II.—Rent. (Hansard, 27 May 1886)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, on the second reading he bad addressed a good 168 many observations against the principle of the Bill, founded upon what he found was a misunderstanding of this clause. In his opinion, it was by far the most important clause in the Bill. It was a clause in favour of free contract, giving the crofter access to the capital of his landlord. Having excluded the crofter from the benefit of public money for agricultural improvements, it would have been a monstrous injustice to have also prevented him entering into an agreement with his landlord for improvements. But upon inquiry, although the wording excluded such a case, be found it was not the intention of the Government to do so. The Amendment of the noble Lord professed to give what he had advocated, and if it really did so it would materially reduce the mischief which undoubtedly would result from the Bill if such a clause were not inserted. He would accept the Amendment in the meantime, and if be found it did not meet his views of the case, he could move an Amendment on Report.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, he would consider the suggestions which had been made before the Report stage of the Bill.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he objected to the term "fair rent," which, although it appeared in the Irish Land Act, ought never to have found its way into any Act. No one knew the meaning of the word. One said it meant such a rent that the man could live and thrive. Those who had to administer the law, as a rule, took off about a fourth. They considered themselves on a mission of reduction. In one case the rent was £6 17s. 4d., and the Commissioners struck off the 7s. 4d. That was absurd.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
Why?

§ LORD BRAMWELL
If £6 10s. was a fair rent, £6 17s. 4d., agreed to, could not be unfair, so as to justify altering it. There was only one clear meaning of fair rent, and it did not apply in this case. That clear meaning was "the rent which one person was willing to take and another person was willing to give," In the sense in which it was 169 used here "fair rent" was an improper term. It represented no definite idea. If there was any idea in the mind of the Legislature, it ought to be so stated that people could act upon it; otherwise they would not avoid the confusion which arose under the Irish Land Act. They ought either to strike out the word "fair" or substitute another for it.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, that if the noble and learned Lord wished to propose any Amendment, he ought to give Notice of it. The deduction of 5 per cent might be a small one in the learned Profession to which his noble and learned Friend belonged, but it was of some importance to small crofters. The Bill would be worked by practical men, to whom the word "fair" would have an intelligible meaning, whether it was capable of a legal interpretation or not.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK
thought the expression "fair rent" unreasonable, and peculiarly unacceptable in the present state of the Highlands, when no rent would be looked upon as fair. He thought the word "judicial" should be substituted for "fair."

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
had a large amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, and had frequently pointed out in the Irish Land Act that the words "fair rent" had no interpretation except in the breast of the valuators. But the word "fair" was not altogether without precedent in Scottish law. It was used in the Entail Act, and also in the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act. The life tenant of entailed property who might accept a fine and let land at a low rent was prohibited from doing so to the prejudice of his successor. It was provided that no life tenant should let his land except on fair rent. The context showed that a market rent was implied. Clause 11 spoke of "such terms as are usually obtained in the letting of land of the like quality and similarly situated." These words were convertible with "fair rent." But they should be considered with reference to the difference between land taken from a landlord to be added to a croft and land which had been improved in value by the occupying tenant. In the Scottish Valuation Act in dealing with land which was not let assessors were directed to ascertain what was its fair letting value.

§ LORD WATSON
said, he always understood that the only object of the first Act cited by the noble Duke was to prevent a life tenant doing injury to his successors.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, it might be unfair to compel the crofter to find security for the whole amount. The rent might be £5, but after the valuation it might be fixed at £3, and surely it would be hard that he should have to find security for £5. Besides, in the last line of the clause the Land Commission had a sufficient discretion left them to protect the interests of the landlords.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK
said, that he could not imagine an alteration in the terms of the Act more irritating, more unreasonable, or more inept than this. It was manifestly absolutely impossible that many of the crofters should be able to find security.

§ LORD WATSON
said, that the Commission had a right in this clause to impose any condition as to payment of rent during the stay of execution, and the question was whether the Commission should at discretion exact security or a deposit of the money.