§ MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)said, he wished to raise his humble voice to emphasize the peculiar facts connected with the results of the recent deliverances of the Crofter Commission. He did not think these points were sufficiently appreciated, even after the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The reductions that had been made in rents by that Commission were even more significant than those connected with the fixing of judicial rents in Ireland. The reduction percentages were much higher in Scotland than in Ireland, reaching, as they did, to 30, 40, and even 50 per cent, which showed how great the injury was that had been inflicted upon the crofters. He did not think the meaning of the reduction of 50 per cent was sufficiently realized. Suppose there had been a reduction of 50 per cent, what did that mean? It meant an injury to the tenant much higher than an injury of 50 per cent. It represented 100 per cent. A tenant, say, was charged £100 a-year rent; it was then discovered by the Commission that the rent ought to be reduced to £50. That was a reduction of 50 per cent, so far as the landlord was concerned; but what did it mean with respect to the injury that has been all along done to the tenant? It meant that he had been all along paying £50 of unjust charge, so that he had been charged 100 per cent more than he ought to have been charged; £50 on £50 was the same as £100 on £100. [Ministerial laughter.] It required elementary instruction of that kind to bring the matter properly 1038 home to the minds of hon. Members opposite. He thought it ought to be impressed on the minds of hon. Members opposite that there were sufferings in connection with the tenancies in the Western Islands of Scotland that were even more deplorable, in many respects, than the sufferings of the tenants of Ireland. There were numbers of people in Scotland who had been proved by the statistics placed before them by the Crofter Commission to have been charged 100 per cent in excess of what they ought to have been paying, and in some cases even more than 120 per cent.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)said, that being a Scotch debate, perhaps it had been rather dull. Scotch affairs did not evoke much enthusiasm. He would not seek to retract one word which had been said on behalf of the Highlands of Scotland; but he demurred somewhat to the complaint of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), who said that they had no Representative of the Scotch Department in the House. He regretted as much as the hon. and learned Member that they had not the Secretary for Scotland in that House. It was a circumstance over which they had no control; but they had in that House a very eminent Member of the Government (Mr. J. B. P. Robertson), who represented a Scotch county constituency, and whose abilities were known throughout Scotland. As this was the time for complaints, he (Mr. Esslemont) would, while he supported the complaints of his hon. Friends, make his own complaint, for the difficulties which existed in the Highlands existed equally in East Aberdeenshire. They had a fishing population there, and they had the cottagers, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General knew of the unsatisfactory condition of their houses, and of the tenure in many places on the East Coast of Scotland, and particularly in Aberdeenshire. There they had the depression of trade, and the consequent depression of fishing, and they had there all the difficulties which the fishermen had in the West of Scotland. The other day he suggested that the Fishery Board and the Scotch Department generally should make specific inquiries into the complaints which, from time to time, came before them. They should by-and-bye have to discuss the extension 1039 of the Crofters Act to the other counties of Scotland, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland was aware that in Aberdeen they had a larger number of crofters than in any other county. What he asked was, that before that discussion came on the complaints of the fishermen in regard to the boat question, and the complaints in regard to the Land Question, should receive from the Scotch Office that attention and inquiry which he knew they deserved. They had not yet had Her Majesty's gunboat on the East Coast; but that was not because they had not suffered. But they were a courageous and long-suffering people; and he hoped the Government, while they would not pay less attention to the Highlands, would pay more to them. He should be failing in his duty if he did not point out that the complaints were by no means confined to the Highlands of Scotland—that there was suffering on the East Coast. There was much domestic legislation sorely needed. He hoped, in the meantime, the complaints would be investigated which he had had the sorrow to lodge in the Scotch Office; and he commended that inquiry to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL foe SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) (Bute)The observations of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) have touched a number of social questions which affect the constituency which he so assiduously represents. I need make no general protestation on behalf of the Scotch Department that questions relating to fishermen as well as to agricultural labourers must always bulk largely with those who have the responsibility of administering the affairs of Scotland. We fortunately have Representatives in this House who are perfectly able to enforce on the Government and on Parliament the views of their constituents, and I do not think I should be far wrong in saying that, with regard to the social legislation, we should welcome any suggestions which are made to us from any quarter of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) has addressed the House on a variety of topics, upon which I shall not dwell for any time. He has introduced to the House two cases of 1040 individual or personal grievance, regarding one of which he has informed the House that an explanation has been given him from this Bench, the accuracy of which he is not in a position to impeach. If that explanation be well founded, as we have every reason to believe it is, that subject ought to vanish, and I hope has vanished, from occupying the time of the House. The other case is one regarding which I have no information, but if the hon. and learned Member thinks he has a substantial grievance, he has the means of calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government to it in the ordinary manner. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin has added as a supplement to these somewhat personal observations about two of his constituents a general appeal to the Government to initiate legislation enabling persons to acquire land by compulsory powers. I need hardly say that this is too large a subject to enter upon at the present time, and this would be a most improper occasion for me to enter upon it. I pass to the more important remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), because they relate to a specific and definite subject—the administration of the Crofters Act. There is one remark with which I think the House will generally sympathize. The Crofters Act was passed little more than a year ago, and we have not yet had a year's experience of its administration to show its merits or defects. I think I may appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether all Parties ought not to give the Crofters Act fair play and fair trial; and I am bound to say that I deeply regret that on this occasion the hon. Member's sense of duty should have compelled him to make remarks disparaging to the Commission itself.
§ Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSONThe hon. Member said—"We do not like the Commission," and he proceeded to give his reasons for that dislike—[Dr. R. McDonald: Hear, hear!]—and I see his observation is sympathized in by another crofter Representative. He proceeded to give his reasons for that dislike. That Commission was only appointed last year, under an Act passed in the last Session of the previous Parliament, and I venture to think that any- 1041 one interested in those parts of the country would forget something of what is due to the prospects of the population if he were to shake the confidence of his constituents in those who administer the Act. The action of the Government has been animated by motives of a totally opposite character. The present Government were not parties to the passing of the Act.
§ Dr. CLARKsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Dr. Clark) had stated distinctly what he thought—that the learned gentleman the Sheriff at the head of the Commission had acted very impartially and judicially, and had considered the interests both of the landlords and the tenants. He eulogized the Sheriff's conduct as far as he possibly could, and he also stated that the other two Commissioners had acted in the same way. He entirely repudiated that he had disparaged these officials, but had pointed out the class to which the crofters had a prejudice. He would not personally do so.
§ Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSONThe hon. Member has not overstated what he said, but at the same time he did emphasize the point that he did not like the Commissioners.
§ DR. CLARKsaid, he begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, he simply spoke of the prejudice—the class dislike—and that they loved each other as the Protestant boys love the Irish Nationalists. He only spoke of the antagonism between the big farming class and the crofting class.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI think that is not the best means of inspiring confidence in the persons whoso qualifications are so characterized. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he added, "We do not like the Commissioners." The hon. Gentleman went further, because he criticized the result of the Crofter Commission down to the present day in a way which was hardly fair. He said, in the first place, that they had an enormous number of applications, and that not much progress had been made, and that in regard to the Fishery Clauses we must regard the terms required for advances as prohibitory. Now, the clauses relating to rents and the clauses relating to fisheries constitute practically the bulk of the Bill, and if I were a friend of the 1042 successful administration of the Act, I should hardly point out that the Act was not working smoothly or successfully in its two main purposes. I have, however, a word to say in regard to each of these matters, and I do think that the dispassionate opinion of the House will discover no ground for despondency as to the work of the Crofters Act. In the first place, as regards the Land Clauses, the Commission has certainly not been able to get much more than abreast of the applications which are coming in, and for a very good reason. They have proceeded with some caution, because the powers entrusted to them were of the most novel description. They desired that they should have a sufficient number of cases to enable them to generalize and form rules and opinions as to the methods by which they should dispose of the various classes of cases which came before them, and accordingly, I think, they have acted rightly in hearing a great number of cases before deciding upon any. There is another point to be observed as to the rate of progress. The Crofter Commission began its operations in October last year. Much of the work of the Commission involves the peripatetic process of going about and examining the country, and making themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the district and even of the individual holdings. The winter days were short, and necessarily the part of the year which has elapsed since October is not the most favourable for making progress with a work of that kind. I may be allowed, on behalf of the Scotch Department, who necessarily are bro light into contact with the Commission, to say that there is now good reason for hoping that once the Commissioners break ground, and see their way through the various classes of cases, they will proceed with a firmness, precision, and rapidity which they could not have done if they had decided a number of cases as they came in, and pronounced what might be called hasty decisions. The other branch of the Act which the hon. Gentleman criticized, and the working of which he did not seem to consider very satisfactory, was that regarding the fishing loans. The importance of that question the Government are quite alive to. I should like to mention, for the information of the House, that the hon. Member is not quite accurate in saying 1043 that the terms have proved to be prohibitory, because, in point of fact, there is evidence in the proceedings which took place before the Commission that the population were alive to the advantages of these clauses, and would take advantage of them. I am informed that down, not to date, but to a considerable time ago, 1,400 forms of application had been applied for from fishery towns, and 183 applications had been sent in. That does not show that in the judgment of those who are primarily concerned—whatever their political advisers may consider—these clauses are likely to be inoperative. I should add, regarding the Fishery Board, whose duty it is to superintend the working of this branch of the Act, that they necessarily proceeded with some caution. It was necessary that they should find out how many applicants there were to be, in order to see how far the limited amount of money at their disposal would go, and also to exercise great caution in finding out whether there was any ground for supposing that the security was not sufficient to cover the advance of public money, and also that the boats which are to be built would be such as would conduce to the further prosperity of the fisheries of Scotland by being efficient and good boats for a storm. There was one other point of detail to which the hon. Member referred—that in regard to the appointment of values. Under the Act it did not fall to the Government, but to the Commission, to appoint valuers, and, accordingly, it is entirely in the judgment of the Commission to say at what time they should require assistance of that kind, and when grants are required for that purpose. It is the duty of the Government not to cut in and interfere with the action of the Commissioners, but rather to expedite their operations. In this matter the Government are not at variance with the judgment of the Commissioners. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member mention, with incidental approval, a Bill which has been introduced and passed, I believe, through the House of Lords, and I was very happy to gather that those for whom the hon. Member for Caithness is spokesman approved of its provisions, and I hope we may rely on their active assistance in carrying the Bill through this House. The judgment of the Go- 1044 vernment entirely coincides with the view that that Bill is a proper complement of the legislation of last year. There is another point somewhat detached from the subject of the crofting population—the condition of ploughmen in Scotland. It would be impossible to enter into a subject of that magnitude at the present time, but I think the hon. Member who referred to this matter would leave the House under a somewhat gloomy and mistaken view of the condition of Scotland, if I were not to mention that the present system is to a very large extent being superseded and replaced in many parts of the country. The subject of dwellings for the working classes is one which of late years has excited very great attention; and more especially—to their credit should it be said—among the proprietors in Scotland, and the housing of ploughmen, as well as other classes of labourers, is, I believe, receiving very great amelioration from the exertions of those to whom I refer. I think I have touched upon all the questions mentioned by the hon. Members in this discussion.
§ DR. B. McDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)said, he had the misfortune not to be in the House during the whole discussion. The question as to the fishing boats was of great importance. He had no reason to complain of the tone of the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), and he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that the terms on which loans were granted for building boats were not satisfactory. He had received scores of letters from fishermen in the North complaining of the terms offered by the Government with regard to the purchase of fishing boats, and stating they were perfectly useless, as it was impossible for the fishermen on the West Coast to collect the money to pay for them. £350 had been mentioned as the sum required for a fishing boat; but, from information which he had received, he thought that the sum was too low an estimate, and would not be sufficient to buy a boat and gear. He thought that the Fishery Board had no right to ask such onerous terms, as they insisted on the boats being insured to their full value—thus giving them full and ample security if anything should happen to the boats—and they were thus secure of their money. With re- 1045 gard to depreciation, it must be remembered that one-eighth of the money was paid year by year. On the whole, therefore, he thought that the Fishery Board were driving too hard a bargain with these people. As the hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated that the Government would welcome any suggestion, he (Dr. McDonald) would recommend that they should offer the boats to the fishermen for a very small sum paid down, and so enable them to prosper. He freely told the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he did not like the Commission. The crofter Members were not allowed to have any say in the matter, for the Government did not give them on the Commission one man in whom the crofters had confidence. That the Commission had, however, done better than he expected, he freely admitted; but it was doing its work very slowly, and it was time that the Government brought pressure to bear on the Commission to appoint valuers so that their work might be facilitated. A great deal of the work was done by gentlemen who got £800 a-year, which could well be done by paid valuers, who could be got for £200 a-year.