§ Lords Amendments considered.
§ NOTE.—The page and line refer to the Bill (95) as first printed by the Lords.
§
Page 1, line 27, after ("Act") insert—
(5.) "The crofter shall not persistently violate any written condition signed by him for the protection of the interest of the landlord or of neighbouring crofters which is legally applicable to the holding, and which the Crofters Commission shall find to be reasonable.
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("sea shore") and insert ("shore of the sea, or any loch"); line 25 after ("fish") insert ("wild birds or vermin"); line 37, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); page 3, line 2, after ("schools") insert—
(or for planting, or for roads, practicable for carriages from the croft or crofts to the high road or the sea shore.")
Line 3, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 8, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 28, leave out from first ("and") to end of clause and insert—
958
("the rent so agreed on shall be the rent payable by the crofter so long as such agreement subsists, and after the expiry thereof so long as no different rent shall have been fixed by the Crofters Commission upon the application of the landlord or the crofter, and so long as no new agreement between the landlord and the crofter shall have been made.")
Line 34, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 36, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters.")
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Page 3, line 40, after ("holding") insert ("and suitable thereto"), and after ("executed") insert ("or paid for").
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."—(The Lord Advocate.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I do not think that the words "and suitable thereto" are proper words to insert here. It would be perfectly right that these words should be inserted if this was a question of compensation; it would be right that the crofters should only get compensation for improvements which are suitable to the holdings; but this clause is one which refers to the fixing of the rent. It seems to me that in that respect it is not material whether the improvements are suitable to the holding or not. It may happen that the son of a crofter, who has been to Australia or America and made money, may build a house superior to that suitable for a small holding. It is not to be supposed that the crofter is obliged to pay rent for that house, although it is not suitable to the holding. It seems to me the Amendment is illogical, and I must protest against it.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,My hon. Friend admits that upon a question of compensation these words would be appropriate, and I submit that they are equally appropriate in the present instance. The object of the Amendment is to direct the attention of the persons fixing the fair rent to the improvements, and to show that if improvements have been executed by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family regard shall be had to that fact. I should have 959 thought it would have occurred to my hon. Friend as right that the improvements should be suitable to the holding, because it would be very unjust in fixing the rent to raise the rent in regard to improvements, if they did not really improve the holding to the incoming tenant. There may have been injudicious and improvident expenditure upon improvements, as there is sometimes. I am sure no one would ever desire that the rent should be lowered because improvements have been made which are unsuitable to the holding.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 4, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 7, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"), and leave out ("judicially"); line 9, leave out ("in") and insert ("at"); line 14, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 15, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 21, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 27, leave out ("whole") and insert ("one payment"); page 5, line 16, after ("improvements") insert—
("The provisions of the preceding section and of this section shall not apply to any buildings erected by a crofter or a cottar in violation of any interdict or other judicial order.")
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Page 5, line 27, after ("resident") insert ("on neighbouring holdings").
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I suppose it is no use struggling against Amendments which are made in this Bill; but I wish to point out to the House that this is distinctly a narrowing of the provisions of the Bill. A good deal of objection was taken in this House to the provisions which limited the benefits of this Bill to cases where five crofters applied for extensions of holdings. The result of the insertion of these words "on neighbouring holdings" is that five crofters 960 can only obtain the benefit of extensions of holdings when they happen to have holdings closely adjoining one another. If the crofters reside at some distance from each other, they are not to have the benefit which an increase of holding would give them. It seems to me it would be most unjust to insert these words.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)I hope that on this point the Government will stand firm. We proposed many Amendments in this House, but all to no purpose. The Government narrowed the scope of the Bill to such an extent that, in the opinion of the Crofter Members, it was completely valueless. The Lords have now narrowed it still further. I trust the Government will not assent to the Amendment now under consideration.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,May I point out that the reason why the Government decided that the application should be made by a group of crofters was that it involved a recognition of the well-known Highland unit—a township or group. We thought that in taking the number of 5 we were taking a small number; but it was pointed out in the discussions in the House of Lords that, under the Bill as it stood, the application might be made by crofters in a situation which certainly was not contemplated—that is to say, a concurrent application might be made by persons 30 or 40 miles apart. They might not be members of a township or group. There might be no common tie binding them together. The idea is that the crofters should have pasture holdings in common, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding the Lords inserted the words "on neighbouring holdings." It is not intended that the holdings should necessarily adjoin; but that the crofters should, in a reasonable sense, be neighbours; in a broad and wide sense, that they should form part of something like a community. These words are intended to express what was fairly implied in the Bill as framed.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 139: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
961§ Page 5, line 31, leave out ("Land"); and insert ("Crofters"), and after ("parish") insert ("or in an adjacent crofting parish").
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Advocate.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I think it right to acknowledge that by this Amendment the Lords have made a small extension of the Bill, and that I am very grateful to them for it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); page 6, line 2, after ("thereupon") insert—
And shall ascertain as far as possible how far the small size of the holdings has been duo to the action of the landlord or of the crofters;
line 5, after ("parish") insert ("or in an adjacent crofting parish"); line 14, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 17, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 18, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 24, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 25, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 26, after ("seaweed") insert ("for the reasonable purposes of their holdings"); page 7, line 1, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 6, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 32, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 39, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 41, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); page 8, line 6, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 29, leave out from ("holding") to ("as") in line 30; line 41, leave out ("decree") and insert ("decree"); page 9, line 6, after ("shown") insert—
(g.) If the legatee shall accept the bequest, and the bequest is not declared to be null and void as aforesaid, the legatee shall be entitled to possess the holding on the same terms and conditions as if he had been the nearest heir of the crofter;
line 8, leave out ("of") and insert ("to").
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
962
§
Line 10, after ("made") insert—
Provided always, that in the case of any legatee, or heir-at-law more distant than wife, son, grandson, brother, or son-in-law, it shall be competent to the landlord on his own part, or on the part of neighbouring crofters, to represent that, for the purpose of enlarging their holding or holdings, the holding ought to be added to them; and in all cases in which the sheriff shall determine in favour of such representation, the heir, or the legatee, as the case may be, who, but for such determination, would have succeeded to the holding, shall have right to any claim of compensation for improvements thereon which would have been competent to the deceased crofter if he had been removed at the date of his death: provided, further, that if in any such case the landlord shall fail, within six months after the determination of the sheriff, to add the holding to one or more of the adjoining holdings, it shall be competent for the neighbouring crofters to apply to the Crofters Commission, who shall mate an order assigning the holding to one or more of the neighbouring crofters for the enlargement of his or their holding or holdings.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I strongly approve of the Amendment, and I have merely to say this—that it appears to me that the Lords have done more than I expected; and if the Bill is properly carried out by the Commissioners, I think we shall find that it is a much more beneficial measure than was expected. I would suggest, however, to complete the Amendment, to insert, after the word "son," in line 2, the words "daughter, granddaughter."
§ Amendment proposed, to amend the Lords Amendment by inserting, after "son," in line 2. the words "daughter, grand-daughter."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
Line 11, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 13 and 14, leave out ("one of whom can speak the Gaelic language"); line 14, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 15, after ("Commission") insert—
One of the said Commissioners shall be a person who can speak the Gaelic language;
line 23, leave out ("Commissioners") and insert (Crofters Commission"); line 27, leave out (Commissioners") and insert ("Crofters Commission"); after clause 17, insert clause (A.)—
The Crofters Commission shall once in every year after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six make a report to the
963
Secretary for Scotland as to their proceedings under this Act, and every such report shall be presented to Parliament;
line 32, leave out ("Commissioners") and insert ("Crofters Commission"); page 10, line 5, after ("heirs") insert ("and legatees"); line 10, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 13, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 23, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 36, after first ("the") insert ("erection and maintenance of"); line 37, after ("expedient") insert—
("And to decern that the expense of such erection and maintenance shall be paid by the person or persons interested, as the Crofters Commission shall consider just, having regard to the advantage accruing to the said person or persons respectively from such fencing;")
line 40, leave first ("crofts") and insert ("crofters holdings") and leave out second ("crofts") and insert ("crofters holdings"); page 11, line 4, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 8, leave out ("Commissioners") and insert ("Crofters Commission"); line 9, leave out ("one or"); line 10, leave out ("one or"); line 13, leave out ("the Land Commissioners") and insert—
("Any of the parties thereto to demand, and for the Crofters Commission to order that the evidence shall be taken upon oath, and it shall also be competent to the Crofters Commission;")
line 15, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 18, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 21, leave out (Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 29, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 32, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 40, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); page 12, line 1, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 5, leave out ("Commissioners") and insert—
("Crofters Commission, or two of their number acting as hereinbefore provided;")
line 10, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 14, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 20, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 23, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 27, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); line 28, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters");
964
line 35, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); page 13, line 40, after ("holding") insert ("or building"); line 42, at end of clause 32, add—
("Nor to any holding or building let at a nominal rent, or without rent, as a pension for former service, or on account of old age or poverty, nor to any holding or building let to a person during his tenure of any office such as that of minister of religion or schoolmaster, nor to any innkeeper or tradesman placed in the district by the landlord for the benefit of the neighbourhood;
page 14, line 1, leave out first ("a") and insert ("any person who at the passing of this Act is"); line 2, leave out ("or near").
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Advocate.)
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,The leaving out of these words is a very important Amendment. The House will remember that upon this point we challenged Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition on the other side, and we then decided by a majority of this House that these words should be put in the clause; and in regard to the change which has now been made, I confess that I cannot appreciate the action either of the House of Lords or of the Government. I do not think it was a very magnanimous thing for the Government, after what had taken place in this House, to take advantage of the House of Lords to strike the words out, and I do hope that they will be reinserted. I do not see why when a man has made a little money and is able to take a email house away from his holding he should be deprived of his three acres and a cow, it may be for his children. In this matter I venture to say that although the House of Lords have a great authority in the Duke of Argyll, they are historically wrong. I know something about these matters. The question is, whether a man shall according to the ancient historical custom be allowed to hold his house under one tenure and his croft under another. I hold that that is an old practice; it is the practice all over India; and I say it is historically wrong to insist on a man having his house and his croft under the same tenure. In illustration of this I will read a letter from a friend of mine who has some 965 property in a poor crofting village high up in the Grampians. He says—
The people here have all land direct from the landlord. The houses are their own property. The village was laid off in lots or farms in 1826, parties living in houses on large farms receiving on lease from the landlord a quarter of an acre at the annual rent of 12s. Those that were able built fair, good houses, others huts, the lease to expire about 1938. The land about the village was divided into strips of from one and a-half acre to two and a-half, none exceeding this. The strips were lot to parties having houses, some at 15s. per acre, others at 26s., according to the quality of the land. Some of these villagers are in possession of two or three strips, others have trades which enable them to scrape a living. The most of the villagers would be glad of more land—arable, I mean—if it could be obtained. As to grazing land, they have the privilege of grazing on the moor at the south end of the village free of rent.I will only say this, that hero you have in the heart of the Grampians this ancient custom, and I think it is a very hard thing that these people should be deprived of the benefits of this Bill. Justice will not be done unless the words are restored, and I, therefore, beg to move "That this House do disagree with the Lords Amendment."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir George Campbell.)
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.) (Wick,I hope that this Amendment will be re-inserted in the Bill to-night. I beg to tell the House, Sir, that there are a great number of people who are the descendants of evicted crofters, and who have their houses from one landlord and their crofts from another, and they will be deprived of whatever benefits this Bill may contain if this Amendment is not put in. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion the original Amendment will be accepted and this one of the Lords rejected.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,I shall not occupy more than a few moments in showing why the Government accepted this Amendment. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) into the ancient history of tenures, nor shall I go into the tenures of Hindostan, which are outside the scope of this Bill. Although they may be very good, nothing could be more foreign to the common tenure under which the crofter of the Highlands holds his croft, which is from year 966 to year. It is to these crofters that we propose to apply the Bill, and to no others. Very well; what would be the effect of the Amendment? It would be this, that persons, whatever their position, who happened to be living near a place where the tenements are held from year to year, they are to be turned into "crofters." That would lead to people coming under the scope of the Bill who were never intended to come under it, and who were not in any sense of the term crofters at all. It would lead to wealthy people, having taken a house in the neighbourhood of a crofting village—if they had a small piece of land in the crofting village, although they might be large landed proprietors in the neighbourhood—coming under this Bill. Such a person is not a crofter, however, and does not fulfil the conditions which this Bill is intended to deal with at all. At the same time, a real crofter will not lose the benefits of this Bill, although he does not actually reside on the land which he cultivates, because the case is dealt with in Clause 14, as hon. Members will see if they refer to it, so that although a crofter's dwelling might not be on the land he cultivates, if he is holding land in connection with it from the same landlord, he will not be deprived of the benefits of the Bill. The effect of disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, therefore, would be to open the door for the admission of an indefinite number of persons who are not entitled to the benefits of the Bill; and, therefore, I cannot accept the Motion of the hon. Member.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I hope the House will not agree to rescind the vote which it gave on a previous occasion. We have heard speak of towns in the Highlands, but as a matter of fact there are none. We have only small villages, and by leaving out this Amendment we shall prevent the benefits of this Bill being applied to all the poor people who live in those villages. What is to become of the poor fishermen who have small crofts, but live in the fishing villages? They will be in exactly the same position as they are now without this Amendment, and I think, therefore, that the Government are very foolish in not accepting it.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)I am very sorry that the Lord Advocate 967 is so obstinate in his refusal to accept this Amendment, if he will excuse me for saying so. With regard to the possibility of wealthy persons coming under the Bill, I do not see why that should create alarm. This is not a charitable Act; it is not framed on eleemosynary principles. We believe that it is framed on the principles of common sense; and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will reaffirm what they declared to be necessary when the Bill was before the House on a former occasion.
§ Original Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 142: Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
§ Line 4, after ("parish"), insert ("and the successors of such person in the holding being his heirs or legatees").
§
Page 15, after line 11, insert—
(9.) Roads practicable for carriages from the holding or holdings to the public road on the sea shore.
§ Line 12, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters"); the remaining Amendments agreed to.