that large areas now used for deer can be withdrawn without injury to the forests. I should like to know how land can be withdrawn from the outskirts of deer forests without injury to those forests, if it is true that for similar outlying portions proprietors are willing to pay enormous sums far exceeding the agricultural value of the land?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 98: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 72.)

MR. M'CULLOCH (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

Sub-section 3 says— It shall not be competent for the Land Commissioners to assign land for the enlargement of the crofters' holdings—(a.) If the land forms part of any garden, policy, park or plantation, or; and I desire to omit the word "park." It must be well known to everyone who understands these matters that the word is one of very wide significance. It may mean a park that has no connection with a residence—even a grazing park miles away from the owner's house. I think the word should not be accepted without some qualification.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 18, to leave out the word "park."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

No doubt, as the hon. Member says, this word "park," in certain cases, is used with great latitude in Scotland. But I rather think anyone accustomed to construe the words of an Act of Parliament reading this section, and finding this expression in such company as it is here placed, will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that it is a park surrounding a residence that is referred to.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of The Lord ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—Pape 6, line 18, after "park," leave out "or;" line 19, after "plantation," insert "or other wood."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

I beg to move, after line 19, on page 6, to insert— (b.) If the land is arable land which is at the date of the application, or has been within seven years prior thereto, under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping. I think hon. Members who were present when it was decided that arable land should be included within the scope of the Bill will see the necessity for the insertion of these words. At any rate, I will explain it to the Committee. It was understood at the meeting of Scotch Members to be the general view that the terms of the Bill should not preclude the Commission from taking into view and assigning to the enlargement of holdings land capable of being put under the plough. The Amendment includes land that at one time has been under the plough, and which, though not under cultivation now, is capable of being put under it. The object of the proposal is to protect land in the hands of those cultivators pursuing a certain course of cultivation with respect to the land. Hon. Members who are familiar with Scotch agriculture know that the custom in many parts is to place the land under rotation of crops. In this way, at one time, there may be only seven-sixths under the plough; and if the one-sixth not under cultivation were to be taken away it would throw the whole farm out of the course of rotation of cropping. I do not think it would be right to take anything from a farmer who is making the most of his land, so as to destroy the rotation of his cropping. I think the feeling of the Committee will be with my Amendment in this matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, after line 19, to insert "(b.) If the land is arable land which is at the date of the application, or has been within seven years prior thereto, under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I am at a loss to understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate means to do for the crofter at all. By leaving out the words "pasture and grazing," and allowing the word "land" to remain in the clause conferring this boon upon the crofter, he led us to believe that he intended to give land which should be of use to the crofter; but now he aims at making the land really pasture and grazing land by hedging the clause round with all these exemptions. It will be altogether useless to give them land unless a portion of it is arable. The late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) called together the Scotch Members for the purpose of discussing this Bill. He asked for a definition of pasture land, and a definition was given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and now we find that that is the very land the crofter is not to get. We are having a juggle of words put in the Bill with no meaning attached to them. I repeat it will be useless to give the crofters all grazing and no arable land, for without the latter it will be impossible for him to keep his sheep in the winter. The sheep will die, and the land will be practically useless to the farmer. I have pressed this matter on the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman once or twice already. I would ask him to give us some practical reason why this Amendment should be put in. Anyone who knows anything of these matters, any practical agriculturist knows that unless you have arable land to supply your sheep with food you will be unable to keep them, and the rest of your land will be of no use to you, because for several months in the year it will be covered with snow, so as to render it impossible for your sheep to feed on it. I cannot understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by endeavouring to force this on us. I would ask him if he insists on this to strike out the word "land" altogether, so as to give the crofters nothing? Let him either give them no land whatever, or both kinds, because both kinds are required.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

This is a most disappointing measure. If there ever was a case in which the Government gave with one hand and took away with the other it is in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that the Scotch Members have expressed a strong feeling that this part of the Bill will be useless unless arable land is given as well as grazing land. [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: Hear hear!] I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had considered this point, and that he was going to give arable land, because he struck out "pasture and grazing" from the original clause giving land to the crofter. Now, we find that he has put in another clause, the effect of which is that the crofter is not to have arable land or land under cultivation at the date of the application, or which has been within seven years prior thereto, under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping, so that even when land has ceased to be arable he may not have it. It seems to me that this takes away the boon which the Lord Advocate was supposed to give to the crofters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it would not do to take away from the farmers land required for arable purposes. The Committee will observe that the Bill proposes not to take arable land that is under lease, and now we have this Amendment. It seems to me reasonable that if you are to take grazing land it is desirable to take arable land. I go further, and say that with this Amendment the clause would place the crofter in a worse position than it would have done in the form in which it stood originally. I am inclined to think that if the clause had remained as it originally stood, the crofter would be entitled to have, in the shape of an extension of grazing or pasture land, land which went out of cultivation five or six years ago. Such land would come under the definition of pastoral or grazing land, whereas, under this Amendment, all land cultivated within the past seven years will be excluded. I do hope the Lord Advocate will concede this point. If he does not, the Bill will be absolutely useless.

MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,

I feel it is a matter for regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not the experience of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) on this subject, otherwise he would, no doubt, be able to afford the Committee valuable enlightenment on these points. It is a great drawback that the measure is in the hands of those who are not practically acquainted with agriculture.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

The hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) who spoke just now seems to forget that the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) laid it down distinctly that arable land was not to be included. At the large meeting of Scotch Members he has referred to this definition was made an exception, so that the Lord Advocate very naturally put it in. The hon. Member seems to forget that if arable land is to be taken as the Land Commissioners may deem desirable, the very essence of the holdings of the farmers may be taken away from them. Their farm buildings without this land would be of no use whatever. It is, therefore, very important to stand by this Amendment of the Lord Advocate.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

Before we go to a division upon this Amendment I trust we may have an answer from the Lord Advocate.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

It seems to me that the crofters are not to get any land at all, because it is already provided that no land under lease is to be taken, and now we are going to enact that the crofter is not to have any arable land, whether under lease or not; so that the Bill, so far it professes to give land to the crofters, is a delusion and a sham. I wish, with respect to this Amendment, to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the last words, which are quite unnecessary, and may create ambiguity, although I do not know that it will be of much consequence, as the Bill will be of extremely little value. The words I refer to are "under cereal or green crop." If the land has not been under cereal or green crop for seven years, of course it is not "subject to a rotation of cropping." It is unnecessary, after having excluded land which may not have been cultivated for nearly seven years, to speak of "rotation of cropping." If the Amendment is pressed, I should move to leave out the words "under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

If my Amendment is accepted, I shall be quite willing to agree to the proposed modification. I may say that my understanding of the prevalent feeling on the part of Scotch Members at the meeting to which reference has been made was that this Amendment embodies their idea. It was entirely in deference to them that I put this Amendment on the Paper; and if I have reason now to believe that it is not their prevalent feeling I shall not press it. Probably, the difficulty I have sought to meet will be met by lines 23 and 24 of this clause—namely, "without material damage to the letting value of the remainder." I felt it my duty to endeavour to interpret the feeling of Scotch Members on this matter; but if I have misunderstood it I am exceedingly sorry, and will not press the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has at all mistaken the intention of the Scotch Members. I do not think this Amendment would diminish the amount of land that the crofter would get, because I am inclined to think that there are few cases in the Highlands where land is under a rotation of cropping in which the abstraction of a piece from a farm would not do "material damage to the letting value of the remainder." I think the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in view is already met by the 3rd section of the clause. Let me point out an objecjection in principle to this Amendment. The Bill purports to give to the crofter on lease land, which he once held in occupation; but if you pass this Amendment you will do much more—you will give over to the crofter the improvements and the capital of somebody else. All this improved land is land on which a great deal of money has been spent in draining, trenching, fencing, and so on; and to give not only the land, but all the capital that has been sunk upon it, to the crofter, appears to be a great innovation in the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman rather begs the question, because we have been accustomed to hold that a great deal of the arable land has been reclaimed from the bog and the mountain by the labour of the small farmer and crofter. There are many cases in which anyone travelling through the Highlands can see that land now under the plough of the farmer was once under the plough of the crofter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate says that upon this question he is willing to accept the sense of the Scotch Members. I think that the greater part of the Scotch Members who were present at the meeting which has been spoken of will bear me out when I say that we did not accept the view that arable land is land which has been under cultivation within seven years.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I do not press the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Yes; I ask leave to withdraw it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfar ask leave to withdraw his Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

Yes.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 28, after the word "is," to insert the words "arable or."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

So far as I myself was responsible for any of that heat which hon. Members opposite seemed to think marked the debate upon the last Amendment which came from this Bench I beg to offer my apologies to the Committee. I rise to submit another Amendment—namely, after line 32, to add— If the land form part of a deer forest, and if the assignation of such land for the purposes of this Act would seriously impair the use of the remainder as a deer forest, unless the Land Commission are satisfied that such result would on the whole increase the prosperity of the inhabitants generally of the district in which such deer forest is situated. Whatever maybe thought of this Amendment, it is one which, I think, need raise no angry passions amongst us. It is an Amendment of a thoroughly hypothetical form. I am of opinion that in certain cases deer forests are not only legitimate, but are the very best use to which the land can be put from the point of view not of the sporting tenant or of the landlord, but of the people themselves; and all I ask is that in such cases the Land Commission shall have power to judge of such a fact, and shall have power, if they think that a deer forest is not a benefit to the population, to say that it shall be destroyed. I wish to be quick; but there is one observation I should like to make which has a bearing on a great deal of the discussion we have had on the matter in previous Sittings of the Committee. The hon. Members in this House known as the Crofter Members have over and over again reproached the Government with doing nothing for the cottar as distinguished from the crofter. I venture to say that in a certain part of the Highlands the only occupation which can be given to the cottar population depends directly or indirectly upon the deer forests. Leaving the case of the cottars, and considering the case of the crofters, let me mention a case which came within my own knowledge. I know of a district in the Highlands where the population is far removed from any centre of industry, from the sea, and from any locality where they could by any possibility obtain employment. There is in that district a deer forest, and by the mere presence of that deer forest, or rather by the fact that all the crofters obtain occupation in it during the shooting season, these people get an amount of wages equal in extent to three times the amount they pay for rent. In addition to this, they get indirectly that large amount of employment to which reference has already been made by more than one speaker. That case is not a solitary instance. Supposing that in that, or in some other parallel case, the actual result of this Bill were to give to the crofter additional land to the destruction of the deer forest, the inevitable consequence would be that the crofter would lose an employment which would equal, as I say, three times the amount of his rent, and that the cottar—that very class whom hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have taken under their especial protection—would be absolutely deprived of employment altogether. I have framed the Amendment so that it will include not merely the crofters, but the cottars also—the poorest people of the district. All I ask is that when, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it would be to the injury of these poor people to destroy a deer forest, they shall have power to say that it shall continue to exist. I think the Committee will admit that I have not only designed the Amendment in a spirit of moderation, but that the Amendment is in itself a moderate one.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 32, after the word "steading," to insert the following sub-section:—"If the land form part of a deer forest, and if the assignation of such land for the purposes of this Act would seriously impair the use of the remainder as a deer forest, unless the Land Commission are satisfied that such result would on the whole increase the prosperity of the inhabitants generally of the district in which, such deer forest is situated."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

With the general intention and spirit of this Amendment I am disposed to sympathize; but I am afraid that the language the right hon. Gentleman employs is too general. If the right hon. Gentleman will observe, he says— Unless the Land Commission are satisfied that such result would on the whole increase the prosperity of the inhabitants generally. Now, what kind of consideration does that convey? It is difficult to say. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the cottars, or rather he takes them both. Well, it is often the case that the crofter hires himself and his pony for the shooting season; and I should imagine that if there are any quantity of crofters who derive advantage from a deer forest, they will not apply to the Commissioners to have land granted to them so as to destroy that forest. If there is a general feeling that the taking of land would be destructive to the forests, we may rest assured that those who derive benefit from them will not take any step to their injury. I fear that these words are far too general.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I do not wish to enter into the discussion of these deer forests again. I have no doubt that each side will maintain its own opinion upon the matter; but I must say I think it would be unfortunate on our part to give any countenance whatever to the continuance and maintenance of deer forests. As to the number of sheep which have been displaced by the deer forests, whatever the Commissioners may say, they have received evidence as to certain facts on this point. I would mention these facts to the Committee briefly. According to the evidence that was laid before the Commission and submitted to this House, it appears that these deer forests displaced about 10 per cent of the sheep in the five counties in Scotland dealt with in the Bill. It appears that the number of sheep displaced by deer forests——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! I think the hon. Member is going back on a question that has already been decided. This Amendment is a subordinate question, which does not raise that issue.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON (Bute)

I do not wish to go into the general question raised by a previous Amendment, and which is in part raised here. I speak on the subject from the stand-point of the Lord Advocate, who admitted that he agreed with the general view of the statement of my right hon. Friend. The view of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is this. He desires that when the Commissioners are satisfied that the general prosperity of a district is promoted by the existence of a deer forest that that deer forest shall not be sacrificed at the instance of the five crofters who are to be the promoters of the application. The Committee will, therefore, observe that the case that is put by the Amendment is one that may well arise. Five crofters may make an application to the Land Commission, and my right hon. Friend desires that the Commissioners shall not merely consider whether it would be to the interest of these persons that the land should be assigned to them, but that the other side of the question shall be considered, and that the Commissioners shall decide whether a much larger number of people would not have their interests sacrificed if this benefit were conferred upon a small number. There cannot be a more general consideration of popular advantage than that proposed by this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate demurs to the generality of the terms of this proposal; but I would point out that my right hon. Friend's desire is to focus the attention of the Land Commissioners upon the district which has occupation supplied to it through the existence of a deer forest—to the area over which the deer forest sends out an influence tending to prosperity. That is the pith of the case. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) believes that there is no employment given to districts by these deer forests; but the Lord Advocate believes that such employment is given, and the question the Committee will have to consider is whether, when a deer forest supplies occupation to the people, the main industry of a district shall be destroyed in the interests of a few.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

This seems to me a very moderate Amendment. I should be sorry to go over the whole argument as to deer forests again. The question is—Is this Amendment necessary? The only thing the right hon. Gentleman who moves the Amendment seems to be afraid of is that under the clause deer forests will be destroyed. Well, as to that, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the very sensible remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), who pointed out that under this clause you are not going to destroy the deer forests or drive the deer away wholesale, and turn now crofters on to the existing forests. Your operation is only as to existing crofters; you are going to give them a little extension of land at the foot of the hills. It seems to me that the language of this proposal is very vague; and, seeing that it would render it necessary for the Commissioners in every case to go into somewhat complicated questions, and that, after all, it is not requisite, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his proposal.

DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I think this is a matter which we can leave to the discretion of the Land Commissioners, who will be appointed for the express purpose of deciding questions of this sort. If we appoint honest men, why should we hamper them with instructions of this kind?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

The hon. Member who has just sat down cannot have listened to the able speech of my hon. and learned Friend near me (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson). My hon. and learned Friend pointed out, in the clearest manner, that five crofters would have it in their power, supposing that deer forests should be included in the Bill, to destroy not only the occupation of many other crofters, but of the whole cottar population. The hon. Gentleman opposite will, therefore, see that he has not understood the case. As to the observations of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down—[Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am not a Baronet.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I venture to say that I know more about deer forests than he does; and I think it is clear that cases might arise where the taking away of pasture, not in itself extending over very many acres, will be quite sufficient to destroy the deer forests. It is to meet cases of this kind that I propose this Amendment. I hope the Government will see their way to accept these words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate objected to two or three words in the Amendment. If he can remodel it so as to meet his own objections, whilst preserving the tenour of my proposal, I shall be glad to accept it in its altered form.

MR. M'CULLOCH (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I think the Committee will view with suspicion this new-born zeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in the interest of the crofter population. At every stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have objected to any Amendment calculated to operate to the benefit of the crofters. I hope the Lord Advocate will have a better notion of the feeling of the people than to accept this Amendment.

SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)

I think this a very reasonable Amendment. If the Lord Advocate think it proper to alter a word or two to make the Amendment less general well and good; but whether or not I hope he will accept it.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Shortly, the argument by which this proposed Amendment is supported is this—that under a previous clause of the Bill any five crofters may apply to have their holdings enlarged, and that five crofters, by taking a portion of a deer forest, might seriously impair the prosperity of the inhabitants generally. If that is really the object of the Amendment, I suggest that the clause should run thus— If the land form part of a deer forest, and if the assignation of such land for the purposes of the Act would seriously impair the use of the remainder as a deer forest, and would act injuriously on the prosperity of the inhabitants generally of the district in which such deer forest is situate.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not object to that.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I certainly object very strongly to any clause countenancing deer forests; and if the Government accept the Amendment I shall insist upon a division.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out all the words from the word "forest," in line 3, to the words "the prosperity" in line 4, in order to insert the words "and would act injuriously on,"—(Mr. Chance,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'unless the Land Commission are satisfied that such result would on the whole increase' stand part of the said Amendment."

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I hope the Lord Advocate will maintain his position on this Amendment. My hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) has undoubtedly taken a very beneficial interest in this Bill; but I do not see why we should put any more restrictions in it. We are really going on from bad to worse. There is a little line put in here and a little line put in there to limit the operation of the sub-section. We have toiled here night after night to make the Bill of some value to the people, and when we have finished the Bill will only be fit to throw out of the window. I hope the Lord Advocate will not accept this Amendment. Heaven knows, his own objections are quite sufficient.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Deer forests are an unmitigated nuisance. A right hon. Gentleman talked just now about deer forests being of such an altitude that they could not be of any use for grazing purposes. Last winter I was in the Highlands, and conversed a good deal with practical farmers on this point. I put this Question to them—"Is it your opinion that deer forests are useful, on the ground that they occupy places where no other cattle but deer can get food?" and the answer in every case was that it is quite a fallacy to suppose that deer forests can be maintained on any such ground, because if it is asserted that deer forests——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must be unaware that I have already ruled that it is improper to go back to the general question of deer forests.

MR. FINLAY (&c.) Inverness,

I intend to support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). "What we desire is to legislate for the benefit of the whole district, and not to enable any five crofters to do that which may cause serious mischief to the district. It appears to me that the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny exactly meets the case.

SIR JOHN RAMSDEN (York, W. E., Osgoldcross)

I entirely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), and will only add one word. This clause is purely an enabling clause. It can by no possibility do any harm, but it may do a great deal of good. It may prevent a great injury being inflicted on a district; and, therefore, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept it.

THE CHAIRMAN

It probably will be well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), and then vote on the whole Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'would act injuriously on' be there inserted, put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, That the words 'If the land form part of a deer forest, and if the assignation of such land for the purposes of this Act would seriously impair the use of the remainder as a deer forest, and would act injuriously on the prosperity of the inhabitants generally of the district in which such deer forest is situated,' he inserted after the word 'steading,' in line 32.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

I am sure it is not the wish of anyone engaged in carrying this Bill to enact anything which would act injuriously on the general prosperity of a district. It seems very difficult to object to the Amendment as it now stands; and if it is the wish of the Committee I shall be pleased to agree to it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 102: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 73.)

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do now report Progress. We cannot have the slightest hope of carrying the Bill to-night, even if we sat until 2 or 3 o'clock. It is now after 1 o'clock, and therefore I think we ought to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

There is no chance of finishing the Committee to-night.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

There is nothing seriously debateable in the remainder of the clause. We might be allowed to take the clause.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

The Amendment I have now to move is one which the Lord Advocate will, no doubt, be willing to accept. It is an Amendment to limit the enlarged holdings of the crofters to a rental of £15 a-year. There are two sets of crofters who are very advantageous to the country. There are the small crofters, who have a bit of land and have some other occupation besides the cultivation of the soil; and there are the larger crofters, who are in the position of small farmers. I am inclined to think that the man the value of whose croft is under £15 a-year is in the position of being neither one nor the other. The Lord Advocate has given the benefit of this clause to crofters up to £30. I do not think there is any reason why enlarged crofts should be limited to £ 15 value. I hope the Lord Advocate will be disposed to make this concession.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 42, to leave out Sub-section (5).—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'shall not be competent for the Land Commission' stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,

I may tell the Committee that the provision limiting the enlarged holdings to £15 was introduced because it was recommended by the Royal Commission that the powers of the Land Commission should not go beyond that figure. But, in point of fact, there is a great deal to recommend this provision. It is quite true that we propose to give the benefits of the Bill generally to crofters up to £30. Many people think that is too high; but I think there are very few persons answering the description of crofters the value of whose crofts come near £30. I rather imagine a person whose premises were valued at £30 a-year would feel insulted at being called a crofter. It is not the object of the Bill to turn every man into a farmer with a £30 valuation. I do not wish to detain the Committee further. We take the limit recommended by the Royal Commission, and if reasons were needed for that recommendation they would be readily forthcoming.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. M'CULLOCH (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I beg to propose that the limit be raised from "fifteen" to "thirty." I cannot see what objection there can be, as a man with a £30 valuation cannot be considered a very large farmer.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 3, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

In reference to what the Lord Advocate has just said, I should like to remind the Committee that the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), in introducing the Bill, said its object was to turn the crofters into nice little farmers. I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate resisted my Amendment. It seems to me that a man who has a croft too large for a crofter in the ordinary sense of the word, and not large enough to be a farmer, is not an advantageous man for the country. We do not want to make it compulsory on the Commission, in every case, to increase the holdings to the value of £30, but we want to make it permissible; we wish it to be within the power of the Commission to convert the crofters into small farmers. I think this is a reasonable Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson)—namely, to leave out the clause altogether. Under Clause 12 the Commissioners are permitted to grant an increase of the holdings upon the joint application of five or more crofters if, as you inform them, "this shall appear to them to be just and expedient." I think that is the only limitation we should place on the Commission; that is quite sufficient without all the sub-sections of this clause. Let us look at the value of these sub-sections. The first provides that the land must be near to the holdings, and must belong to the same landlord. That cuts away nearly all the land. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), in introducing the Bill, spoke about the deer forest system, and especially of the case of the notorious Winans. That man's forest of 200 or 300 square miles, or whatever its size may be, will, by Sub-section (1), be entirely excluded from the operation of the Bill. Then, by Sub-section (2) you require that if the land is subject to an existing lease the assent of both the farmer and landlord must be obtained; so that this sub-section takes away another large portion of land which it might be just and expedient to give to the crofters. Then, under Sub-section (3) you are not to take away land if it materially damages the letting value of the remainder of the farm. Of course, if you take away any portion of land it will materially damage the letting value of the remaining land. Under Sub-head (d) you are not to take away any land, either arable or pasture, that will substantially impair the amenity of such residence or farm steading. By Sub-section (4) you provide that the aggregate value of the land assigned for the enlargement of the crofter's holdings shall not exceed a certain figure; and by the 6th sub-section the Land Commission may not raise the value of the holdings to a higher amount than £15 each. So that, practically, all you do by the sub-sections of this clause is to take away all that you conceded in Clauses 11 and 12. Now, I think the limitation under Clause 12 is quite sufficient, especially for the class of men who probably will be appointed as Land Commissioners. It is quite enough to say that the Commissioners shall only give what they consider to be just and expedient. The limitations provided in the sub-sections of Clause 13 are unjust, inexpedient, and will only make the Bill a dead letter. I have already pointed out that if you give the crofters their land rent free you will not stop this agitation and settle the Land Question. What the crofters want is more land, and under these sub-sections you take away all the land available for increasing the holdings. I shall do everything I can to prevent the Bill passing, because I believe it to be a sham and a delusion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 89: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 74.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. Blake.)

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.