THE WESTERN ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

HL Deb 27 July 1910 vol 6 cc485-522

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board (Scotland), and to the present condition of the Western Islands of Scotland; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, a. few days ago I ventured to express the opinion that the state of things in the Western Islands of Scotland was becoming more serious every day. I believe from what I have seen and read since that that opinion is not merely mine but is very general. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland often refers us to the opinion of the Scottish Members. From a debate which has taken place in the other House it would appear that the Scottish Members are of the same opinion that I am with regard to the state of the Western Islands; and, further, they commented very severely on the policy of the present Government. They said that it was dilatory, that the Government had put off doing anything, that questions were allowed to slide, and they made other very severe remarks with regard to the general policy of the Scottish Administration. There is no doubt of this, that the crofters themselves are of that opinion. There is no doubt, too, that the owners of land in the Western Islands are of that opinion, and even if your Lordships take the admissions which are made in the Report of the Congested Districts Board, you will see that even that Report admits that the state of things at present is very serious and is becoming more so.

I attach some importance to this Report, because your Lordships must remember that the Congested Districts Board which makes this Report has for its Chairman the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore it is Lord Pentland, the Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, who is reporting to Lord Pentland, the Secretary for Scotland. In these circumstances it is not very likely that any remarks depreciatory of the present Administration would find their way into the Report; but your Lordships will see from admissions that are made in the Report, to which I will allude presently, that the Board consider that the present state of things, if it has not wholly broken down, at all events is by no means in a prosperous condition.

Now let me pass to individual cases. I will begin with the case of the Lews, where the crofter system may be said to be in a state of perfection. The Lews in the year 1900 had a population of somewhere under 10,000 inhabitants, and in the year 1901 it had a population of 28,000. Its assessable rental is only £34,000 or thereabouts, and out of 404,000 acres which there are in the island no less than 260,000 are under the system of crofts. And when I add that the average rental is under £2—I think it is £1 18s. or something of that kind—your Lordships will see that the state of cultivation which prevails on that island is one of extremely small holdings, holdings so extremely small that you can hardly expect them to pay. Further than that, you cannot improve on that state of things in the Lews, because it is impossible to give any more land to crofters there, and it is equally impossible to evict any one who falls into arrears, because he is in the Lews and has nowhere else to go.

The estate which really represents nearly the whole of the Lews is the late Sir James Matheson's estate. He brought that estate in 1844, for, I think, £200.000, and he has spent between £500,000 and £600,000 further upon it. What is the condition of that estate at the present time? The owner of it finds himself in the position that he is not able any linger to pay the rates. He has paid them up to the present time, but during the last two or three years it has been done by borrowing upon mortgage, and I have his authority for saying that that he cannot do so any linger. With regard to the rates in the Lews and in the Western Islands generally there has been a good deal of difference of opinion. When noble Lords have said that the rates in many of these Western Islands is more than 20s. in the £, the noble Lord—I heard him the other day Ndien that remark was made somewhere on this side of the House—has dissented. The fact is that the noble Lord speaks of one sort of pound—namely, the pound of gross rental —whereas others speak of the assessable pound, which, of course, is a very different thing. But I think we may brush all that kind of argument aside, because, after all, it is not the rate in the pound which is the important point in this matter. What is important is what is the amount of the rates, and how they compote with the income which there is from which to pay these rates.

I will give you in a word or two the position of the Matheson estate, the rental of which is between £13,500 and £14.000 a year. Out of that the present proprietor has for the last two or three years had to pay on the average £6,000 a year in rates, irrespective, of course, of his Imperial taxes. I need not point out to your Lordships what a great burden that is, and how enormous the proportion of rates is to the general rental. And when we are speaking of this estate your Lordships must remember that, besides that, it is a very costly estate to manage, because the fact that there are 28,000 people in some way or other connected with the estate necessitates the keeping of an enormous number of ' clerks, and in other ways the management is costly. Of course, the rents were all recast by the Crofters Commission, but the arrears on this estate which have accrued since the Crofters Commission revised the rents amounted this year to approximately £19,000. Your Lordships must not suppose that Major Matheson is in any way unpopular. There is no question of a dispute between landlord and tenants. On the contrary, I believe that Major Matheson is extremely popular in the Lews and on the best terms with everybody. But the fact is that the burden of these rates is such that he cannot pay them any more, and the result is that he has been obliged to leave his home and very probably will never take up his residence again on the island.

I must say this with regard to the Report of the Crofters Commission and also this Report which I hold in my hand—the Report of the Congested Districts Board—that so far as these two Reports are concerned you would never know that there was any question whatever in the Lews. There is no notice of Major Matheson or his difficulties with regard to the rates. His name does appear once, but that is in connection with a proposal which has been almost forced upon him against his will, because he does not wish to stand against the Government, although he does not think it a wise proposal—a proposal to cut up the farm of Mangursta into small holdings. Major Matheson has met with very little sympathy from the Scottish Office. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has been, I think, in the Lews two or three times. He had ample opportunities if he wished to go to the estate office, to speak to Major Matheson on matters of business, or to inquire into the state of affairs; but he did nothing of that sort, and I must say that I think Major Matheson has been treated with rather scant courtesy. Not unnaturally, he has written several times to the Scottish Office and he has written in the present year, but with the exception of an official acknowledgment of his letter this year, in which he stated what I have been just stating to your Lordships, he has received no answer whatever. There is one thing that does strike me as ridiculous in the present position of taxation in this country. I believe that although Major Matheson is unable to pay his rates he will be found actually liable to the Super-Tax. Yes; owing to the present financial arrangements, although he has £6,500 to find which he says he is no longer able to find, yet at the same time he will be liable to Super-Tax under the recent regulations of the Treasury.

Now supposing for a moment that Major Matheson has left the island. What are you going to do then? The result will be, I suppose, that the Government will go on distraining and getting out of the estate whatever they can until they have swallowed up all the available assets. And what is going to happen then? I must say that it seems to me that the future is extremely obscure. And when I say that the state of the Lews at the present time is very serious indeed, I am only echoing what was said in a Report made to the Local Government Board by a Commissioner whom I think they sent specially to inquire—a Mr. Maxwell— who said the Lews could not possibly go on as it was. The same thing is often said in the Report of the Congested Districts Board which we are now considering. With regard to this crofter system, in the first place there are a number of Government settlements where the land has been purchased by the Government and resold to the settlers. Do those Government settlements succeed? If your Lordships will turn to the Report, you will see this— Serious attention has been given to the generally backward state of the payments made by purchasers of holdings from us towards the annuities, by means of which the loans are repaid, and also of rents due to us. In a scheme of State-aided creation of new holdings it is manifestly of the highest importance that the settlers should make punctual payment of the sums due by them. We regret to say that in the case of several estates the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We thought it our duty to intimate that unless there was an immediate improvement in this respect, steps would be taken to enforce payment or to foreclose. The result of this notice has not been satisfactory, and we have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters who we have reason to believe could have met their obligations in a more satisfactory manner than they have done.

That is not a cheerful account of the state of things in these settlements. The statement which I have just read to your Lordships does not appear for the first time by any means in this Report. It is a sort of annual litany. This statement has appeared verbatim, in the last three Reports, and in the one preceding it appeared also with very slight variation.

Now what is the result? First of all, there is the Government settlement of Syre. In the year 1908 the arrears there were £210; in 1909, £527; in March, 1910, £600. Next I come to the state of Barra, an island belonging to Lady Cathcart, in Inverness-shire. In 1908 the arrears there due to the Government—that is, on account of lands which have been purchased from them for settlements—were £227; in March, 1909, they were £410; and in March, 1910, £526. Glendale is a smaller matter, and I pass it over. But in the estate of Kilmuir, which has only been going for some five or six years, the amount of arrears in 1908 was £2,480; in March, 1909, £2,890; and in March, 1910, £3,400. Your Lordships may remember that I and several noble Lords who take an interest in Scottish affairs called attention the other day to a variety of items and endeavoured to obtain information with regard to them. We were not very successful, I admit; but with regard to Kilmuir, at all events, we found out this, that whereas there was a sum of £147,000 which has been spent by the nation, a suns of £46,000 is said to have been received none of which was for sinking fund of the debt, but which was divided in some unknown way between payments received for stock and rent which was paid. But what we took exception to, and what is manifestly bad accounting, is that these payments of rent are in the account subtracted from the total debt, and therefore a man would only have to go on paying rent steadily for a certain number of years in order to wipe out the original sum lent. In other words, in regard to the capital sum spent by the nation, and which you would suppose would be recouped by the rent, no allowance whatever is made. I hope and trust the noble Lord will see that there is some different way of making up these accounts in future. I wish to be perfectly fair. It is not under the noble Lord's administration that this system of making up the particular Appendix of which I am now Speaking originated. But if this Appendix, which purports to convey to Parliament some idea—I do not say an exact idea, but some idea—of the way in which these things are going on in the Western Islands, had been drawn up with a view of concealing information instead of giving it, I concur entirely in the remark which fell from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition the other day that it could not have been better drawn up.

Then, my Lords, I come to Vatersay. I am not going to take your Lordships back into the ancient history of Vatersay. Your Lordships have heard it two or three times in this House. I am only going back to November, 1908, at which period the noble Lord, who, up to that time, had stoutly refused to have anything to do with the purchase of the island and maintained that it was the duty of the proprietor to do all these things that he wished done—at that time, for some reason, I do not know what it could have been, suddenly executed a complete volte face and purchased the island. What has occurred on the island since that time? If your Lordships will turn to pages vi and vii of the Report of the Congested Districts Board you will see what is said about it. The Report says that first of all they gave public notice in Barra, inviting applications. In all eighty-three persons applied for the fifty-eight holdings. Three members of the Congested Districts Board attended at Castlebay and interviewed all the applicants or relatives representing them. The Report continues— Most careful consideration was given to the information given by these applicants and their references, to enable us to select the persons who in our opinion were best fitted profitably to occupy holdings in the various townships. As five of the men originally chosen renounced their holdings, we were able to fill their places with five others. The proceedings which we had to take against certain squatters for removal were decided in our favour, both by the Sheriff-Substitute and on appeal by the Sheriff. From that statement what would. your Lordships naturally suppose? You would suppose that these applications had been sifted and so on, that certain persons who were squatting on the land had notices of ejectment served upon them, that these notices were decided in favour of the Board by the legal authorities, and that those people had disappeared. My Lords, there could be nothing further remote from the fact.

What happened? On April 7, as has been stated in the Report, the Board issued their circular asking for applications, but on April 28 they received a most insolent letter written by a solicitor who was employed by the crofters—a gentleman of the name of David Shaw— in which lie informed the Board that these persons who had raided the land were on the land, that they meant to stay there, that they disapproved of foreigners being introduced, and, further, they gave the noble Lord notice that he would be responsible if any bloodshed occurred through the arrival of any new persons on the land. Then on June 9 these selections were made for the crofts. Nine of the raiders were rejected. They simply remained. where they were. Actions for ejectment were brought against them, and on November 24 orders against three of them were obtained. But no sooner had they obtained the orders than it was discovered that they had made a mistake, and instead of the orders being, as is stated in the Report, decided "in our favour," leaving the public naturally to infer that the ordinary result followed, what happened was this—the Government withdrew their actions and paid the costs. From that day to this no other step has been taken against any of these raiders, and the original three, and, I believe, all the rest, or at all events as many of them as choose, are at present crofters under the noble Lord in Vatersay.

Now let us take the fifty-eight crofters—those persons who were selected. I confess that in the terms of the circular they are good enough, because the circular says they are to give satisfaction as to their ability to till the croft, as to their capital, and all sorts of other things. But, to begin with, twenty-three out of these fifty-eight crofters are not resident on the island; they have not a house, and I have no idea how often they go there. They chiefly belong, I understand, to the island of Barra. They entered upon their crofts in November last, and. from then to the present time have not given the slightest sign of intending to go and reside on the island. The noble Lord said the other day that it was expected that before long these crofters would build their houses. I should very much like to know on what information that expectation is founded. I believe I have better information than has the noble Lord, and my information is that if any steps are taken to force those crofters to take up their crofts or build houses on the island they will go off and give up the crofts. So that there are twenty-three of these men who cannot be said to be very desirable persons as crofters.

There are twelve more of them who came from the island of Mingulay. We questioned the noble Lord about them the other day, and he told us that the island of Mingulay was a rock-bound island, and his idea was that these young men seeing an opportunity had gone away, leaving the island almost derelict and in charge, as he said, of a few old men who were unable to launch a boat. Those men I believe to be. at the present time on the island of Vatersay. The noble Lord said there were two who had been crofters, and that there were some others who were cotters. My information—and I had the estate account with all the names and so on—was that there were certainly twelve men, if not more, who were crofters. I should like to know what amount of capital and what amount of stock they had, and I should also like to know how they satisfied the members of the Crofters Commission that they were persons who were thoroughly well able to make profitable use of a holding.

For a moment let us look at Vatersay as a financial transaction. On one point, at all events, We are agreed. We are agreed upon this, that it is about as bad a transaction financially as it is possible to make. I do not think the noble Lord will dispute it, but I will give him the figures. According to the figures on page 8, Appendix X, a sum of £11,800 has been spent on Vatersay. The expenditure there is not all comprehended in this Report. There will be expenditure in the next year at all events. But let us say, for the sake of round figures, that £12,000 has been spent on Vatersay. How much of that money does the Exchequer or the Congested Districts Board ever expect to see again? Very little. I question whether they will see any. But let us divide up the sum. In the first place there is the money which was paid for the purchase of the island—£6,250; in reality all the rest is money which has been virtually given to these crofters or spent upon them, and therefore nearly £5,000 has gone in that way. What return do you get for this? The rent, which was £350 before and which was cheerfully paid—it had been £400 at a previous stage—is knocked down to £180 after an expenditure of £5,000. That is the present which is made to the crofters. But it has an effect beyond the crofters themselves, because the difference between £180 and £350 has to be deducted from the assessable rental of Barra, and therefore some of the rates which are removed from Vatersay are thrown on to the rest of the parish of Barra. So that, as a financial transaction, nothing could be worse.

I should not have alluded to this, or, at all events, I should not have dealt with it at such length, were it not for this fact, that this is the system which the noble Lord proposes to extend to the whole of Scotland. This is his system. I admit that I have never been able to agree with him that there is a difference between a small holding and a croft. We have not got beyond that elementary fact. The noble Lord thinks that small holdings ought to be treated as crofts, and that there ought to be no private bargains between landlord and tenant with regard to a tenancy below £50. That is his plan. I merely call attention to the way in which it has been carried out on the island of Vatersay, and I hope and trust that no such evil will ever befall Scotland as that this system should be introduced on to the mainland of that country. It is admitted, then, that this Vatersay transaction viewed as a financial transaction is not a success.

Oh, but we are then told that it is a great social success. But is it? We are told that a happy and contented population are to be found on Vatersay, and that this system produces a happy and contented population generally. Does it? Do you think that the remarks which were made in the other House with regard to the Scottish administration indicate that there is general contentment and happiness among the crofters in Scotland? It was said, too, in the other House that on Vatersay there are no arrears. There is one very good reason why there are no arrears—no rent has been asked for. These gentlemen entered their holdings in November last; their rent was due in May. We know that the Lord Advocate, who made this remark, has a great many other things to attend to, but it would be a very good thing if, besides making speeches, he would also look a little into facts. How can there be any arrears on Vatersay? I should be very much surprised if a year or two hence the noble Lord is able to tell us the same, or, indeed, anything like it. But even if these people had been happy and contented there is a good reason. It is this. The noble Lord has given way to them in everything. There they are on Vatersay in spite of his threats; there they are his crofters; he has virtually presented them with the sheep stock; he has spent lots of money upon them. What more could he do? So much, then, for the settlements which belong to the public and have been resold to the crofters.

Have the settlements of private owners succeeded any better? I must say the private owners have had very scant justice done to them in this matter. They have been of opinion, from their knowledge of these islands, that this system of crofting could not possibly succeed, but, nevertheless, they gave way to the Government and have done everything that they could to forward the views of the Government in this matter. I do not think they have obtained very generous recognition. Let us take sonic of these settlements by private owners in South Uist. The settlement of Kilbride and one or two other small settlements are very recent, and we do not know much about them. I do not think there are any arrears there, but these people have complained of their rents, which, of course, were adjusted by the Crofters Commission. But on the island of Barra all the old settlements are in arrear. They are three years in arrear of their rent, which is a little over £500. So much for Lady Cathcart's estate. Then we come to the estate of Bay in Skye, which your Lordships will see alluded to in the Report of the Crofters Commission of this year, page xiii. This is what is said— In 1900 the proprietor [MacLeod] resolved to make an experiment in the formation of large holdings, which it was hoped would enable the settlers when placed on them to earn a fair living. He broke up the farm of Bay into five such holdings, extending to about 12 acres each, with a common pasture of about 4,000 acres. These holdings he let at a rent of £21 each, in terms of an agreement entered into, to five persons chosen by him. They got entry at Whitsunday, 1901.…The settlers fell deeply into arrears and pleaded that they were not able to pay the rents set forth in the agreement.

The Crofters Commission went and heard the parties, and afterwards inspected the subjects and arrived at this conclusion— If the settlers could stock the land and manage the same properly, they should be able to pay the rents stated in the agreement.…In all the circumstances we were of opinion that the rents on which the settlers had entered were fair rents, and that therefore we could not reduce them or cancel the arrears which had arisen thereon, It is obvious that the settlement is not in a thriving position, and that unless the whole place is fully stocked and better managed than it has been, no progress can be expected.

So the settlement of Bay does not flourish.

Then we come to the Lews. There Major Matheson broke up the farm of Aignish, and the rent was fixed at £96; at present there are arrears of £90. At the same time the Government made a loan to the settlers of Aignish for the purpose of building their houses, and out of £355 clue as instalments for the payment of those houses the sum of £60 only has been paid. Let us go next to Battery Park, which was also divided by Major Matheson. The feu duty which ought to be paid to him is £27 a year. As a matter of fact the arrears at this moment—and that, again, has been only in four or five years—are £50, or going on towards two years rental. On the other hand the Government advanced money for building houses, and out of a sum of £293 due in instalments only £117 has been paid. Can your Lordships call those successes? Yet in spite of this the noble Lord, with all these facts before him, perseveres in desiring and in requiring that new farms should be cut up; and your Lordships will find in this Report that the farm of Mangursta is being cut up by Major Matheson to please the Government. It is not his notion that this Mangursta farm can possibly succeed as crofts. His opinion is exactly the reverse—I am authorised to say so—but he has done it simply because he has been pressed to do so by the Government. So that there, at all events, he has done everything in his power to forward their view. And further than this, something less than 100 years ago there were crofters on Mangursta, and they were removed from their crofts at their own request because it was impossible to make that farm succeed as crofts.

Now let us leave these points and come to the question of school rates. It is the pressure of the rates which is doing more than anything else to kill these islands.

These rates are bound to increase. As you cut up farms, as you increase the population, as you insist on education and other matters of ordinary civilisation, so, of course, the expenses increase, and the rates must go up. Take the most recent case that has occurred, the case of South Uist. There three new schools have been built during the previous year. The school board called upon the parish council to assess the island for £1,600. The parish council knew perfectly well that they could not raise the money, and they said so. The school board, in compliance with the Act, took them to Edinburgh. The matter was debated and it was decided, as it must be for it is according to the law, that the school board are entitled to call upon the parish council to find any money they require. As to the legal merits, there could, of course, be no doubt, but the Judge who tried the case made some severe remarks with regard to this matter. As to the law there was, he said, no doubt, and he was bound to give a decree. But he went on to say— Recently certain Farms on the island of South Uist have been broken up by the proprietor, at the instance of the Government and with the co-operation of the Congested Districts Board, into small holdings for occupation by crofters. The population which has thus been transplanted to form the tenants of the new holdings previously resided in crofter townships where adequate school accommodation existed, and some of the farms now broken up are situated at a distance from the existing schools. In consequence of this shifting of the population the school board of the parish decided to erect new schools and to provide additional school accommodation.

And he proceeded to say that this was an anomalous state of matters, and this unfortunate condition had, he said, arisen from various causes, the chief being the shifting of the population owing to certain farms having been broken up at the instance of the Government into small holdings. I do not think that it was possible for any learned Judge to deliver a stronger opinion with regard to the equity of the case than that which Lord Salvesen delivered. So much for South Uist.

I now take the case of the parish of Barra. In the parish of Barra at the present time the school rate is 7d. in the £, but owing to this establishment of the noble Lord's at Vatersay a new school has to be erected there. The noble Lord told us the other day that it was to cost about £1,000. At the same time the island of Mingulay, in the same parish, had a school, but when the population of that island rowed away from Mingulay and went to Vatersay the school at Mingulay had to be shut up. What is the result? The parish council is hit in two ways. First of all its existing school is closed, and now it has to pay for a new school on the island of Vatersay. And, my Lords, what security is there that five years hence there will he anybody on Vatersay? I have been there twice, and I should be very much surprised indeed if five years hence there are any persons on Vatersay. The noble Lord, I think, has never been to Vatersay. He was very near it once or twice, and was invited to go. He was down as near as Lochboisdale, and three hours would have taken him to this settlement of his, but he has hitherto exercised a wise discretion and refrained from going. What will be the result in the island of Barra? The school rate in that island, which up to the present time has been 7d., will, I am told on excellent authority, be from 4s. to 5s. in the £. That is the result of this transmigration of crofters.

There is another fact which aggravates this condition of things. Up to the year 1908, when the school rate of any village in Scotland exceeded 1s. 6d. in the £, three-fourths of the difference was made up by a grant front the Exchequer. I believe that rule still prevails in England, but in Scotland it was abolished in the year 1908 by an Act which was brought in by the noble Lord, and therefore there is no means of their getting a grant. The power of giving grants, which undoubtedly was freely exercised in the case of these islands, has entirely disappeared. So the noble Lord has not only created this new settlement and thereby increased the rates, but he has also taken away the means that previously existed of alleviating the rates. All this was not done without warning, because Lady Cathcart, when she gave way against her judgment and agreed to form these settlements, pointed out to the Government, in distinct and express terms, this very danger, that by increasing the population you must necessarily increase the education rate. She asked front them a condition, to which they acceded so far as they said they could, that no additional expense should be thrown on these islands with regard to education. A grant was made, but the Public Accounts Committee came to the conclusion that it was not in the power. of the Government to give these grants. They indicated at the same time, however, that it might be done from certain other sources; but up to the present time the noble Lord has not attempted in any way to deal with this difficulty. He has not attempted to move a special grant. I believe that if he proposed to get a special grant he would have very little difficulty in obtaining it.

I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships so long. I will only say a word or two more. This system of crofting has been on its trial and is on its trial now. I very much wish it could succeed, but it is quite clear that in certain cases it is failing, and has failed, and I do not see any indications where it is proving a success. The essence of this system is that it is eleemosynary. That is to say, the public taxpayer provides money for building houses which, of course, it is expected will be repaid; but with regard to fencing the land and preparing it for the settlement by crofters, and really I am bound to say with regard actually to finding the stock, except to a very limited amount, because promises in the Hebrides to pay, as your Lordships know, are a very different thing from actual payment, in reality the public has started and is supporting these crofts on an eleemosynary system. If you think that is for the public interest, then be consistent and go on and pay the rates, or, at all events, a considerable portion of them. The noble Lord has put off dealing with this question for a very long time. He has shifted and shuffled about, and has endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty by looking away from it, but he may depend upon it that he will never overcome difficulties by that course of action.

The situation has now become so grave, as he must have seen from proceedings in the other House and as I am sure he has been told in this House, that it cannot wait any longer. There are various ways in which this may be met. One of them has been proposed by Lord Balfour in the Local Taxation Commission's Report—that is, that public grants should be increased in the proportion to which the population stands to assessable revenue. That is one way. There may be others, but of this the noble Lord may be sure, that it is impossible to delay or procrastinate any longer. This question is a very urgent one which demands and must receive immediate solution.

Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present condition of the Western Islands of Scotland. —(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, in the beginning of the noble Earl's speech lie told your Lordships that the condition of the Western Islands of Scotland is a serious one, and is annually becoming more so. I do not think that any one who is acquainted with these islands, or even any one who has studied the successive Reports of the Congested Districts Board, can doubt the accuracy of that statement. The noble Earl went into many matters of very serious importance to the Western Islands. He dealt with individual cases of hardship, many of them of very real hardship, particularly the case of Major Matheson, which I hope will receive the serious attention of the Secretary for Scotland. I do not wish to follow the noble Earl into those details, but I should like to say a word more generally upon the methods and the system of the Congested Districts Board, and the result of their management in the past few years.

The Report which we have before us deals not only with this one year, but it is to some extent a general review of the work of the Board over a long period. I certainly have no wish to criticise in any way unduly the work and methods of the Board. I know something of the very serious difficulties with which that Board had to contend when they were first called into existence twelve years ago, and I know the character of the experiments with which they started in the hope of solving what I fear they have come to look upon as an almost insoluble problem. They attempted to assist the existing population to remain on the land and to make a living, and this object was, from every point of view, worthy of all praise. But I fear, in the light of the Reports that have been issued, that we are bound to look upon them as people who have been attempting what really has become impossible. In order to carry out their object they have had to change the system which they found in existence agriculturally in many of these islands—a system of combination of large and small farms, a combination which we believe is more suited to agriculture as we know it in these islands and elsewhere throughout the kingdom. They Lad in this place to a large extent existing land owners, and they had to displace existing tenants and get rid of large farms, and to split their holdings up amongst the existing population. The soil of these islands is of a very poor nature; it is in many instances little more than inferior grazing land; and even though it is now broken up it is doubtful whether any part of it, even the very best of the soil, will for long bear cultivation. It was possible to use this land as grazing land, and in the past it did attract men with capital and a thorough knowledge of their business, and they were able to make a living for themselves and their families and pay their way. But the system which is now adopted takes the land out of the hands of those men and gives it to people who have little knowledge and less capital, and, in doing so, has reduced the rental value and the produce of the land, and consequently there has been a reduction of value to the whole community.

I do not want to go into details in these matters, but I do want to give your Lordships a proof of the reduction in value of the laud since this system has been adopted. I will ask the Secretary for Scotland to think of the case of Barra. It was not done in his tune; bat that island was purchased by the Board in 1901 for the market price of £7,920. It was obvious that the people for whom it was intended could not pay that price, so it was handed over to them at a lesser sum, and the balance is accounted for as a loss on the purchase. My point is this, that under the old system it was worth so much, whereas under the new system it is worth so much less; consequently there is a loss to the community owing to this system of very small holdings which the Board has adopted. This division and sub-division of land, as I think my noble friend Lord Camperdown suggested to your Lordships, is a part of the sort of craving after small holdings which is gradually spreading throughout the country. I believe every one of your Lordships will agree that, under certain favourable conditions, this spread of small holdings is an excellent thing, but there are certain conditions which are fundamental to the success of small holdings. In the first place, you must have a population who are able and willing to work, and who are to sonic extent capable of sustained labour. Most important of all, you must have a kindly soil which is fit for cultivation, and which will return to the small holder a profit. You must have a fair amount of capital on the part of your small holder, and, in addition, you must be within fair reach of labour markets. It is very doubtful indeed if many of these conditions are fulfilled in these Western Islands. One is naturally very glad that in this Report one is able to point to certain instances of success, but I regret to think that the successful part of the scheme is far and away outweighed by the failures that have taken place.

I should like your Lordships to observe certain facts in the conduct and work of the administration of the Board—facts which, in my opinion, are wholly favourable to the Board up to a certain point. There has been on these Western Islands a great expenditure of public money. The Congested Districts Board have been lavish in their gifts to the smaller people. They have provided them with stock at much less than cost price; they have provided them in some cases with land at a less price than they paid for it; and consequently they have suffered very heavy losses. They have lent them money at low rates of interest and on easy terms of repayment, and in many cases those terms have not been observed. They have started schemes for communication and inter-communication both by steamers and by motor cars, but those schemes in some cases have been so little taken advantage of that they have had to be discontinued. In addition, they have started schemes of employment and instruction, which also have not, according to this Report, been so well taken advantage of as was anticipated. Those were experiments, and so far as they were experiments they are entirely to the credit of the Board, and if they had been successful not one of us would have used a word against them. But, my Lords, these experiments have gone on for twelve years, so that they are now rather past the experimental stage. And what is the net result? By your expenditure and by your loans and free gifts you have been encouraging men to attempt what I believe to be the impossible. You have been encouraging them to continue on land and at a work which cannot provide them with an independent living, and though they may leave it will be your duty to provide for them.

I think they have been fixed there probably as pensioners of the State, and although they may leave it is quite impossible that they can do anything to improve their position, and they are merely, as we say, increasing their indebtedness to the State.

My Lords, are we doing any good whatever in encouraging these people to remain in their home lands in a condition of poverty, depending for their living on the forbearance of the State, with an annually increasing load of debt accumulating around them, and with a future which I fear is absolutely hopeless? If we were doing any good in this matter, either to the individual or to the country, I should believe that all our expenditure was valuable and would be justifiable, but I do not think we are doing good. It can be shown that the condition of the people of these Western Islands has in many instances changed for the worst. Poverty is increasing; the poor rate, whatever the actual amount may be, has reached an abnormal figure in those islands. If we are not doing good I fear very much we are doing harm. We are rearing up a population there which is dependent for a living on the forbearance, and, I might also say, on the charity of the State. I believe we are sapping the independence of these people.

I will give one instance. The noble Lord will recollect that there was a distribution of seed. The details of it appear in most of these Reports. At the time of a bad harvest the Board very properly and very generously distributed seed among these distressed crofters. I think probably all of us have had to do that in our own time. It proved very useful to these crofters; they planted the seed and reaped good crops, but they saved no seed for the next year, I suppose with the idea that the Government having done it once would do it again. The Report says— In introducing new seed we did not contemplate a continuous supply, but it became clear that crofters and cotters looked upon us as a constant source of supply, and in many cases took no steps to grow good seed for distribution, or to supply themselves with seed, but simply looked to us to send them what they required each spring. That seems to me to show that we are destroying the independence of these people. The Report goes on to say that complaints were made, and accordingly they made it widely known that they considered it inexpedient that it should be considered that they did more than intervene now and then to introduce a change of seed.

LORD PENTLAND

Any distribution of seed to which the noble Lord could take exception has been stopped.

LORD CLINTON

I find almost exactly the same statement, that they only give the seed occasionally, in their Report of five or six years ago, and it has continued ever since. I hope the noble Lord will not discontinue the supply of seed where it is necessary, but I think those words show quite clearly that the fact of having given this seed has induced in the minds of these men the idea that they have got the bottomless purse of the State behind them, and that they can draw upon it whenever they please. The sapping of the independence of these men will have a bad effect on national character, and treating them financially as they have been treated has, in addition, imbued them with the idea that their contracts with the State, as far as money payments are concerned, can be broken almost at will. I believe this has done harm to many of these holders, and it is a question how far the Board can in justice allow this system to continue. The system cannot be recommended as a financial one. No one has ever suggested that it can actually pay, and it has never been expected to pay. It is never expected that there can be an adequate return from it. It was considered that there was an element of possibility in it, that it might be expected to benefit the people of these islands. That is the whole excuse for the method of the Congested Districts Board; and if it can be shown from your own Reports that it has neither been successful financially nor successful in being of benefit to a large number of people in the Western Islands, then there is no possible excuse for continuing this system.

I do not wish to continue my observations, because we have been speaking on this matter now for a considerable length of time; but I do hope the noble Lord will not only take these matters into consideration, having regard to the possible harm that is done to the crofters in the Western Islands, but that he will consider whether these experiments, which were perfectly justifiable at the beginning, ought to be continued when they are known to have failed. I believe that the experiments that have been begun should. be finished to the end, but before the Government go into the further sub-division of large farms and create a. great number of small holdings they ought. to be convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of success.

LORD PENTLAND

My Lords, the debate which the noble Earl has initiated this evening is in the first place a criticism of the work of the Congested Districts Board, and before it proceeds further I should like to say a word or two as to that Department, and first as to the constitution of the Board, for which not this Government but the Unionist. Government of 1897 were responsible. It consists of the Secretary for Scotland, the Under-Secretary, three heads of Departments, and three nominated members, two of whom are at the present time high officials in the public service in Scotland, the remaining member being a crofter of great sagacity and experience, who, I think, was nominated by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and who has proved of great service in many ways to the work of the Board.

The Secretary for Scotland must inevitably, as the Parliamentary representative of the Bard, bear the chief responsibility for the administration of its work; but the other members, I must point out, who receive no remunaration whatever for their services and who are all hard-working men connected with other public Departments, have given an infinity of time and labour. to the work of this Board, and they are as competent, as faithful, and as public-spirited as any public servants, either in Scotland or out, of it.. So that, so far as they are concerned, the criticisms which are levelled against the Board are wholly, to my mind, without justification.

But, my Lords, I do say this, that the work of the Board has entirely outgrown its constitution. It has multiplied many times since the Board was set up. That is not a discovery made at this moment. Those who first recognised it, I think, were His Majesty's Government, who in 1906 and 1907 introduced proposals connected with land reform in Scotland, part of which consisted of proposals for abolishing the Congested Districts Board and merging it in a Department of Agriculture, manned by paid officials who should do that work for Scotland. This House rejected that policy. Your Lordships declined even to consider it.

I am not going to re-argue that matter now; but I do say the responsibility for the lack of legislative change to reconstitute this Board lies, not with His Majesty's Government, but with your Lordships' House. I have made some administrative changes failing legislation, and I hope to make more changes as time goes on, but those are the only limits which at present are possible or open to us to increase the usefulness and effectiveness of the Board. The noble Earl who opened this debate discussed the island of Vatersav at some length. I was ready to deal with points which arose in the course of the discussion the other day on the questions which the noble Earl put to me, but I pass those over, as time presses. The noble Earl has initiated a discussion which travels over a. very wide area, and if he should wish for information on any of those points I am ready to give it to him.

I now come to the important point possibly the vital point, which the noble Earl mentioned—the difference between the late rent paid by the farm tenant. and the total rent now payable by the crofters. The farm tenant paid £350, and the crofters pay as an accumulated rent £180. That rent was fixed by the Crofters Commission, or, rather, the crofters' rents which go to make up that sum were fixed by the Crofters Commission, and the Congested Districts Board are content to acquiesce in that decision. I believe it to be a fair rent, and it has all the authority of the Crofters Commission behind it. No doubt the land yields less rent, but part of the work of the Congested Districts Board is to relieve congestion. Barra is a congested parish. There was a large squatter population there. Vatersay formerly maintained two families, probably ten people. It is now thought that it will maintain, when all the settlers are there, at least 150 people. The congestion, therefore, is to that extent relieved. I should not allude to this matter if I were not challenged on the point, but I must remind your Lordships after what the noble Earl has said that it was not the wish of the Government to enter upon this purchase. Furthermore, it appears from the correspondence that it was not this drop in rent which determined Lady Cathcart against dividing up the farm. The Government offered to pay her fall compensation for the drop in the rent. What they did decline was to guarantee her the payment of the rents, reduced and divided as I have described them; and this is not the first time, as I think Lord Clinton reminded us, that the Government of this country have lost money over a transaction in the parish of Barra. Lord Balfour, when he was Secretary for Scotland, for the same purpose—to relieve congestion—purchased part of the island of Barra, and the Government of that day were obliged to lose an initial sum of £2,000 on the purchase before it could be handed over to the tenants who now occupy it.

LORD CLINTON

My point was that the new system which the Board adopted must entail a loss of money value, not to the Board or to the people interested themselves, but to the whole country.

LORD PENTLAND

I will come to that point if the noble Lord will allow me. But I say that no Government which is fit to be a Government can be a willing purchaser of such land. The published Papers give the whole story of Vatersay. They are very full, and the question has been discussed in this House. I do not, therefore, propose to reopen the matter. The Government were forced to step in and purchase the land to relieve the necessities of the very people whom the noble Earl alluded to to-day because they had raided the island and by the inactivity of the proprietor were allowed to remain there.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Of course, I take exception to that statement.

LORD PENTLAND

I quite expected the noble Earl would; but what I do ask him is, What is the purpose of this criticism to-day? Does the noble Earl quarrel with the Government for purchasing the land under those circumstances? What is his answer? Does he say that the Government should not have bought Vatersay? If I recollect, the noble Earl was one of those who pressed the purchase of Vatersay upon the Government.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Hear, hear.

LORD PENTLAND

Then there is no criticism coming from him in the other direction. Does he contend that the Government should not have given a fair price for Vatersay? I should like to know whether he has any criticism on that point?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No, none whatever.

LORD PENTLAND

Would he urge the Government to fix the rents at a higher value than that which has been determined by the Crofters' Commission? Does he say that the Government should not have done their best to provide water and schools and roads and the other necessities of life in that island? Because that is what his criticism means if it means anything. The noble Earl criticises the Government for spending money on this property. They were obliged to spend money upon it if the people there were to have the bare necessities of civilised life. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, does supply the motive, I think, for the criticism which has been made with regard to Vatersay to-day. He seems to suggest that it may be regarded as a fair example and illustration of the policy of the present Government in regard to the creation of small holdings. He will, of course, pardon me for suggesting that he does, but he does not go so far as that, I am sure other people do.

LORD CLINTON

I raised no objection to the policy of the Government with regard to small holdings. What I said was that the system had proved an objectionable one in the Western Islands.

LORD PENTLAND

I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, who held up the example of the Congested Districts Board here and elsewhere as an example of what the Government wished to apply to Scotland as a whole. I cannot understand, and I really would like to understand, how that statement can be made. The agricultural conditions of the Western Islands differ in almost every essential from parts of the same counties and from other counties in Scotland. The proposals of the Government dealt not only with the Western Islands but with other parts of Scotland.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

In the same way.

LORD PENTLAND

No, my Lords, not in the same way. The noble Earl makes a mistake in thinking that any Government can transport the same conditions which exist in Vatersay and the Western Islands to the counties of Forfar or Dumfries. It is quite beyond the power of any Government to do so. I will give you one instance. Lord Clinton pointed out that in this breaking up of Vatersay we were obliged to lose rent, and that there had to be a drop in the value of the land. Is it not within the knowledge of any noble Lord who knows Scotland that there are farms and land in many counties of Scotland which, if broken up into small holdings and equipped with buildings, would fetch a higher rent than they do now held in a single large farm? The very work of the Congested Districts Board shows that there are such places.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Where?

LORD PENTLAND

There is a case in Caithness where the owner of Dunbeath broke up his own home farm. The Congested Districts Board gave their help, and there was not one shilling less of rent to that proprietor from the transaction which was thus carried out. If that can be done in Caithness, it can be done in nearly every other county of Scotland; and therefore as a condemnation of the proposals of His Majesty's Government in regard to small holdings Vatersay is no good whatever. If the noble Earl who opened this discussion does not wish to condemn the present administration of Vatersay, and if, as I contend, such transactions are neither a guide to nor an illustration of the probable effect of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to small holdings in the rest of Scotland, I must say I fail to see the real usefulness of the discussion.

Now, my Lords, I will pass to the general question of the high rates in these islands. Your Lordships discussed this question at some length last year and. I would save your Lordships' time by simply reminding you of the main conclusion which I ventured to submit to you on that occasion—namely, that when all the factors are taken into consideration it is not the burden of the rate, heavy as it is, which is so far excessive in these Western Islands, but the distribution of that burden owing largely to the presence in these communities of a considerable cotter and squatter population who pay neither rent nor rates, yet contribute their quota to the burden which is laid upon the rates by the population. So far as South Uist is concerned, and so far as the parish of Barra is concerned, such examination of the figures as I have been able to make entirely supports the conclusion of last year which I have just quoted. And perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what was said then, that it is very desirable to bring the cotters and squatters into the limits of a rent-paying and rate-paying population, and by so doing relieve the burden upon the other ratepayers. Again I must remind your Lordships that the I Land Holders Bill which was submitted for consideration contained legislative proposals for effecting that purpose, and failing legislative changes I see very little chance of being able to effect what undoubtedly is a very desirable change. But I must point out that in the meantime, pending the endeavour which the Government have announced for next year to deal with the general question of the reform of local taxation—and I may say, in passing, that. there is no more pressing part of that subject than that of the poorer parishes in Scotland—considerable relief has been given particularly to these outer parishes, which have unfortunately among them in their population so large a proportion of older people, the strong and the vigorous having in many cases left to seek their fortune elsewhere. By the Old Age Pensions Act they have from this peculiarity reaped a considerable benefit. The relief given to each parish from old age pensions amounts to something like from two to three and a-half times the whole amount of the poor rates levied in these parishes.

The noble Earl said something about the education rate. I should like to say a word about that. The education rate is not the heavy rate in these parishes. It is the poor rate which is the heavy rate. I think your Lordships would be astonished at the sums demanded in the name of the education rate from the ratepayers in these parishes as a rule. Take the parish of South Uist, where this difficulty has arisen. In 1906–07 the total education rate was is. fid., the next year it was 11½d., and the next year 2s. 4½d. Let me remind you how the rate is divided. It is divided between the owner and the occupier. In Barra the rate for 1906–07 for special causes was 3s. 9½d. In the following year it was 9d., in the year following that, 6d., and this year it is again 6d.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

What will it be next year?

LORD PENTLAND

The same is true even of the island of Lewis. I will take the figures for the parish of Barvas for four years. They ranged between 4d., 8d., 10d. and ls. 2d. For the parish of Lochs they were 4d., 4d., 9½d. and 11d. For the parish of Uig, the rates are somewhat heavier. I am reluctant to trouble your Lordships with many figures. The reason of these low rates is that properly generous Parliamentary grants have been made. The cost of education is very much lightened in these parishes by special grants for that purpose. That being the general state of educational expenditure and rating in those parishes, I would ask your Lordships for a moment to consider the difficulty which has arisen in South Uist. The Scottish Office has been somewhat fiercely attacked in this matter, and though I am trespassing on your Lordships' indulgence 1 am sure you will allow me to say what has to be said in order to disclose the true position. I should like, in the first place, to say that this is quite a separate and special matter from even the ordinary educational expenditure. As I understand it from the noble Earl who mentioned this subject, the charge against the Government is that the proprietor of certain farms in South Uist, having decided to break up those farms in order that they might he tenanted by crofters, sought the financial help of the Congested Districts Board. That help was given, and it was at first intended that it should include financial assistance towards the erection of new schools. To make a long story short, it was decided by the action of the Public Accounts Committee, whose attention had been called to the matter by the Auditor-General, that it was ultra vires to give money for this purpose, and the Board were thus unable to make good their intention in that matter. But, putting aside that point, the schools had to be provided; the execution of this duty by the school board imposed a heavy obligation upon the parish, and they were faced with the necessity of raising £1,600 in rates in the year 1910. This involved a rate of something like 11s. 4d. in the pound for education alone, and it is now urged that this is a monstrous injustice not only to one class but to all classes of the community, and that the Government are largely responsible for it.

Now, what are the facts? Early in 1906 Lady Cathcart announced her intention of breaking up these farms to be occupied by seventy tenants. School accommodation had to be provided. Proposals were laid by the school board before the Scottish Education Department in the ordinary way for approval in November, 1907. They were revised, and the estimated outlay was reduced by the Department. The school board gave the Department no sign of any complaint, no warning, no apprehension as to difficulty likely to be experienced by them in carrying out their duty. Eighteen months or more after this the school bard informed the Department that the parish council bad refused to levy the rate for £1,600, and would only consent to levy £500. Subsequently the school board raised an action against the parish council in the Court of Session, and the first information which reached the Department of that action having been taken was the announcement in the newspapers. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is deplorable that two local bodies working in the same parish should not be able to settle such a difference without resorting to the expense of litigation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No, no.

LORE PENTLAND

In my opinion it is. Complaint is being made of the burden of rates, and such action can only tend to increase the burden ultimately to be borne by the ratepayers of the parish. I think that before a step of that kind was taken every other means should have been exhausted of endeavouring to adjust the differences, whereas it is evident, so far as I am informed, that no such efforts were made. The decision of the Court was that the parish council should levy the rate. This matter was discussed in another place last week, and the Lord Advocate undertook, on my behalf, that the rate should not be actually levied until full information had been received by the Scottish Office in regard to the matter. That information has been received, and the parish council—it is a nominated parish council under the Poor Law Act, to take the place of the former parish council responsible for this business, who have resigned—this acting parish council have been instructed to levy the rate, and I trust that nothing will be said in this debate to discourage the payment of debts which are lawfully due from the ratepayers in this parish in regard to this matter.

In the vast majority of cases this rate is not the monstrous burden it is described to be. I will ask your Lordships to let me analyse this £1,600. Five hundred pounds has been collected, involving a rate of ls. 4d. on owners and 2s. on occupiers. The present demand is for a rate of 3s. 4d. on owners and 6s. 4d. on occupiers. I trust your Lordships will not be alarmed at those figures until you have heard the explanation of them. In the first place, what is the true measure of this burden—that is to say, the actual amount demanded from the ratepayers? The nominal rate is 3s. 4d. upon owners and 6s. 4d. on occupiers, but these sums are not levied upon the actual rental. In the case of every ratepayer they are levied upon a rental which is subject to statutory deductions for the purpose of this assessment. From the rental of every occupier of this parish and from every owner there is made a deduction of forty-five per cent., and in the case of agricultural occupiers there is a further deduction under the Agricultural Rates Act of five-eighths of their assessment. In the case of owners these deductions amount to 9s.; in the case of non-agricultural occupiers also to 9s.; and in the case of agricultural occupiers the total deductions amount to 15s. 10d., leaving 4s. 2d. instead of £1 as the rent upon which the assessment is levied. So that we have this result, that while the nominal rate is what I have described the actual amount, of rates in the pound paid by each occupier is—for owners, 1s. 10d.; for nonagricultural occupiers, 3s. 6d,; and for farmers and crofters, is. 4d. in the pound. We arrive at this result., that in respect of the supplementary assessment—I am not speaking of the whole assessment for education for this purpose, some of which has already been levied—to raise this sum of £1,100, out of 909 ratepayers 803 will be called upon to pay something less than 10s., and 560 of them will be called upon to pay something less than a total of 5s. The next question I would like to put before your Lordships is this. Who is responsible for this rate? The suggestion of the noble Earl is that it is due to the necessity of building new schools on these crofter settlements.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Lord Salvesen said so in his judgment, having heard the case.

LORD PENTLAND

I am quite aware of that fact, but I think I shall be able to show even the noble Earl that that is not the ease. First of all, every school board has to provide for the current increase of population in its parish. Secondly, this school board bad to provide for the enlargement, and, I think, the erection of schools in Lochboisdale involving the borrowing of a sum of £2,150 for that purpose. There are other items which reduce the sum of £1,600 to a much smaller amount. In the first place, in that £1,600 there is a sum of arrears of £339 which should have been levied by the school board or the parish council in the year before. Again, by not levying those arrears the school board lost part of the amount, amounting to something over £140. Further, there is a sum of £327 in respect of teachers' salaries at the new schools which w ill be repaid by the grant in the usual course next year. Adding these three amounts together we have a sum of £806, which has to be subtracted from the £1,600 before we see the true elements of the ordinary necessities which the school board and the parish council had to meet. There is a further sum of £238, which represents the interest of loans for new schools, but, again, of this £107 is due in respect of schools other than those in question. So that you have out of the £1,600 apart from current expenditure, the sum of £131 only to be raised by the school board in respect of these new schools. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that the expense of erecting new schools for the crofter settlements is the least of all the items which have contributed to create the present situation. These new schools are responsible for £131 out of £1,600—not a twelfth of the whole sum.

I submit to your Lordships, therefore, that the responsibility for this matter lies, not with the Scottish Education Department nor with any other Government Department, but with the school board and the parish council themselves. They made no provision whatever for the future. They did not face. their obligations in time either in respect to the Lochboisdale schools or the rural schools. So far as the rural schools are concerned, it was known in 1906 that those schools would be necessary. Three years rating passed, and during each one of these three years the school board and the parish council together—I do not know who was responsible—did nothing to raise the necessary money which they would have to expend on this purpose. They left their arrears to the future. In the year 1906–07 the total education rate was Is. 6d.; in the following year, 11½d.; in the year following that it was 2s. 4½d., and in that year they left this sum of £339 unprovided for. My Lords, those are the facts of the case, and I think they speak for themselves. This agitation does not come in any degree from the crofters and the farmers. So far as I know they have made no complaint. They know perfectly well that in respect to the rate for education their burden is exceed- ingly light as a rule, and I am mistaken if they do not know that this expenditure is wholly abnormal.

It is not necessary to repeat to your Lordships what I said last year about the case of the proprietors on these islands and the non-agricultural occupiers. For my part I trust that their case will be fully considered next year when the Government hope to deal with the whole subject. It is far from welcome to me to speak harshly or to speak in a critical way of those who carry on local administration in these remote parishes. They do their work under great difficulties, and. my sympathies are wholly with them in the work which they do; but I am bound to say that in this matter this crisis might, by prudent administration, have been at any rate very greatly mitigated. Lean years will always eat up fat years, and while I have sympathy with those who have to face the difficulties of local administration, I have nothing but condemnation for those, if there are any such, who, in the interests of the larger proprietors or of the non-agricultural occupiers to whose case I have alluded, seek to persuade the great majority of the ratepayers who are not heavily burdened by the normal educational burden, who live lives of toil and hardship and who are the first to suffer from bad government, to resist the law and to join in agitation for the non-payment of rates. I would earnestly warn the crofters and their friends to reject the advice and encouragement of those who thus wish to use them for their own purposes. Such an agitation will increase the difficulty and the expense ultimately to be borne by the ratepayers. Already the litigation between two local authorities in the same parish has cost £200, and I believe the members of one are also members of the other. My Lords, no agitation will alter the facts, which I have done my best to lay before your Lordships' House on this occasion.

Now as to relief for this situation. In justice to the ratepayers who provide the money, whatever method of relief is finally found it must have regard to similar burdens elsewhere if it is to be fair to other parts of the country. The noble Earl alluded to a necessitous school grant which was in operation some time ago. I think its operation expired in 1909, but that was a grant which for three years was paid by the Treasury for the purpose of relieving heavily-burdened parishes both in England and Scotland. The sum was strictly limited in amount, and was provided as a temporary expedient only. So far as Scotland is concerned, the arrangement came to an end on the creation of the Education (Scotland) Fund in March, 1909. To this Fund the Treasury made a contribution far in excess of all the grants which were swept into the Fund. A method of allocation of the Education (Scotland) Fund was adopted which gave to the more necessitous districts, such as Inverness and Ross-shire, a sum greatly in excess of what they had previously received for similar purposes, and as a result of this method of distributing the Fund it was hoped that there would be no occasion to renew the grant, which was admittedly of a purely stop-gap character. That expectation, through a variety of causes, has not been realised, largely because of the increase of expenditure upon bursaries for secondary education in rural districts.

The Department now propose to revise, with some modifications, the former Minute which gave special relief to heavily-burdened districts, the money being now taken from the Fund which I have mentioned—the Education (Scotland) Fund. But this must be regarded as a purely temporary measure pending a more comprehensive effort to deal with the whole question of relief of local taxation. This Minute, which, let, me remind your Lordships, must have the approval of Parliament, or at least must be submitted to Parliament, will apply to heavily-rated districts in general wherever situated, but no doubt under it South Uist will obtain a substantial measure of relief. The relief will be exactly proportioned to the money raised from rates in respect of the year ended May 15, 1910. The greater the sum paid from rates in respect to that year, the less necessity will there be to levy any exceptional rate in respect to the current year. In the meantime I hope I have shown that the education difficulty in South Uist has been seriously exaggerated, and that the greater part, of the difficulty is due not to any action by the Congested Districts Board, but to other causes. The demand notes have been issued, and I trust that the rates will be paid in full. Payment in full now will not reduce the amount of relief which will ultimately be obtained from the operation of the Minute which I have mentioned. Whether the / full amount of the present rate is paid now or later is as broad as it is long, but to reduce the sum to be paid now for last year is simply to increase liability which will have to be met in the succeeding year.

The noble Lords who have taken part in this debate mentioned many points of detail, to which I think your Lordships will not expect me to allude. Indeed, I must apologise for having been obliged to lay before you so many figures and so much detail in regard to this comparatively small matter, though it is a matter of very great importance to those whom it concerns. This is just an illustration of the fallacy of taking these parishes as indicative of the conditions prevailing throughout Scotland, and even throughout the crofter districts of Scotland. There was a vein of hostility running through the whole of Lord Camperdown's speech upon the crofter system. He never allowed an opportunity to pass without an inference or an implication that the crofter system was a bad system and ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible; and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, seemed to suggest that the operations of the Congested Districts Board were of an eleemosynary nature and were making great havoc with the morale and character of the crofter population of Scotland. That has often been said during these discussions. It is not yet realised that there is as wide a difference between the crofter of the west coast and the crofter of the east coast as there is between the crofter of the west coast and the farmer of the south, and I trust that there will be no support for the general and sweeping charges that were suggested by the noble Earl against the whole crofter system.

It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggests, that the crofters of Scotland are as a body either a helpless or a hopeless population. Proprietors who have spoken to me of their crofter tenants have told me that they are the best paying tenants on their properties. And considering that there are between 21,000 and 25,000 statutory crofters, and that the very large proportion of them are men who pay their way and bring up their families and do well in the world, it is to adopt an altogether erroneous view of what the crofter is and what the crofter will be capable of, to accept the description of him which has been vouchsafed this evening. These crofters are the backbone of the Highlands, and those who speak of them in a derogatory way or who describe their condition as hopeless do not remember the condition of the Highlands some twenty-five years ago. You may look in the Reports of the Crofters Commission, who perambulate the Highlands in the discharge of their duties, and in every Report you will see the most gratifying indications, of an improvement in the well-being and the prosperity of the crofter population. Their houses are being improved, their conditions are being improved, and it is undoubtedly an illustration of the advantage of security of tenure and of fair rent that so much progress in the crofter population should have taken place. I do not think there was any other point raised in the speeches which have been made. But if further information is desired by your Lordships on any point in connection with this Report. I shall be glad to endeavour to give it.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, there is important business before your Lordships' House, and I shall not detain you for more than a moment. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Clinton, in the course of what seemed to me to be a most admirable speech, expressed so ably the views which occur, I think, to most reasonable persons with regard to this crofter problem, that I may well spare myself and your Lordships the trouble of recapitulating them. I thought the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office was rather unfair to my noble friend Lord Camperdown, when he taxed him just now with having made a speech which amounted to what I think he called a sweeping charge against. the Scottish crofters.

LORD PENTLAND

Against the crofter system.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I do not think that was at all the object of my noble friend. I, at any rate, do not bear any part in any such charge. What my noble friend did was to call the attention of the House to certain recent operations of the Congested Districts Board, and I must say I think that the facts which my noble friend laid before the House amply justified him in the course which he adopted. The noble Lord opposite suggested that things might have happened differently if the Congested Districts Board had been otherwise constituted and he said that there would have been a reconstitution of the Board had it not been for the action of this House. I confess I do not see that that observation really has much bearing on the case before us. We have no reason to believe that the policy of the present Board is one which is repudiated by His Majesty's Ministers, or that a reconstituted Board would have dealt differently with the problem before them. My noble friend's picture of the condition of things which obtains in some of these districts was a most alarming one. Summed up in half a dozen words, what he had to tell us was that within those particular districts there was insolvency, contempt for the law, and failure on the part of His Majesty's Government to enforce the law. That summarises in half a dozen words the indictment, if it be one, of my noble friend.

The noble Lord opposite did not, I think, unless perhaps quite at tae conclusion of his speech, give us much hope that this condition of things was likely to be much improved. He was not able to tell us that the particular tenants whose cases my noble friend cited were likely to pass from a condition of insolvency to a condition of solvency. He was not able to tell us that the instalments of capital which were due from them were likely to be repaid. He did not hold out, as far as I understood him, any prospect that these people really would, by the action of the Congested Districts Board, be turned into a thriving and self-supporting community. The noble Lord seemed to me to be under a rather mistaken view of what really constitutes the relief of congestion, because he dwelt with great pride on the case of the island of Vatersay, which he said. not long ago was inhabited by two families numbering perhaps ten people but upon which there were now 150 people. That does not to my mind prove the case at all. The question is whether these 150 people are likely to be a self-supporting and economically-constituted community. My noble friend's point is this, that in your well-intentioned efforts to relieve congestion you really may be creating congestion.

Let me say that I, for one, cordially welcome the attempts of the Congested Districts Board to improve the condition of these poor people, and I should certainly not condemn the Board merely because in the initial stages of these transactions public money was generously spent by them perhaps without very much prospect of the whole of it coming back to the public pocket. But there is all the difference in the world between such initial generosity and the perpetuation of a state of things under which these people will become a chronic drain either upon the public purse or upon the purse of the ratepayers. The noble Earl told us a great deal that certainly created in my mind the impression that in some of these cases, at any rate, the operations of the Board had been not only extravagant but unsuccessful. The fact is that the creation of small holdings, no matter in what part of the United Kingdom, cannot be successfully carried out unless those conditions which Lord Clinton so well described are present—that is to say, a suitable soil, a suitable climate, and a population inclined to thrift and agriculture—conditions which would enable these people to profit permanently by your beneficence at the outset.

The danger of dealing rashly with these questions is that, while you may or may not relieve those persons for whose benefit these schemes are undertaken, you may create great hardship and injustice to others. You create great hardship, for example, it seems to me, upon those owners of land who are virtually compelled to surrender their property and to cut it up for conversion into what we should describe in Ireland as uneconomic holdings. You create a great hardship upon the ratepayers, whose burden is already a heavy one and who see that burden increased by these processes. The noble Lord when he was dealing with Lord Camperdown's statement as to the expenditure on schools, said "Oh, that was not the fault of the Congested Districts Board; it was the fault of the local authorities." But I take it that if a number of heads of families with their children are planted down upon one of these islands it is the bounden duty of the local authorities to provide a school for their children, and the increase in the school expenditure and in the school rate follows automatically upon the action of the Board. That is inseparable from the transaction.

My Lords, I will only say before I sit down that I earnestly hope the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will bear in mind the suggestions which have been laid before him to-night, and that when he comes to deal next year, as we understand he intends to do, with further measures affecting the position of these crofters, he will at any rate remember that there are considerable interests at stake, and that mistaken generosity may be in the end not only very injurious to other classes of the community, but even to the very class for whose benefit it is intended.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I will only trouble your Lordships with a word or two in reply. I am afraid I failed to convey to the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland the meaning of my Motion. My Motion did not refer to the crofter system as a whole. Every remark I made referred to crofters in the Western Islands, and all that part of the noble Lord's speech which was bestowed to the general crofter system may, if I may say so respectfully, be regarded as wholly out of place. The case I put to the noble Lord was this. I asked, "Have the Government settlements in the Western Islands succeeded?" and I adduced a number of facts which I do not think were ever contested. And going further I asked, "Have settlements which have been made by private proprietors succeeded?" I mentioned all those that I knew, and submitted to your Lordships that there was no proof whatever that they were succeeding, and that such proof as there was went entirely in the other direction. Then the noble Lord said to me "Do you disapprove of our purchasing Vatersay?" No, I highly approve of it, and, as he said, I advocated it. Then he asked, "Do you disapprove of our giving Lady Cathcart a fair price for Vatersay?" No, my Lords, I do not at all disapprove of that. On the contrary, I should have replied in rather uncomplimentary terms possibly to the noble Lord if he had done otherwise. What I did say was this—it was merely a remark in passing—what a strange thing it was that the nobleLord, having for two or three years entirely refused to have anything to do with the purchase of Vatersay, should all of a sudden turn round and for some reason, which I think I can guess at but which is hidden from public cognisance, reverse his whole policy and purchase Vatersay. That is what I intended to animadvert upon, and I must say it still occasions me considerable surprise.

Then when the noble Lord came to the question of relief he said that your Lordships must remember that these islands have received considerable relief under the Old Age Pensions Act. Does he not see what a satire that is on the principle of crofters' settlements in the Western Islands? He says, "As soon as my crofters become seventy years of age they are people who require 5s. a week, because they have got nothing." He puts that argument to us, but it bears entirely the other way. Then he says the school board and the parish council are strongly to blame because they went to law with each other. How could they help it? The law says that the school board is to demand the sum which it thinks necessary for the educational requirements of the parish. The school board demanded £1,600, and the parish council said it was impossible to levy that sum. The noble Lord says, "Oh, but why could not they make a settlement by agreement?" When you have a sum to levy you must either levy it or not levy it. As for saying it is possible to agree, that is just one of those inconclusive arrangements and settlements which the noble Lord is always advocating, and I must confess that it appears to me to be one of the chief reasons why he so constantly finds himself in trouble.

With regard to the £1,600, I simply say, Divide the £1,600 into any number of shillings and sixpences, or anything else, £1,600 is £1,600, and it has to be levied, and to be levied on a rental of £6,000 a year. When the noble Lord spoke about school rates he had the most airy ideas. He spoke of a rate of 2s. 6d. and 3s. 4d., and so on, as if it was nothing. I wonder what his ideas about squatters and school rates really are. I mentioned a great many individual cases, but the noble Lord, in the course of his reply, never alluded to one of them. He never attempted to say that these squatters at Vatersay had not bested him. My Lords, they have; and there they will remain. With regard to the rest of the speech of the noble Lord, I think at this late hour it would not do for me to occupy your Lordships' time in further remarks. I beg to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.