SECOND NIGHT.

HC Deb 01 April 1886 vol 304 cc458-566

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (A crofter shall not be removed except for breach of statutory conditions).

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

It appears to me that Sub-section 6, which gives the landlord the right of entering upon the holding for the purpose of taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, brick-clay, fire-clay, or slate, is capable of amendment. I propose to strike out, after the word "sand," the words "brick-clay, fire-clay," and to add, at the end, the words "or other workable minerals." The effect will be to make that part of the sub-section read "quarrying or taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, clay, slate, or other workable minerals." The words as they stand are not sufficiently comprehensive. I know that there are many other minerals which are workable, besides those mentioned in the clause; and I think it is desirable to extend the definition in the way I have suggested. It is for the interest of everyone that it should be extended in order to encourage employment in the neighbourhood.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the word "sand," to omit the words "brick clay, fire clay."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

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

I think that the second word "clay" might be allowed to remain.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

assented.

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

I also think it would be quite sufficient to strike out the words "brick clay, fire," after the word "sand," so that the second word "clay" would still be retained, and would follow the word "sand."

Question, "That the words 'brick clay, fire,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

That, I think, will cover the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Baird) to include "thatching clay."

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Does the hon. Member propose to move his Amendment?

MR. BAIRD (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

No.

On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 13, omit the word "or;" in the same line, after "slate," insert "or other workable minerals."

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

The next division of the sub-section gives the landlord the right of entering the holding for the purpose of cutting or taking timber or peats, excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, being of the same family, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter, and excepting also such peats as may be required for the use of the holding. I propose, in line 16, to omit the words "being of the same family." A few minutes ago I might have said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would not accept a single Amendment we propose to insert in the Bill; but I am not able to say that now, because he has just accepted one, although of a very trifling character. The object of my Amendment is to secure to the crofter the right to timber planted by any of his predecessors. I am not disposed, after the experience we had on Monday night, to waste my own time, or the time of the Committee, at any considerable length in a futile attempt to extend the scope of the Bill, because I gather, from the course taken on the previous occasion, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is supported by the whole strength of the Conservative Party in the Division Lobby, and that any such attempt would be a failure. But on analyzing the Division List of Monday last I find that, leaving out the Opposition and the Official votes, I had really a majority of 11. I propose to move this Amendment formally, and to take a division upon it, in order to test the opinion of the Committee once more. It will then be for me and for others, who are trying to make the Bill of some service, to consider whether it will be worth while to make any further effort, or to allow the Bill to pass in the precise form the Government desire it to assume. It would almost appear that the will of the Government is no more to be changed than the laws of the Medes and Persians. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words "being of the same family."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

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

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

There is no indisposition whatever on the part of the Government to accept any Amendment which appears to be reasonable and proper; and I shall give, in a few sentences, a very good reason for retaining the words "being of the same family." Indeed, I should not have been surprised if it had been suggested that those words give too great a latitude. It was explained the other evening that no person holding a croft could be there by virtue of any assignment, or under free sale, because there is no such thing as a right of assignment in such cases of yearly tenancy in Scotland; therefore the only way in which the crofter could come to have the holding at all would either be by direct contract with his landlord, or by having succeeded to it from some other person of the same family. So desirous have we been to give the full benefit of the hereditary principle in the case of the crofters that, apart altogether from strict heirship, we propose to give them the benefit of all improvements effected by the family in connection with the croft. If these words are struck out, the clause will read— Excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter. I would ask the Committee to see what the effect of that would be. It would amount to this—that if the holding had fallen back into the hands of the landlord, or had been surrendered to him and had been relet by the landlord to a new tenant, the improvements would be improvements by a predecessor, and would have to be paid for, even though the croft so improved had passed from the proprietor into the hands of the new tenant. I will ask the Committee if that is at all reasonable? It is said—"Look at the Irish Act;" and my reply is that there was good reason for the inclusion of these words in the Irish Act, because, if I rightly understand, the right of assignment of the goodwill exists in Ireland. ["No, no!"] It exists generally, I believe; but it is not so with us in Scotland. That is the explanation of what was done in the case of the Irish Act. I may be wrong, but I believe I am correct, when I say that there is a presumption of assignability in the case of an Irish tenant, and of an English tenant also; whereas in Scotland it is the other way. As a matter of fact, in Ireland it would be perfectly impossible, in many cases, to get a predecessor in the same family; and the effect of our proposal in this clause is, that if the crofter derives his title from any member of the same family he has a right to have certain things reserved to which he has acquired a right by succession. I believe I have stated reasons which will satisfy the Committee that there is something in the words which have been inserted in the clause.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

Although assignment may not be the law of Scotland, there are many crofters now in the possession of holdings who would be injuriously affected by the inclusion of these words in the clause, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate seems from his remarks to imply that the restriction is only to be operative in the future. In every case where a crofter is in possession of a holding, and the landlord claims a right to cut down trees, I pre- sume it would be necessary for the crofter to prove that the croft was still in the possession of the family by whom the trees were planted, and also to prove his own connection with the family. Of course, the landlord would always have it in his power to prevent the holding from falling into the hands of any other family by refusing to accept a proposed tenant. Under these circumstances I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I cannot think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate can have thoroughly considered the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane). It is not a question of compensation at all. The clause does not deal with the question of compensation, and this part of it has reference to the right of the landlord to enter the holding in order to cut down trees which he has not planted. That raises no question of compensation at all. The case is this—the trees may have been planted in the croft by a predecessor, and the real question is whether the crofter is entitled to the improvements of his predecessor, or whether the landlord has a right to cut down trees which he has not placed in the croft. I can see no reason why he should be allowed to enter, cut down, and take them away. When we come to consider the extreme paucity of trees in the Highlands of Scotland, I think that such places might be spared. I therefore think the Amendment of my hon. Friend ought to be accepted.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

The authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is, of course, very great; but I certainly think that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the meaning of the phrase "being of the same family," and that it ought to be better defined, although, even if it were, I admit that I should still object to it strongly. Of course, a man's son would be of the same family, and his brother, I presume, as well as his cousin, or a first cousin once removed, or a second cousin. I understand that in Scotland relationship is carried out very widely, and it strikes me that there would be considerable difficulty, unless this phrase is better denned, in arriving at a conclusion as to what "being of the same family" really includes. I know there are cases among the crofters—and I believe they are very numerous—where a consideration has been paid by the successor to a croft to his predecessor. It is not always paid in public, and perhaps there has not always been a receipt given; but, as a matter of fact, a consideration does occasionally pass from one to another as one man succeeds another to a croft—such cases, for instance, as where a house has been pulled down by a predecessor and rebuilt, or land has been reclaimed to a considerable extent. I myself met, on one occasion, a small householder living by the seashore who had expended money in that way in order to compensate his predecessor in title for the improvements he had effected. Are such purchasers as these to receive nothing? I think that where a custom of this kind has been established, we ought to consider the equity of the case, and make the same provision here as has been done in Ireland. I shall, therefore, earnestly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).

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

I may explain that the words "being of the same family" have been introduced into the clause in order to give the greatest possible latitude and to cover any persons within the range of succession. I am quite aware that this is not a clause relating to compensation. The same principle will arise in a great number of cases, and if there are any cases such as that which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), of private bargains entered into without the knowledge of the landlord, they have no legal force whatever.

MR. MACFARLANE

In answer to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the difference between the law of Ireland and the law of Scotland, I will read a few remarks made by the Prime Minister in introducing the Irish Land Act. He said— But what I wish to impress upon the House is this—that, apart from those specialities, the principle of assignment is a principle rooted in law. By artificial provisions, introduced into agreements, through commanding position of landlords, assignment has been generally prohibited; but the assignment of the tenants' interest, whatever it be, is a principle, not only of Irish, but of English Land Laws and of the Land Laws of Europe generally."—(3 Hansard, [260] 901.) That was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and it has just been contradicted by the Lord Advocate. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Exactly the other way.] As to the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in opposition to the removal of this limitation, my impression is that a large number of crofters in Scotland have derived their rights to the holdings they now occupy by purchase from other persons. But I would ask, what does it matter to anyone by whom the improvements on the holding which a man has occupied for years were made—whether they were made by the man who now occupies the holding, or by anybody else, so long as the crofter is in possession of them? It is quite clear to me that these words have been adopted for the purpose of limiting and confining the operation of the Act, and they are words which will not be found in the corresponding Statute relating to Ireland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the words of the Irish Land Act, I would be quite willing to agree to that, and I should be perfectly ready to give up the advantages which he proposes to confer upon my countrymen by this limitation—namely, that the right shall only be enjoyed by direct members of the same family. What I ask the Government is, that they should not treat the Scotch tenants in a shabby fashion, but that they should treat them as they have already treated the Irish tenants. If the crofter has bought, or acquired, a certain improvement by lawful means, what does it matter whether it was made by a relative of his own, or a relative of somebody else? I maintain that these words would operate as a restriction which would have a very injurious effect upon the working of the Bill, and I shall, therefore, divide the Committee upon the Amendment.

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

I entirely support the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and it must be remembered that it is not Irish law, but Scotch law, that we are now dealing with. There is no right of assignment known to the Scotch law, and, in the Highlands, assignment is not known even in an illegal and unrecognized form. The fact is, that the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment is trying to induce the Committee to reconsider the decision already arrived at by the Committee on the question of free sale. He is endeavouring to bring in, by a side issue, a principle which the Committee have already rejected. We have already decided that a tenant shall only acquire his right to the property by direct succession.

MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

It seems to me that the time of the Committee is being wasted upon a very small point. ["No, no!"] Yes; it is so, and what I wish to say is this—that the amount of timber in the Islands is almost infinitesimal, and so far as the crofters' holdings in the Highlands are concerned it cannot be a matter of importance. It must also be borne in mind that the landlord cannot, under any circumstances, enter upon the holding in order to cut down trees that are necessary for ornament or shelter. I do not think the point now being discussed is one upon which the Committee ought to waste further time.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

I really think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not clearly laid down the principle of this clause. The principle laid down in it is, that the landlord— Shall cut or take timber or peats, except timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, being of the same family, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter. I do not see why he should make an exception which involves the fact that the crofter must necessarily have inherited the holding from some member of his own family. I certainly think it would be better to go a little further, and act upon the principle of the old song, "Woodman, spare that tree."

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

The insertion of these words, which are supported by the Government, and resisted by the Scotch Members to a certain extent, does lay down a principle that improvements effected by the tenant do not belong to the landlord. That is the first principle involved in the clause—namely, that the landlord shall not get what he is not entitled to. I am prepared to concur to this extent with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate—that we may abandon the principle of free sale, seeing that it is not known to the Scotch law. The question, however, which is raised in this case, is not the question of free sale, but whether the landlord is to be entitled to come in and take what does not belong to him. I do not think we ought to lose our grip of the principle that a landlord ought not to get that which he is not entitled to. If we agree that the landlord is entitled to come in and take that which does not belong to him, we should be erecting a principle of landlordism which, in all other forms of legislation, we have struck down. It, therefore, appears to me that there is a certain amount of importance attached to the insertion of these few words. I do not believe that the entire landlords of Scotland would cut down 10 trees in 10 generations, and therefore it is not a question of money; and although, in deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, I put aside the principle of free sale, on the ground that it has not hitherto been known to the Scotch law, there yet remains the further principle of the right of the landlord to improvements which he has not effected, and which he does not pretend to have made. Surely that is an economical consideration which ought not to be lost sight of. In Ireland, the refusal of these rights to the tenant have produced the poverty of the country. Carlyle, in his famous essay, speaking of the moisture which prevails in the Irish soil, blamed the Irish people for not planting trees upon them. But why should they plant trees which, when planted, would not belong to them, but would become the property of the landlord? So far as the tenants of Ireland are concerned, it must not be forgotten that property frequently passes in consequence of the marriages which take place; and considerations of a matrimonial character are often much stronger than those of a monetary character. Under all the circumstances, I think the Scotch Members are justified, in this case, in resisting the thin end of the wedge, and in refusing to give to the landlord that which does not belong to him.

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

I do not in any way acknowledge the right of the landlord to take away that which does not belong to him; but, in this case, it is just because the trees belong to the landlord, and to nobody else, even although they may have been planted by a predecessor who was not one of the family in possession of the holding, that the retention of the words in the clause is insisted upon. We give the tenant the benefit of every- thing done by a predecessor who is a member of the same family, and also the same right to retain all trees necessary for ornament or shelter. The object of the Bill is to give a permanency of tenure much beyond any that exists in Ireland, and during that permanency or perpetuity of tenure the timber may be ripening. Then what is to be done with it? It does not belong to the tenant, unless it was planted by him, or someone whom he represents; and if these words are not inserted, the provision would cover timber planted by a tenant who had resigned the holding into the hands of the landlord, from whom the present tenant may have taken it with the trees upon it.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I wish to explain that the question raised by the Amendment is not so small or so simple as it appears. This is the first clause in the Bill in which these words appear; but when we go a little further it will be found that the same words are used in order to form a barrier to compensation. Therefore, the question at issue is not only the value of the trees in the Highlands, but a much more important principle is involved in another part of the Bill. If these words are allowed to stand in this clause, they will probably be allowed to stand in the Compensation Clause; and that is one reason why I propose to divide the Committee.

MR. RAMSAY&c.) (Falkirk,

It has been asserted, in the course of discussion, that some of these small occupiers, when they obtained their tenaments, paid their predecessors for certain things which existed on the holding at the time it was entered upon. Now, during the period in which I was either a crofter, or a tenant farmer, or a proprietor, I never knew a single instance of that kind occur. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say, "Oh!" but I must say that very few hon. Members, and even some Scotch Members who have been discussing the terms of this Bill, appear to know much of what they have been talking about in regard to the condition and circumstances of the population of the Western Highlands. If they did, they would never talk as they have done. It so happens that I speak from personal experience, both as an owner and as an occupier, and as one well acquainted with the circumstances and condition of these people; and yet, when I speak of a fact which is within my own experience, some hon. Gentleman object and cry "Oh!" as if their exclamation were an argument.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The reason why we press this Amendment, and propose to go to a division upon it, is because we are of opinion that by adopting the clause, as it stands, the Committee will sanction the principle of taking possession of other people's property, and would practically legalize spoliation and robbery. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Ramsay) says that he is well acquainted with the condition of the people of the Western Highlands. Now, during the last 20 years I have endeavoured to obtain a thorough knowledge of the people, and the customs of the people, in the Northern Higlands, and the practice there is to allow a tenant to build, and then to permit him to receive from his successor in the holding what are called "ameliorations." When the tenant gives up his holding, as a matter of practice, the successor is permitted to pay ameliorations, and by that means he comes into possession of the holding. That principle has been followed in regard to a large number of estates where there has been a transfer of title, and the successor is also rendered responsible for the debts of his predecessor. If this clause is passed, as it now stands, it will give to the landlord the improvements which were made by the predecessor in title of the persons who now occupy the holding, and the consequence will be that the occupier will have to pay twice—first, for the improvement; and, secondly, in the shape of an increased rent. It is in order to prevent this confiscation of the property of the tenant, that we are determined to divide the Committee upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 107: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 54.)

SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.) moved an Amendment, extending the definition of the word "game" to "black game and capercailzie."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, after the words "grouse," insert the words "black game and capercailzie."—(Sir Donald Currie.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

DR. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

, in moving, as an Amendment, the sub-section of the clause which provides that— The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors. to leave out "his landlord," for thy purpose of inserting "the licensing authority for the time being," said: I think, since I placed this Amendment on the Paper, the Government have placed an Amendment on the Paper which will alter the wording of this clause. I have nothing to say against the stipulation that a crofter shall not open a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or for the sale of anything; but I do not think that, in a case of this sort, where, for instance, the consent of the licensing authorities is required, why those authorities should, in this case, be ignored, and the power of refusal be placed in the hands of the landlord. I confess that this is a small point; but it shows that, in the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who drew up the Bill, the landlords are omnipotent, and that they ought to override the licensing authorities, the law of the land, and everything else. Nothing whatever is to be done without their consent. Surely this is a matter in which it is for the licensing authorities to say whether a house shall be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors or not. Therefore I shall adhere to my Amendment, to strike out the word "landlord," for the purpose of inserting "licensing authority for the time being."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "his landlord," and insert the words "the licensing authority for the time being."—(Dr. McDonald.)

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

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

Certainly, this is one of the most familiar stipulations, not only in the letting of land by lease, but also in giving a permanent title to land by way of feu— namely, that there should not be licensed or unlicensed premises of this description on the land. Such a restriction in a title has been upheld by the highest Court of Appeal, not so much in the interest of the landlord, as in that of the neighbouring occupiers. There can be no doubt that nothing is more disastrous than the bringing of drink shops into a community of this kind. The same restriction is very generally introduced in what we call fen charters, dealing with the letting of building land, and this has been done not only for the purpose of keeping up the character and value of the property itself, but also of preserving the character of the properties in the neighbourhood. Therefore, I put it to the Committee that, inasmuch as it is a perfectly lawful restriction which we propose, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is altogether unnecessary. The licensing authority is not, by any means, the sole judge of this matter. A person dealing with his own property has a perfect right to say on what conditions he will let it, and that one of these conditions shall be that there shall be no whisky shops opened upon it.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)

I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should have inserted this provision at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to suppose that if a crofter gets the consent of his landlord, he would be able to sell spirits and other intoxicating liquors; but that is not so, because, although both the landlord and crofter make what arrangement they like, they would be unable to open an establishment for the sale of intoxicating liquors until the occupier had obtained the consent of the licensing authority. I think it is quite unnecessary that this section should be inserted, and, as it seems to reflect on crofters generally, at the proper time I shall move the omission of the words.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

I have now to propose the Amendment of which I myself have given Notice—namely, that, in line 35, to leave out the words "open any house for the sale of," in order to insert the words "sell any." The Bill was framed originally, as has been pointed out, in order to prevent the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors; but, while striking at licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, it has been pointed out that it would not deal with that which is much worse and more prejudicial—namely, the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquors in places which are known in Scotland as shebeens. I believe it is a far greater evil, in some of these remote localities, that there should be a certain amount of shebeening, or unlicensed selling of drink, to the disadvantage of the community. The subsection, as it stands, declares that— The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and the Amendment will prohibit him from selling intoxicating liquors without the consent of his landlord.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "open any house for the sale of."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is no law at present in Scotland to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor without a license? It appears to me that, if I am right in believing that there is such a law, the alteration proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite unnecessary.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

My hon. Friend knows very well that there is such a law.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The law already provides a stringent punishment for selling liquor without a licence; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate wishes to add another penalty, and that is that the tenant should forfeit his holding. I must protest, in the most emphatic manner, against such a proposal being made from the Government, Bench. No doubt, this, like other restrictive proposals, will be supported by hon. Members opposite; but that it should be proposed by the Government is an evidence of the spirit in which they are dealing with the Bill. If the Bill passes, with all these restrictions in it, it will prove as completely delusive as the Agricultural Holdings Act. The Government have undertaken to deal with this question, and I think the Committee ought to insist upon their dealing with it in a liberal spirit. Certainly, hon. Members sitting in this quarter of the House ought to protest most earnestly against this narrow restriction of the Bill, which will render it altogether worthless. I feel strongly that it will not be worth the time and labour which have been bestowed upon it.

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

I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not give way in this matter. I can assure the Committee, from my own experience, that an Amendment such as this is most essential, in order to preserve the morality of the people in these remote districts. I have had a good deal of experience in the management of Highland property, and all the years I have been there I never but once had to remove a tenant, and that was for an act which, if this Amendment be rejected, would be allowable—namely, for obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors in spite of the prohibition of his landlord. I should like to point out to the Committee why it is necessary to prevent the illegal sale of liquors upon these holdings. Practically, the law as regards smuggling is not strictly enforced in these remote districts, and in the particular case to which I have referred, after I had removed the tenant, I found it still impossible to put down the illicit sale; and it was only last year that a case occurred which showed that the illicit sale of drink was going on in this very house. It was only found out owing to one of the shepherds in my employment getting liquor at that house, and on his way home falling into the river and being drowned. That was entirely in consequence of the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors. If the Committee were to pass this Bill without a very stringent clause to prevent the illicit sale of liquor, it would lead to the demoralization of these districts almost more than any other step that we could take. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will adhere to his Amendment; and I would submit to him that by in- serting a few words he would make it much more practically useful. The words I would suggest are these—that between the words "sell" and "any" he should insert the words "or permit the sale of." The sub-section would then read thus—"The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, sell or permit the sale of any intoxicating liquors." Without such words, it is quite possible that, although he might not sell the drink himself, he might connive at another person selling it on his holding, and by that means evade the restriction of this clause, so that the demoralization of the neighbourhood would be just as bad as ever. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this addition to his Amendment.

MR. M'LAREN (Stafford)

The hon. Baronet (Sir John Ramsden) must be aware that the existing law is perfectly sufficient to deal with such cases as those which he has just mentioned. It is restrictions of this kind that make the people call out against landlordism. The law at present deals with all persons who are convicted of the offence of selling intoxicating liquors in an unlicensed house, and why should the landlord have the paternal right of directing whether a man should sell anything he choose, so long as he remains within the law? At present, the tenant knows that he would subject himself to very heavy penalties, and that he might be taken before the nearest magistrate if he breaks the law. How would the hon. Baronet and his Friends like a law to be passed by this House to evict them from their estates, if they happen to commit some equally trivial offence—an offence satisfied by the payment of a small fine? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate appears to be extremely indisposed to mitigate the rigours of this Bill, just as he is indisposed to admit any Amendment which is calculated to improve it. I cannot help saying that I regard the Bill as one which may possibly be not so much a measure for the benefit of the crofters, as a Bill for their extermination, and if Amendments such as this are persisted in, that possibility will become a certainty. The Bill bristles with restrictions on every side, and if my right hon. and learned Friend persists in exhibiting this hard- hearted spirit with regard to the crofters, I am afraid that those who have taken any interest in these people will cease even to raise their voices in protest.

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

I think that this matter has not yet been sufficiently explained, and certainly strange words have been used by more than one hon. Member. It has just been asserted, for instance, that the Government, in prosecuting this Bill, are doing everything they can against the interests of the crofters. Now, I wish the Committee to consider for a moment the position in which we stand. The Committee have, without a division, passed a clause which renders the tenant liable to be evicted from his holding if he obtains a licence to sell spirits. ["No, no!"] Certainly, that is the object of the decision which was recently arrived at; and it is now suggested that the same penalty should not follow in the case of a person, who, without going to the proper authorities to get a licence, proceeds to do the act which is forbidden even if he gets the authority of the licensing magistrate. What is the necessary result? It is this—that if any person in any township forms the idea of selling spirits, it will be more for his interest to do so as a shebeener, than to attempt to do it as a licensed dealer in accordance with the provisions of the law. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) speaks of this as a trivial offence. It is certainly new to me to hear shebeening spoken of as a trivial offence. It may be a trivial offence in this way, that it cannot be visited with a very heavy punishment; but as to its being really a trivial offence, when we consider the effect it has upon the morals of the community, I venture to say that, instead of being a trivial offence, it is a very serious and dangerous offence indeed. I hope the Committee will put aside, at once, the idea that anything that has been stated by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, or by myself, has been intended to injure the crofters, and that they will be disposed to consider the whole matter fairly and dispassionately. I would ask, then, what good purpose they think would really be obtained by allowing these people to have the chance of shebeening without the liability of being removed from their holdings? Are there many people who desire to get shebeens? I should think not. And do hon. Members opposite desire that, if a person persists in shebeening, he should not be removed from among the community where he is doing the greatest possible moral harm? What good purpose can be accomplished by saying that a man shall be at liberty to sell spirits without a licence, and thus to break the law, when you say that he shall not be able to do it without a licence? The Committee have already decided that, if he obtains a licence, he will be liable to be evicted from the holding. ["No, no!"] I think I have stated the matter fairly and reasonably. ["No, no!"]

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

If a man were to open a shebeen, I apprehend that the law would turn upon him very quickly, and the amount of penalties inflicted upon him would soon put him out of the holding. But what I am afraid of is, that there might be traps laid with regard to the selling of spirits. My right hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken knows the Highlands very well; and I would ask him to consider what might happen if, after a hard day's fishing, he got a glass of whisky from some of these poor people, under the guise of getting a glass of milk, and for such a trifling offence, it would be possible to make a crofter lose his holding on account of his hospitality. I must say that the existing penalties for this trivial offence are sufficiently severe, and that the offence itself is dealt with in a most effectual manner.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I object to the clause, on the ground that it is based on a principle of jurisprudence of a most barbarous character. It is only a few years ago that, in England, the offence called "a felony" was accompanied by the forfeiture of the goods of the person convicted; but Parliament, in its wisdom, abolished the barbarous part of the punishment—namely, the forfeiture of goods, and left the rest of the punishment intact. In this case, the Committee have properly allowed the landlord to prohibit the opening of a licensed house for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the law as it now stands imposes very severe penalties on any person who opens a house for the sale of liquor without a licence. That law is amply sufficient, and any additional penalty is entirely uncalled for, and altogether opposed to a spirit of enlightened jurisprudence. In point of fact, you would be punishing a man twice for the very same offence. You must remember also another very important consideration. As it sometimes happens that a man is wrongfully convicted, and that he is convicted upon false evidence obtained in a manner in which it ought not to have been obtained, the result, if this Amendment is carried, may be that, owing to a wrongful conviction, a man may be deprived of his holding.

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

A mere conviction would not be conclusive. The words I propose to insert are that the crofter should not, without the consent of his landlord, sell any intoxicating liquors. The landlord would be required to prove the illicit selling. There might be a conviction; but it would be perfectly open for the tenant to say—"I was wrongfully convicted."

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)

With all respect for my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (the Lord Advocate), I am inclined to think that the clause is better as it stands in the Bill. I think that we are creating another offence under a measure which is not primarily a penal measure, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), when he says that shebeening is sometimes not a deliberate offence. I will give the Committee an instance of a case which occurred in a Northern county within the last few weeks. During the recent snow-storm, the factor of a noble Friend of mine in the North was benighted. I trust that I am stating the facts correctly—at any rate, I am repeating them as they were repeated to me. The gentleman to whom I refer was benighted and overtaken by the snow-storm, and he sought refuge in the house of a poor widow. He obtained refreshments there, and afterwards the widow, who had not the slightest intention of being guilty of shebeening, was convicted of that offence and fined. I am not saying a word in favour or in defence of shebeening; I look upon it as a very serious offence; but what I say is this—that the contention of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House is quite correct—that the offence is sufficiently dealt with and guarded against by the existing law. I would, therefore, submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be better to leave the clause as it stands in the Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I should like to understand from the Government how this clause ever came to be heard of at all? It is copied from the Irish Land Bill; but it was not in the original Bill when it was first introduced, and I would advise hon. Members to turn to the pages of Hansard which gives the debate that occurred on the 23rd of June, 1881. There, I think, they will find an explanation. When the Bill was under discussion, the present Tory Member for West Down (Lord Arthur Hill) moved this clause— (6.) The tenant shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or undertake any trade or business of a dangerous or obnoxious character."—(3 Hansard, [262] 1190.) How was that dealt with by the Government? Mr. Law, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then Attorney General for Ireland, said— The Government could not accept the proposed Amendment; but, on the other hand, it was really a proposal that had, he submitted, already been disposed of the other night on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin). The answer which was given then must, he submitted, be the answer now, that the subject was one to be dealt with by the Justices at the Licensing Sessions, who were not usually anxious to open more public-houses than there was any necessity for."—(Ibid.) ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but what happened? As usual on these questions, at that time, the Government had been kept for the whole night by the obstruction of the Tory Party, and an Amendment had been suggested to the effect that the tenant should not be allowed to put up any building or carry out any improvement to the annoyance of his landlord. The Government were on the point of accepting it, and had suggested the substitution of certain words; but, in the meantime, the obstruction was continued, and the Government, I am sorry to say, found themselves compelled at last to yield. This is what happened. Mr. Gladstone said— He thought it very unlikely that the licensing authorities would make any misuse of their powers; but he admitted that there was great force in the observation that what the Bill proposed to do was to protect agricultural tenants in the prosecution of agricultural pursuits, and looking at the rigid nature of the statutory leases, he thought it might be right to introduce some provision of this kind. The Government could not, however, agree to the Amendment exactly as it stood. They could not agree to the words 'dangerous or obnoxious character.'"—(Ibid. 1193.) That Amendment was thus successfully carried by the noble Lord the present Member for West Down, and it was the result of the most persistent obstruction ever known. I remember the night very well, and I know that we moved to report Progress, and that the discussion was kept up for hours. As I before observed, Mr. Law was then Attorney General for Ireland, and he refused with scorn to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, being desirous of saving time and out of pure weariness, ultimately found himself obliged to accept it. I may now tell the Scotch Members that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, they would never have had the clause at all if it had not been for what occurred on the night I refer to.

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

I am not disposed to enter into the reminiscences of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) as to how far the Tory Party were guilty of obstruction four years ago. It is certainly somewhat amusing to hear the virtuous indignation expressed by the hon. Gentleman at anything in the nature of obstruction. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: I return the compliment.] With regard to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and opposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I scarcely think that my hon. Friend really apprehends the exact state of the case. What is it that the Bill proposes? It proposes to give a privilege to the smaller tenants in the Highlands which they never had before. It exacts that no landlord shall henceforth be able to enjoy the power which every landlord has enjoyed up to this time—namely, that of being able to terminate the occupation of any one of his tenants. I am not now arguing whether that is proper or not; but what are you doing now? You are not only compelling the landlord to keep the tenant, but to keep him even if he has been guilty of an offence and has broken the law. You are compelling the landlord not only to keep the tenant who obeys the law, but to keep the tenant also who breaks the the law. That appears to me to be a restriction on the authority of the landlord which is not called for, either in the interest of the public or of the crofters themselves. I am certainly surprised at the course pursued by some hon. Members opposite, who have hitherto been in the habit of voting for the most arbitrary restrictions wherever the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned. Many of them have advocated the most extreme Temperance doctrines; but they have taken a different course upon this question, because they think it would leave the landlord some shred of the power which he formerly possessed. They, therefore, turn round and say that, whether the tenant commits an offence or not, he should be able to exercise this right without the consent of his landlord. I maintain that this Amendment is an attempt to guard the morals of the community; and in their interests, and in their interests alone, I trust the Committee will support it.

MR. WHITBREAD (Bedford)

Before the Committee come to a decision, I should like to say a word in order to explain why I hope the Government will not press this Amendment. In spite of the great authority of my right hon. and learned Friend who sits below me (the Lord Advocate), I have had a large experience in the management of Highland estates, and I very much doubt whether this proposal, if adopted, would work for the benefit of the morality of the district. I have always myself had a very great doubt as to the policy of the course which is followed by some proprietors in turning the tenant out of his holding the moment they find anything wrong is being done. I think it would be far better for the morality of the district if the landlords would endeavour to deal with these offences by the simple process of the law, and not by turning the tenant off the estate. I would submit, further, that the offence is one which, in this instance, would scarcely justify the landlord in taking such an extreme measure. I am disposed to think—although, no doubt, shebeening is a very bad thing in the Highlands—that the advantage to morality which is to be got by evicting a crofter who is guilty of the offence, is far more than counterbalanced by the hostile feeling which would be evoked throughout the district, and the sympathy which would be meted out to the person who was found guilty of the offence. Looking at all these considerations, I am very much disposed to think that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would, in the long run, do more harm than good.

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

I have never had a desire to press any matter of this sort against any considerable body of opinion in the Committee, and I only placed the Amendment upon the Paper, because it was pointed out to me that there would be a defect, resulting in mischief in the locality, unless it were inserted. But after the opinions which have been expressed, and especially after what my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has said, seeing that there is a considerable difference of opinion on the matter, I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

, in moving the rejection of the clause, said: If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) to limit the operation of the clause to those tenants whose rents amounted to £4 per annum had been carried, I should not have considered it necessary to trouble the House with any observations; but since, in my opinion, without that limitation, fixity of tenure is a privilege which is no boon whatever, I think I am justified now in raising the general question of principle. The objection to giving fixity of tenure to the smaller class of agricultural tenants is the danger that it may tend to settle them on holdings which are really too small to maintain them in anything like comfort. I do not believe that any proprietor in the Highlands is desirous, whatever may be said by hon. Members on the other side of the House, of reducing the number of people in his district below the number it is capable of supporting; but we are bound to face the facts; and the facts are these—that in certain districts of the Highlands no amount of legerdemain in legislation, no schemes for the redistribution of land, however ingenious, will make it possible for such a district to maintain in comfort the number of people that are now upon the land. It is these districts which I should have liked to see this Bill specially deal with. I am sorry to say that I can see very small signs of an attempt to grapple with the real difficulty. The only clauses in the Bill likely to be really operative in reducing the distress and destitution in these districts are the clauses with regard to compensation, and the clauses last introduced into the Bill with regard to the fisheries. Those clauses may, I think, have some operation in reducing the indigence and poverty of the congested districts; but I do not think that the clause which is now before the Committee can possibly have that effect. On the contrary, my impression is that it will actually perpetuate the existing evils by laying down a principle that whoever is settted on the land, no matter how small his holding may be, shall have an absolute right to remain where he is to the detriment of the community generally. The line taken by the Commissioners on this question was very different from the line taken by the Government in their Bill. The Commissioners did not propose to confer fixity of tenure upon the smaller tenants. Indeed, they even went further; for in the case of the small tenants they declined to give any kind of security whatever, not from any want of sympathy with that class, but because of the paramount importance, in their opinion, of consolidating the smaller holdings. To the larger tenants they proposed to give not, indeed, fixity of tenure, but a certain measure of security—that is to say, they proposed to give them improving leases for 30 years. My own opinion is that the scheme of the Commissioners was very much better than the scheme put forward by the Government; and I should like to know what is the reason why in drawing up the Bill, which is professedly founded on the Report of the Royal Commission, they have in this matter deliberately set aside both the warning and the recommendation of the Commissioners, and introduced an entirely different scheme of their own? It cannot be because the right hon. and learned Gentleman who drew up the Bill admits anything like a historical right of the crofter to have fixity of tenure—I mean that kind of right which, overrides considerations of expediency; because I believe, if the question were fairly looked into, it would be found that in past times the crofters had no such absolute right. Nor, again, can it be because evictions are common. Everybody admits that at the beginning of the century evictions took place which were greatly to be deplored; but during the last 50 years evictions have become exceedingly rare—so rare that I think nobody will seriously contend that the number of evictions which have taken place during that period have had any appreciable effect upon the history of the Highlands. The only reason I can see is the assumption that if you do not give these small tenants fixity of tenure you will practically deprive them of all the advantages offered by the Bill? Now, it appears to me that to state that argument in that form is really to beg the question. The real question is—are you conferring any advantage upon the small tenant by giving him fixity of tenure? Would it be of any benefit to him to settle him on a holding much too small for his requirements? It appears to me that it would be of no possible benefit to him, but that it would be merely making him a present of perpetual destitution. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) I hold to be, from what he said the other day, of the same opinion as myself; because he told us that he still adhered to the £4 limit he had endeavoured to have assigned in the Report of the Royal Commission—that is to say, that if the Government had adopted the scheme of the Royal Commission, instead of their own, the hon. Member would then have considered a £4 limit desirable. As a Member of the Royal Commission the hon. Member for Inverness-shire advocated the system of improving leases for tenants above the £4 limit, the leases to last for 30 years; below that limit he was not in favour of giving any kind of security of tenure. Then, if, in his opinion, it is not desirable to give small tenants fixity of tenure for even 30 years, how can it be desirable to give them fixity of tenure for ever? I doubt whether the proposal of the Government will be of advantage even to the larger crofters. By giving them fixity of tenure you will remove all the flexibility that exists in the present system; and, instead of that kindness and good feeling which now subsists between the landlord and tenant, you will substitute a state of things which will place the tenant in a much harder and more disadvantageous position than he would occupy under the scheme of the Royal Commission. One incidental advantage I am prepared to admit as a result of fixity of tenure. We are all agreed that the amount of land at present held by the crofting population ought not to be reduced, except in the interest of the people themselves. Undoubtedly, fixity of tenure would secure that any land now held by the crofters should continue to be held by them. But this advantage might be obtained in another way. The Royal Commission proposed to provide, in the case of township lands, that the area of the township shall not be reduced. I should be prepared to extend those conditions, and to place all land from which crofters shall have been hereafter evicted under the control of the Land Commissioners, in order, in that way, to guard against any danger of the crofter being removed by the landlord for his own purposes. That is, I think, the only practical advantage to be derived from any system of fixity of tenure; and I am satisfied that the proposal which I have just mentioned, to place any land from which crofters have been evicted under the control of the Land Court, would be much better for the purpose than the scheme of the Government. I have argued the question from the point of view of what I consider to be of benefit to the crofters; but there is this further argument—namely, that it is desirable, if possible, to obtain the advantages which we desire to confer upon the crofters with the least amount of infringement of the rights of the proprietors. The principle now sought to be introduced for the first time into Scotland is one which has already been established in Ireland; but it is clearly undesirable to extend, without pressing necessity, a principle which was admitted to be exceptional in its application. We know that there are many hon. Members who entertain the confident expectation that the system will not only be extended to the Highlands of Scotland, but all over that country, and, perhaps, to England as well. We ought to be careful not to make that extension easier. It is not, however, upon that ground that I argue this question, but upon the ground that I do not believe fixity of tenure would be good in the interests of the crofters themselves. I cannot, of course, expect that the Government will accept an Amendment which strikes at the root of the fundamental principle of the Bill; and as I feel it is exceedingly important that some legislative measure or other should be passed, and placed on the Statute Book, I do not propose to press my Amendment. I have only put it on the Paper by way of protest; but I would express a hope that the Government will realize how very inadequately their Bill deals with the case of the congested districts, and that they will be prepared to accept, or themselves introduce, Amendments in the Bill more calculated to remedy the distressing state of things than their present proposal of fixity of tenure.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out Clause 1.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I have no wish to answer the statement of the hon. Member who has just sat down; but I do not think the matter should be allowed to pass without some notice being taken of the remarks of the hon. Member in regard to the question of eviction. If the hon. Member will refer to page 77 of the Appendix of the Report of the Commissioners, he will find a statement there that notices of removal—which is the nearest information we can get on the subject of evictions—between 1840 and 1883 were given and decrees of removing were got out against 6,960 heads of families. If we multiply that by five, we shall find that during the period referred to the number of persons affected by these decrees of removal amounted to 34,800, so that within 43 years decrees of removal have been had against twice the whole population of the Island of Skye. It therefore surprises me how hon. Members who have looked at the Report can possibly overlook such facts as those, and come down and tell us there have been no evictions in the Highlands to complain of. The hon. Member has also stated that these districts have not been overrun. Then I wish to know what the people are suffering from? They are suffering from poverty, in consequence of the landlords exacting more rent than the people are able to bear, or the land is worth.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Allow me to explain. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to page 16 of the Report of the Royal Commission, he will find that the Commissioners state the evictions have done their work, and have now passed away for ever.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I would refer the hon. Member to the abstract which I have road from the Sheriff Court Records, which I certainly prefer to the statements of the Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Provision for resumption by landlord).

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

I wish to move, in page 2, line 43, after "harbours," to insert "piers," so that the Land Commission may, on the application of the landlord, enable him to resume the holding for the construction of piers, in addition to the other purposes specified in the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the word "harbours," insert the word "piers."—(Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald.)

Question, "That the word 'piers' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Removal of crofter for breach of conditions. 46 & 47 Vic. c. 62).

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

The first part of the clause reads as follows:— When one year's rent of the holding, but less than two years' rent, is due and unpaid, the crofter shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by section twenty-seven of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883. My opinion is that the time given there is much too short, and that it gives the landlord power to remove the tenant much too soon. Where there are hanging gales there has always been a certain amount of rent allowed to remain unpaid even when due; and in that case, according to this section, the landlord would have the power to evict a tenant from the holding, even if he were only six months in arrear. I maintain that the failure to pay one year's rent is too little to entitle the landlord to remove the tenant, and that it should be two years. Two years would give a poor tenant a much better chance, because we know that in bad seasons, although with every wish to pay, in consequence of bad crops and a thousand other causes, the tenant, however willing he may be, may be unable to pay the rent in 12 months. Yet if he is more than 12 months in arrear he may lose his hold for ever over the holding. I think this would be most unfair to the tenant. We must look at all the necessities of the crofter, all the poverty from which he suffers, and we ought to give him a reasonable time to enable him to pay his rent. I have another Amendment later on to propose in the second paragraph of this clause; but it is not necessary that I should refer to it now. What I would submit is, that in this part of the clause, instead of being one year's rent in arrear, it should be two. I would not ask the Committee to insert anything in the Bill which could possibly injure the landlord; but it would be no disadvantage to the landlord to let the rent run for two years, for the tenant could then be evicted, and there would be plenty left on his holding with which the landlord could recoup himself for the two years' rent. If the tenant is allowed only one year, it might result in oppressive measures being sometimes taken, especially if the tenant might have made himself disagreeable to the landlord or anyone else.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, leave out the word "one," and insert the word "two."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

I think it is, perhaps, desirable that the clause, as it stands, should be better understood by the Committee before they proceed further to deal with the Amendment. The proposal of the hon. Member is to substitute "two" years for "one." Now, if the word "two" is substituted for "one," the effect undoubtedly will be to disable the landlord from taking any step whatever against his tenant; he will have no power whatsoever over the property, and he will have no remedy to gain possession of his land. It must be apparent to the Committee that that is a proposal of a somewhat extreme character.

DR. R. MCDONALD

He will simply be prevented from evicting the tenant.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

If the Committee substitute "two" for "one," the effect will be that the landlord would have no power to regain possession of the land. His hands would be absolutely tied, so that he could take no step whatever until two full years elapsed, during which no rent payment was made at all. I think the Committee will see that the clause, as it stands, is not a severe clause on the crofter. In the first place, the landlord can do nothing in the way of removing the tenant for non-payment of rent until a full year has elapsed. In that respect the clause will put the crofters in a much more favourable position than that of any ordinary agricultural tenant in Scotland; because, by the existing law, if the tenant falls six months in arrear, the landlord can take steps to initiate proceedings with the object of removing the tenant at the end of a year. But, under the clause as it stands, I should like the Committee to understand the exact position if the crofter at the end of the year is unable to pay his rent. I will assume that the rent he is paying is a fair rent, and that it has been fixed under the Act. The tenant has, therefore, no ground for retaining the rent because it is exorbitant. After a year elapsed what will happen will be this. If the rent is not paid the crofter must either pay it, or he will, under the clause, be entitled to go to the landlord and say—"I am not able to pay now; but I will give security for the past year's rent and for this next year's rent." If the crofter does that, then the hands of the landlord are tied until the expiration of the second year. Keeping these points in view, the Committee, I think, will not approve of any step being taken to give a right to any- one to occupy the land of the landlord without paying any rent at all. I believe that the crofters themselves do not wish to occupy the land on any other condition than the payment of a fair rent. Suppose a crofter had not paid a year's rent, and he cannot find security, what good, or what possible justice would there be in giving him another year's possession, which, under the circumstances, would necessarily imply that he would not be able to pay the second year's rent? But at the end of the year, if he can offer security, he will be entitled to remain, and cannot be removed. This is a somewhat technical clause; but I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that the arrangement is one which will work very favourably to the crofter; that he will get six months' longer credit than any other agricultural tenant in Scotland; and the only effect of adopting the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would be that the crofter would be able to retain possession for two years without paying rent, and with no prospect of paying it.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I certainly think there is a good deal of danger in the use of the expression "arrears." I have no wish to delay the clause; but I think that at an earlier stage of the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said that the very important question of the existing arrears would have to be dealt with somewhere. I do not see any Amendment on the Paper by which it is proposed to deal with it; and I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether he proposes to deal with it in this clause, or at some subsequent stage of the Bill in some other clause?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

The arrears to which my hon. Friend refers are arrears which have accrued before the Act would come into operation. My right hon. and learned Friend had in view arrears of another character, which will have to be dealt with, and in regard to which an Amendment has been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for East Fifeshire (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). This clause merely deals with rent which will become past due after the Act comes into operation.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I should like the Committee to under- stand what the real advantage is which this clause offers to the crofters. According to the Agricultural Holdings Act which was passed three years ago the tenant in Scotland gets no grace whatever. When the six months have expired, on that day the rent becomes payable, and if it is not paid the landlord can take proceedings of ejectment against the tenant. The tenant can only retain possession of the holding by giving security for the past due rent and also for the coming rent. The crofter is now to have that credit of six months refused, and the landlord will be able to take action of removal, as the crofters' rents are to be made payable yearly, immediately at the end of the year if the rent is not paid, even on the day on which it becomes due. The very next day the landlord can call him before the Sheriff and eject him, unless he is able to give security, not only for the past due rent, but for a year's rent to come. I think it only fair, therefore, that the crofters should have at least 12 months' credit. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Hear, hear!] But you do not give him six months' credit.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Yes; we do.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I am not at all clear about that. According to the Bill, the tenant is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and supposing that a tenant fails to pay his rent for six months the rent then becomes due, and the landlord, according to this clause, can come in and take steps either to remove the tenant or to require him to find security. I quite understand that the tenant is to have the use of the holding for 12 months. He is then to be called upon to pay, and if he is found to be in arrear his landlord can take proceedings against him. If the rent is payable half-yearly, the tenant may be said to get credit for the first six months; but if it is only payable yearly, then the crofter will receive no credit at all. I would suggest that instead of 12 months the period fixed should be a year and a-half, and in that case the crofter would only get six months' credit.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

This is a somewhat technical matter, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Bar- clay) is not quite familiar with the details of it, as they are very difficult to understand. But I think that the result which my hon. Friend contemplates is effected by the clause as it stands. The clause provides that the removal of the crofter is to be effected in the manner provided by Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883. Now, what the Agricultural Holdings Act does is this—if more than six months' rent is past due, it enables the landlord to proceed for the removal of the tenant; but it is necessary that he should apply to the Court, so that if the tenant owes six months' rent and does not pay, it is competent for the landlord, say, at the end of the month of May, to take proceedings for his removal; but the removal cannot take place until the Martinmas Term, so that, in reality, before the tenant can be removed, a year's rent will be due. Suppose the crofter enters and a year has expired, and a year's rent is due, it is then competent for the landlord to get a degree of removal for the next term, say at Martinmas; but that would be 18 months after the tenant's entry; or, in other words, he would have the benefit of 18 months' credit. I think that meets the very case my hon. Friend has suggested, and it shows that we have really adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend, which he suggests as a proper method of dealing with the question.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I think the case is exactly as I stated it. A tenant for 12 months cannot be ejected until the Martinmas following; but you can eject him then, and if he is not able to provide security for the past due rent he forfeits the fixity of tenure you profess to give him in his holding. The question, after all, is that the landlord can take proceedings for the removal of the tenant whenever six months' rent is past due. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: No.] I adhere to what I said. The tenant enters at Whitsuntide, and he remains until the following Whitsuntide, which makes 12 months' rent due; but he can be ejected at Martinmas following, so that, in reality, he gets six months' credit. And it must not be forgotten that the landlord has the security of the crop upon the ground for the due payment of the rent. My own opinion is that the crofter should have 18 months instead of 12 months, and the landlord would then only be giving him six months' credit after the first 12 months' rent became due.

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

The clause, as it stands, certainly confers a very substantial advantage upon the crofter. Read in conjunction with the rent, it has additional advantages. In the first place, if it stood alone, it would defer the possibility of an eviction as has been explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland; but, in the second place, it is made to apply not to the rack-rent or to a rent under contract, but to the rent which the tenant can have settled at his own pleasure, by applying to the Land Commission. I think it is important the Committee should observe that this section does not apply to the question of arrears at all, because the word rent in the 3rd section is interpreted by Clause 4, and Clause 4 provides that— The rent payable, as one of the statutory conditions, shall be the present rent, that is to say, the yearly rent, including money, and any prestations other than money, payable for the year current at the passing of the Act unless and until the present rent is altered in manner provided by the Act. The rent, accordingly, is the existing rent, as long the crofter does not choose to go to the Land Court. Therefore, the immunity incurred by the crofter is a double one—namely, that of having the period for the payment of his rent postponed, and that he can have the rent itself settled by the Court.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

In order to make the matter clear, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland to add the words "accruing due" after the word "holding" in line 10 of the clause. The clause ought to read— When one year's rent of the holding, accruing due after the passing of this Act, but less than two years' rent is due and unpaid, the crofter shall be liable to be removed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

I do not think there is any ambiguity about the matter. Being in arrear means the rent past due, and the meaning of the term rent is settled by a succeeding clause. I do not think there can be any ambiguity whatever about the clause as it stands.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I have no desire to press the Amendment; but am quite ready to withdraw it in favour of one which will come on later, and which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I have now to move to amend the clause by striking out all the proposed provisions for the manner of removal in order to insert the following words:— To provide that the tenant should be removed summarily unless, on demand, he either tenders payment of, or finds security for, the arrears of rent. But, provided that such removal shall in no way affect the outgoing or compensation for improvements to which in law or practice he otherwise could lay claim. The system of eviction which prevails in Scotland is based on a very old Act—the Act of Sederunt of 1756. Now, it is important to bear in mind that this is not an Act of the British Parliament, but an Act passed in Session by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland; and the Lord Advocate, I maintain, must know that it is highly unconstitutional, and unfit to be adopted as the basis of any legislation in the year 1886. Moreover, this Act recites that it was passed in the interests of agriculture, and the Judges sheltered the operation of the Act under the pretended plea of a benefit to agriculture; but it came out after that the Judges were afraid the landlords would not get their rent, and enacted that when one year's rent was due and unpaid the Judge Ordinary could call on the tenant to find security, not only for the arrears of rent, but for five years' rent in addition, and if the tenant failed to do so he could be removed without compensation. When two years' rent was unpaid, no amount of tender of payment or of security could stay eviction, and the tenant could be summarily evicted. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, however, reduced the term; but it only gives the tenant the benefit of compensation, without any security against removal. I would ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate what principle of justice there is in asking anyone to find security for a payment which has never become due, because the proposal contained in this clause is not only that he should give security for the payment of arrears, but for one year's rent in addition. Upon what principle of justice is the tenant to give any such security? I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show that there is such a penal enactment against any class of the community. This Bill allows eviction when one year's rent remains unpaid, unless the tenant finds security for it and for another year's rent in addition; and if there are two years' rent on the holding due and unpaid, then the tenant can he evicted. Further, if he cannot find the security, then he will lose all the outgoings and compensation which are due to him. You say that— He is liable to be removed in the manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six; and that Act of Sederunt decidedly deprives a tenant, who is removed under these circumstances, of all the advantages of compensation. I think it is quite evident that if there is any intention to do justice to the crofters, they should not be required to give security for rent which is not already due; and it is on that ground that I propose the Amendment, and call on all those who have any feeling of justice for the crofters to support it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "but less than two years' rent."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)

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

THE SOLTCITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

It is only right, in the first place, that I should correct a misapprehension under which my hon. Friend is labouring—namely, that the effect of the clause, as it stands, would be to remove the tenant at the end of two years, if he has not paid his rent, without giving him the benefit of his improvements. My hon. Friend has overlooked the provisions of Clause 8, which expressly provide that when the crofter renounces his tenancy, or is removed from his holding, he should be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements. Undoubtedly, the Bill provides that he shall only be removed on getting all the compensation which is due to an outgoing tenant, just the same as if he renounced his tenancy and were going away of his own accord. My hon. Friend says it is a great anomaly that a person who owes to his landlord a certain sum of money should be required to find security, not only for what is past due, but for something which is to become due. But my hon. Friend has not observed anything in the Bill which requires the crofter to do that. The clause simply gives a privilege which is to apply in the case of a man who owes an arrear of rent, and says that he is unable to pay it. If he cannot pay it, of course the alternative is either that he must hold the landlord's land without paying rent for it, or he must do something to find reasonable security that he will not only pay what is past due, but that he will pay in the future. Instead of suffering the penalty of being evicted for nonpayment of rent, he is offered the alternative of finding security for the past year and for the ensuing year. He is then entitled to say to his landlord—"I cannot pay the rent past due; but I have a statutory right to remain on the holding for another year." It is impossible to think that that can be otherwise than beneficial and highly favourable to the interests of the crofters. My hon. Friend has entered into a historical question in regard to the Act of Sederunt of 1756. I do not think that we should advance very much the consideration of the Bill by going into the historical question which my hon. Friend has raised. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it was rather a high-handed proceeding on the part of the Court of Session at the time it was passed; but its provisions have been recognized as being so beneficial in the way of clearing up the state of the law at the time as regarded mere procedure, that they have, by universal consent, accorded the same authority as if passed by public Statute. I hope that the consideration of the clause will not be complicated by entering into the question in regard to which I know that many of my friends in Scotland entertain strong opinions.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I cannot altogether follow the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox, Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch). He proposes to substitute for the period of arrears which shall render a crofter liable to be removed two years instead of one; but I see that the last paragraph of the clause provides that— When two years' rent of the holding is due and unpaid, or when the crofter has broken any of the other statutory conditions, he shall forfeit his tenancy, and shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six. Now, if hon. Members will take the 8th clause of the Bill, they will find a provision that when a crofter renounces his tenancy, or is removed from his holding, he shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements, provided that the improvements are suitable to the holding; and even in this 3rd clause the clearest possible distinction is drawn between the term "removal" and the term "forfeit." If the term "forfeit" means anything, it means that the tenant is to be bundled out. If only one year's rent is due, he is only liable to be removed; but the last part of the clause distinctly declares that if he is two years' rent in arrear he is to forfeit his holding. Now, in the Irish Land Act of 1881 provision was made that the tenant should be compensated for improvements on his removal, no matter what the circumstances were which led to the removal; and I do not see why there should not be a similar provision here.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

In reply to the objection which has been raised by the hon. Member, I may say that no landlord will have the power of displacing a tenant without first giving a formal notice of removal; and Clause 8 makes it perfectly clear that he will be compensated in case of removal for any permanent improvements he may have effected.

MR. CHANCE

In regard to the question now before the Committee—namely, the desirability of substituting two years for one, I admit at once that if there are arrears of less than two years the tenant would get the benefit of compensation for permanent improvements; but what I fear is that as the Bill is now worded, if two years' rent are due and unpaid, the crofter in arrear might be compelled to forfeit the holding. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Read line 16.]— Shall forfeit his tenancy, and shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six. But, in the event of the forfeiture of his tenancy, I think it is as clear as daylight that he would not get the benefit of his improvements.

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

As this is a question of construction, I think it is right that I should, as a lawyer, affirm the reading of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—namely, that what is to be forfeited under this clause is the tenancy, and that what is not to be forfeited is the compensation. The penalty under this clause of non-payment of rent is the forfeiture of the tenancy or the liability to be removed; and if a man is removed by Clause 8 he gets compensation.

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

What is the meaning of the reference in the clause to the Act of Sederunt of 1756, under which both outgoings and compensation are forfeited?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

What that Act does is merely to prescribe the manner in which the process of removal is to be carried out. The Act of Sederunt substituted for a much more elaborate and technical proceeding before the Supreme Court a simple process of removal before a Judge Ordinary. The reference to the old Act simply supplies the machinery which is laid down there, instead of instituting another process. I think the hon. Member would be conferring a left-handed benefit on the crofters if he were to strike out the reference to the Act of Sederunt.

MR. M'CULLOCH

I am satisfied with the explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The Amendment which I rise to move is not proposed for the purpose of enabling a crofter who cannot pay his rent to remain in his holding, but to meet the case of a crofter who is unable to pay owing to innocent misfortune. We ask that the question shall come before the Court, and that by the consent of the Court only the crofter shall be removed, and that the matter shall not be left in the hands of the landlord or his factor. We prefer that no eviction shall take place, except by consent of the Court, and that the Court which considers the case should be a Court of Equity.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after "crofter," insert "by consent of the Court."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

It is quite impossible that we can assent to the introduction of these words, which we believe would be not only mischievous, but productive of no benefit at all to the crofter. There never can be any case of removal which does not involve an application to the Court; because, under all circumstances, the person sought to be removed would have the right of applying to the Court. If the crofter is put in his position at a fair rent, it is not right surely to say that the landlord, without the consent of the Court, should not have the right to recover possession of his land, the crofter not being able to pay the rent or give security.

Question put, and negatived.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I propose not to move the Amendment with regard to arrears which stands in my name, because I understand that some arrangement will be made with regard to arrears by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will explain what the arrangement is.

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

There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member to Clause 6, which, with, perhaps, some necessary modification, will in substance be adopted, subject to the decision of the Committee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Present rent).

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I ask, by the Amendment I propose to move, that the words "including money and any prestations other than money" may be omitted from this clause. The object of the Amendment is to prevent there being any personal service, prestations, or the like, included in the rent payable as one of the statutory conditions. It is a very hard thing for a crofter who wants to work his own croft to have to work on the farm of a large tacksman, and render other feudal duties; and my wish is to prevent his having to do anything but pay the rent.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from "including" to "money," in line 24, inclusive.—(Dr. Clark.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

This portion of the clause simply deals with the present rent. It merely says that the prestations on the part of the tenant shall be included in the rent payable as one of the statutory conditions. Supposing that the rent now due by a crofter is partly in respect of money and partly in respect of service, the Committee will see that in such case it would be impossible for us to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Rent altered by agreement).

MR. BAIRD (Lanark, N.W.)

I rise to move the Amendment to this clause which stands in my name, with the idea of getting the opinion of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to whether the clause would not be made clearer to the non-legal mind by inserting the words which I propose.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, after "and," to leave out to end of line 31 and insert, "no rent shall have been fixed by the Land Commission."—(Mr. Baird.)

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

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

I feel the force of the criticism suggested by this Amendment, which I am bound to say is a sound criticism. I agree that it is necessary to insert some words to show clearly that one rent is to be substituted for another; and, therefore, we propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member with the addition of some words which will make it more clear. We propose to insert after "no" the word "different," and at the end of the hon. Member's Amendment to add, "upon the application of the landlord or of the crofter;" that, we think, will make the matter perfectly clear.

Amendments proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "no" to insert the word "different," and at the end to add the words "upon application of the landlord or of the crofter."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed, to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed, to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Fixed rent).

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The next Amendment in my name is intended to prevent the rack-renting of an incoming tenant, either by the crofter or the landlord. There are two rents—the arbitration rent and the competition rent. As the clause at present stands, the incoming tenant will derive no benefit from the Bill, because he would be rack-rented.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, after "crofter," insert "or anyone about to become the tenant of a crofter's holding."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.) (Elgin,

These words seem to me to be altogether inadmissible, because they would make the Bill applicable to the crofter who entered into a new arrangement with the landlord. It is out of the question that the new crofter should, perhaps upon terms voluntarily arranged between himself and the landlord, have the power to go the next day into the Land Court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed; that, I think, would be hardly satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I wish to make it clear that the agents of the parties may be heard by the Commissioners as well as the principals. I am aware that under the Scotch law the word "parties" would embrace agents and others who represent those who are parties to the suit; but it may be supposed that the Commissioners will not all be lawyers, and it is possible, therefore, that the Court may not at all times be aware of the significance and meaning of the word "parties." I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will admit these words, which will have no other effect than to make the clause clearer than it is at present.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 36, after the word "parties," insert the words "or their duly accredited agents."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

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

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

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. These words are altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as the term "parties" is perfectly well understood to include agents.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

The Amendment I propose to move affects the definition of fair rents, and the question is one of serious importance. I regret that the expressions in the clause as it stands in the Bill are insufficient and misleading; and I propose to substitute for such definition words which I conceive will express more adequately the duty of the Land Commission in the work they will have to undertake. I desire to say, at the outset, that my argument proceeds necessarily on the assumption that this statutory body is to fix what it considers to be a proper rent for the holding. What is the fair rent that ought to be fixed? I take it that it is that rent which a solvent tenant would pay for the holding as it stands; and, accordingly, the question which has to be determined by the Land Commission is really one of valuation. They have to look at the subject, measure its worth, and fix upon that figure as the rent to be paid in future—that is, a sum which the tenant can afford to pay as rent. I ought to add to that one qualification relating to compensation for improvements, because I accede to the view that you are not to take the fair rent—the worth of the subject as it stands—without taking into account the proportion, if any, by which the value has been created by the improvements of the tenant. I am not certain that there is a difference of opinion between the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and myself on that point; but I am very anxious to hear in the sequel whether there is or not. I should like to know whether he assents to the view that, subject to the ascer- tainment of improvements made by the tenant, the problem is to find out what is the amount which a solvent tenant can afford for rent in respect of a particular holding? If that is not the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then I want to know by how much less is the rent to be fixed, or what is the ultimate deduction to be made; if that is not his view, then I say frankly that I dissent from the proposal of the Government. But I think the difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself is more as to the method of determining what is the proper rent; and I think the clause withdraws the attention of the Land Commission too much from the value of the holding to a number of extraneous and collateral circumstances. If that be the case, then I believe that the Committee will feel with me that that the clause is not fitly framed in order to the attainment of the result which we all desire. I shall point out words to which I take exception. I think it a misfortune that the Commission is directed by the words here used to consider all the "circumstances of the case, holding, and district." I must say that I assume that any valuer, apart from this Act, would necessarily take into consideration the circumstances of the holding and district; he would take into consideration not merely the quality of the soil, but those circumstances which enable a tenant to pay a particular rent—that is to say, the distance from markets, communications, &c. Those, Sir, are circumstances of the holding; but the clause says that the Commissioners are to take into account something which is apparently different from that—"the circumstances of the case;" and I want to know what those circumstances are? Is there a different set of circumstances; are the circumstances of the case different and distinct from the circumstances of the holding? The Committee will observe that the words "circumstances of the case" have a certain latitude, and are so extremely popular that they may, even in the view of a Court of Law, render legitimate an inquiry into circumstances which have little or no bearing upon the value of the holding; and that observation becomes more cogent, if I may say so, when it is considered that the Court is to consist of two laymen and one lawyer, who are to interpret and apply the sec- tion. From the latitude usually given to the words, I fear that the Commissioners might think themselves justified in considering not only the question of the value of the holding, but the ability of the tenant to occupy and pay for it; it might even be held to justify an inquiry as to whether the landlord had need of the rent, and a number of considerations which are highly illegitimate; whereas, when we are appointing a Commission to novel and unprecedented work, there ought, I think to be no words of a misleading character put into the clause intended to guide them in coming to a determination. Another point should be kept in view. This fair rent is a permanency for 15 years, and accordingly it will be completely out of the question, if justice is to be done, that attention should be paid to transient considerations. What, then, are the circumstances of the case? We observe that this rent is not to bind merely the existing tenant, but it is to bind his heirs, and that for a period of 15 years. I think the duty of the Legislature should be to give fixed instructions to the Commission from which they cannot hold aloof; and I am of opinion that the Commission should determine what is the rent at which, one year with another, the holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year. I should like to anticipate one of the answers which may be made to my proposal, and that is that the words I am taking objection to are the words of the Irish Land Act. Although that is an answer, I do not consider it a good answer; because the condition and circumstances of the tenants in the two cases of Ireland and Scotland are totally different. The rights of the Irish tenants in their holdings are of a character to which those in the case of Scotland have no analogy. My second answer to the expected argument in support of the clause is, that the working of the Irish Land Act has not been such as to satisfy any of the parties concerned; and if it be true that we should not adopt a misleading precedent, then we should not adopt the phraseology of the Irish Act. Another thing is said, and that is that we are to trust to the Land Commission. Certainly, when this measure has become the law of the land I shall be willing to do so; but, before giving the Land Commission carte blanche to con- sider all the circumstances of the case, and before withholding from them a plain direction as to what is the fair rent, I should like to know a little more about its constitution. I think we are entitled to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman something more on that subject. All we know now is, that one of the members of the Commission is to be an advocate of 10 years' standing. Well, Sir, I need hardly say that I have a great respect for advocates of 10 years' standing; but I do not find in that an absolute guarantee which would incline me to throw the reins upon the neck of a tribunal presided over even by so august a personage. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are advocates of 10 years' standing and advocates of 10 years' standing, and it is most important for us to know that means are to be taken to insure that the Commission is a strong one. I should be prepared to abstain from pressing for too sharp a definition of "fair rent" if we were abundantly satisfied as to the composition of the Land Commission. Unless the Land Commission is an especially strong one there will be, I fear, under the clause as it now stands, an inclination to wander into such considerations as what a good or bad, popular or unpopular, landlord might do for his tenants; and that, I submit, is not the duty of a Body constituted like this. The Commissioners should proceed in the performance of this duty on plain and intelligent principles. I have said that the Government might give us some assurances upon this subject; but I need hardly add that I will not press them upon a question which will necessarily arise at a later stage of the Bill. Still, I think we are fairly entitled to know something about the arrangements which will be made for the constitution of the tribunal—or, rather, administering Body—which will be intrusted with this matter.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Robertson) can, in moving an Amendment to a clause, discuss other clauses of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

It appears to me there is a relation between Clause 6 and the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

I fear, Sir, that the whole point of my argument has been missed by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark). I say that the permissibility of the words of the section is partly to be determined by the question—Who are those who are to constitute the Commission? I hope the Committee will understand that my Amendments are not proposed in any spirit of hostility to the operation of this system. On the contrary, I think the one thing to be guarded against is a roving Commission with no settled ideas, perplexing people, throwing doubts, and raising, it may be, vain expectations in the minds of one party or the other—a Commission, above all, which would not have before it its sailing directions in the shape of plain, intelligible definitions of fair rent. I am most anxious to know from the Government two things. In the first place, I want to know whether, upon principle, they dissent from the explanation of "fair rent" which I have put on the Paper; if they do, I am entitled to know wherein, and to what extent, do they differ; and, secondly, I want to know, in a sufficiently general manner, what is to be the composition of the Land Commission which is to administer this very difficult clause?

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after "parties," leave out to before "may" in line 40."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and considering all the circumstances of the case,' stand part of the Clause."

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

There can be no doubt of the importance of the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson); and it is perfectly reasonable, I think, that the discussion should now be taken, as he proposes, not only on the particular Amendment which he has moved, but also upon the one that stands further down the Paper in his name, by which he makes a suggestion of a very different character, as to what the rule for determining the rent shall be; because, no doubt, the proposal to strike out the Government's direction and the proposal to substitute the hon. and learned Gentleman's direction must be considered together. But before I deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amend- ment, let me say a word or two upon another question into which my hon. and learned Friend entered quite legitimately—namely, the question of the composition of the Land Commission. Now, I entirely agree with him that the Commission should be a thoroughly strong Commission, and a Commission which shall be so constituted as to inspire confidence in all the very numerous persons who will be interested in its administration. I, of course, am not in a position at this moment to mention the names of the persons, for a very obvious reason. I do not know whether I should be revealing a secret in saying that we are not in a position to mention the names of the persons who will constitute the Commission, because these persons have not yet been fixed upon. I need scarcely say that it will be a most difficult matter to select persons possessing the requisite qualifications. That can only be done after endeavouring to get the best information that can be obtained from all parts of Scotland as to the class of persons who would be likely to be best qualified for Commissioners, particularly for the two lay Commissioners. The selection of the Commissioners is an extremely delicate duty, no doubt; but I think the Committee will be, for the present, at all events, indisposed to delay the clause on that account—at least, we on the part of the Government are fairly entitled to discuss this clause—and, indeed, every other clause—on the assumption that the Commission will be a properly and duly constituted Commission. Having said this, and fully appreciating the great delicacy and the great importance of the duties which will be cast upon the Commission, I shall now, very shortly, deal with my hon. and learned Friend's proposal, firstly, to strike out our instruction to the Commission, and, secondly, to substitute his own instruction. He was quite right in anticipating that one answer we should make in regard to our instruction—for such it is—is that it was inserted, and, I recollect very well, inserted after much discussion, in the Irish Land Act. Here are the words—the words which my hon. and learned Friend criticized so much—"considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district." Now, the words at the end of Sub-section (1) of Clause 8 of the Irish Act are— Considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, may determine what is such fair rent. Those words were adopted after very full discussion, and for reasons which I shall not be justified in wearying the Committee by repeating now. Any hon. Gentleman who desires to see them stated in detail can do so by perusing the volumes of Hansard. I must, however, indicate why it appears to us that it is wise to introduce some such instruction. I do not say that the mere fact of such an instruction having been introduced into an Act similar or identical in purpose is conclusive; but I do say it goes a long way to justify its insertion in this Bill; because when Parliament, so very recently as five years ago, after an exceedingly full discussion, thought that this was a wise and proper instruction, some respect should be paid to this decision, unless it can be shown, either that it was a wrong instruction, or that it has broken down in its working, or that it is inappropriate, owing to some difference in the conditions of the persons affected or the subjects dealt with by the two pieces of legislation. Now, my hon. and learned Friend anticipated this observation, and he said that the circumstances of the Irish small tenants and those of the Scotch crofter tenants are different, and he referred to some differences which have already been discussed during the progress of this Bill. There has been a difference pointed out in the law of assignment, and we resisted free sale upon that and other grounds; but I am not aware that there has been any difference pointed out between the two groups of tenants, in so far as the question of fair rent is concerned. I know of no reason why an instruction which would be appropriate to those who were to determine what was fair rent for the Irish small tenants should not also be an appropriate instruction to those who have the same duty to perform in Scotland. I believe there is a great deal of similarity in many respects between the Irish small tenants and the Scotch crofters. There is a very vast difference between the condition of the Irish small tenant and what I may call the normal tenant of Scotland, who holds under perfectly free contract, and under social and economic conditions altogether different from those which obtain in the Highlands. But there is, to begin with, a similarity of race between the crofters in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland and the Irish; a great deal of similarity in the conditions by which they are surrounded; their habits of life are similar; their poverty is similar; their pursuits are very similar; and their climate is very similar. In short, there is a great deal of similarity between the conditions that surround the two peoples; if it had not been for the great similarity in these respects I am not sure that we should have proposed this Bill. We do not propose the Bill for Scotland generally; because we think there are certain conditions existing in the Highlands which make it right and proper there, although it would not be right and proper elsewhere, and these conditions are very analogous and similar to those existing amongst the small tenants of Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend asks, and quite rightly, why should we give this instruction? Well, in regard to that I have to say, in the first place, that if you sent persons about with a roving Commission to fix fair rents, and gave them no kind of hint as to what they were to do, they might be all at large—all at sea; they might think they should fix rents upon some general principle without regard to the particular circumstances. One man might say that he thought the rent of the whole county or parish should be 30s. an acre. They might have general views of that kind; and, therefore, it is appropriate now, as it was in 1881, to direct the Commission not to do things en bloc, but to have regard to the circumstances surrounding the particular case which they had in hand. And so the Commission is told to have regard to the "circumstances of the case, holding, and district." Well, my hon. and learned Friend gave instances which he thought might fall under the circumstances of the case; but I do not think that any valuer would include them in that category. My hon. and learned Friend gave, as the first instance, the personal inability of the particular tenant to pay, and the necessity, the wealth, or the poverty of the landlord. These are certainly not circumstances which appear to me as right to take into consideration. But, suppose a given rent was proposed to be fixed for a holding, and that the tenant said it was too high, and proved that the three tenants who had been sitting before him at that rent had become bankrupt. There is a circumstance of the case. If experience proved that the rent could not be paid, I say it would be a very pertinent consideration. Of course, if there had been any improvidence on the part of the former tenants that would also be considered. Well, then, suppose one holding was near a steamboat quay and another 10 miles inland. The Commissioners would consider how the holdings were situated, their distance from market, their facilities for bringing materials to and from, and all the other things which make one holding more valuable than another. Then there are the circumstances of the district. There are districts and districts. The climate forms one important element in the consideration and the means of communication another. In short, the object of such an instruction as we propose is practically to indicate to the Commissioners that they shall specialize their investigations, so that they shall do justice upon a review of the circumstances affecting the particular place. Well, then, it is quite true that we have added something which I did not understand my hon. and learned Friend to object to; because there is something very like it in his own alternative Amendment. It will be seen that we use the word "particularly." We say— And particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor in the same family. Now, Sir, I say there is a circumstance of the case. These words are used to prevent the crofter from being rented on his own improvements. This provision is to lead to such things as this being considered—Suppose that the holding as it stands is worth a particular figure—say, £6 a-year—it would then be legitimate for the crofter to say—"That is all very well; that croft is worth £6 as it now stands; but it would only be worth £3 if it were not for the improvements that I and my predecessors in my family have made." There is a circumstance of the case, and I apprehend that, as to the justice of inquiring into such a circumstance, there will be no question. So I venture to submit it is right and proper that there should be instructions if you like, or, if you prefer it, hints or suggestions, which are likely to lead to a careful consideration by the Commis-missioners of the particulars affecting the holding they have to value, and that these words should stand here as they have stood in other places. Probably the propriety of this instruction may be best illustrated by taking into view the alternative instruction that my hon. and learned Friend proposes. He proposes to substitute for our instruction this— The fair rent shall be the rent at which one year with another such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year; and then his instruction goes on to refer to permanent improvements. Now, Sir, I am perfectly aware that these words are taken from an Act with which we are all familiar—namely, the Lands Valuation Act of 1854. It is quite true that that Act provides a convenient mode of defining value. For many purposes—and in particular for purposes of rating—it is convenient; but I submit to the Committee that the words the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes might not only be inconvenient words, but misleading words, as applied to the duty which the Land Commission may have to perform. One of the great evils in the Highlands—in those parts of the Highlands which will be affected by this Bill—as in Ireland, is the congestion or overcrowding of the population in particular places and the great desire to possess land. Now, if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were accepted there would be a direction to the Commissioners which I may venture to paraphrase thus—"Never mind what you think the real value is, whether the man can live or thrive upon the land, either by working it alone, or with any other labour he may get, either on shore or by fishing; if you think somebody can be got to give a certain figure, fix that as the rent." I admit that, when you are dealing with competition under normal conditions, it is probably the fairest test of value; but it does appear to me that, when dealing with an impoverished population, to fix the rent upon the basis of what might be offered, irrespective of whether the people could pay it or not, might lead to great injustice, and might result in a rent being fixed which would not be a fair rent, but an unfair rent—a rent which the tenant, with all he could get out of the land, and what he could get from fishing or some other industry, never could pay. I say that to give an instruction like that would be wrong. I will give the Committee another illustration of how it appears to me this direction of my hon. and learned Friend might work. His suggestion is that— The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year. Well, there are several competitors who compete for land in the Highlands besides the ordinary inhabitants. Suppose the tenant of a neighbouring deer forest wanted to square his marches, and said—"This forest would be worth another £1,000 a-year if I could get such and such a bit of land," he might, under the instruction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, get land wanted by the crofter; it might be said that the price offered was the price the land would reasonably fetch. Suppose a landlord wanted certain land with which to improve his sheep farm, there might be a fancy value put upon the land, a value having no relation whatever to human habitation, or occupation, or cultivation. This is no fanciful illustration. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to produce any such result as I have described; but when you use the words— The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, what is to exclude the competition of the man who wants to square his deer forest? I submit that it would not be right, for reasons which, I believe, will commend themselves to the judgment and conscience of the Committee, to give a direction which would bring in competition of the kind I have indicated. I could not help hearing the remark of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mark Stewart) to my hon. and learned Friend, to the effect that the word "reasonably" appears in the Amendment. It is true the Amendment does contain the word "reasonably;" but pray notice to what the word is attached. It is not attached to the rent, but to the expectation of getting it. It is not reasonable rent. I may say that when the Irish Land Bill was passing through the House an hon. Friend of mine mentioned a case where, upon an estate with which he was acquainted, instructions had been given to see that the rents were fair rents. On the whole, the rents were found to be fair—indeed, below the valuation; but in one or two cases they were found to be remarkably above the valuation. This was not intended, and the agent was asked to explain why it was so. He said—"Well, the tenant died; he had three sons, all of whom wanted the holding—I could do nothing else but let them compete for it, and they bid it up to nearly twice its value." Now, that is the kind of thing which might happen in the Highlands; that is competition rent; but it is not fair rent. I admit that the instruction of my hon. and learned Friend would be a very proper instruction if applied to Scotland generally, or to places where you have substantial tenants dealing in the open market; but it might be a most dangerous instruction when you are dealing with this very peculiar kind of property. I hope I have given good reasons for the retention of our own clause and the rejection of the Amendment, and I may conclude by adding that while we are in a position to point to the instruction given in the Irish Act of 1881 as similar to ours, my hon. and learned Friend is not in a position to point to any instruction given in that Act, such as he proposes. If my hon. and learned Friend's instruction was an appropriate one, why was it not given by Parliament in 1881? I do believe that one important object which Parliament had in view in fencing and guarding the wording of the clause of the Irish Act of 1881 was the prevention of what might be unreasonable and irrational competition rents being fixed—rents which no man would be able to pay and thrive. I think that it is wise to take the discussion upon my hon. and learned Friend's two Amendments at the same time, and I hope that the Committee will see its way to support the clause as it stands.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) is very objectionable, and not warranted by anything that appears in the Irish Land Act. But the clause, as it stands at present, is in my opinion, equally objectionable, although I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) every credit for his intention to guard against the tenant being taxed for his own improvements. The Irish Land Act has been often cited in the course of the debate. Although the words of that Act are clear, the landlords' contention, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," is, that in fixing fair rent you must first of all fix the value of the unimproved holding, and that then the improvements must be considered in the light of works done by a partnership to which the tenant brought labour and capital and the landlord contributed some unknown quantity which the Court of Appeal called the improvability of the soil. By that method, under words which are almost similar to those in this Bill, the tenant was taxed for his own improvements.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

I think it is well to draw attention to the fact that, in the first place, we are constituting a tribunal to consider all the circumstances of the case. Upon the face of it that is all very well; but then the particular instruction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) proposes to give to the tribunal is an instruction entirely in favour of one of the parties to the cause. When you instruct the tribunal, as you do by this clause, to take into consideration all the circumstances in favour of the tenants, you impliedly direct them to exclude any circumstances which may exist in favour of the other parties. If credit, so to speak, is to be given to the tenant for any improvements he may have made, surely, when the question of fixing a fair rent is taken into consideration, there should, per contra, be taken into consideration any value which the landlord may have given the tenant towards the improvements. Again, are you to exclude from consideration any dilapidations which may have been permitted by the tenant? If you are to give credit to the tenant for any improvements he has made on the one side, surely on the other side he ought to be debited for what he has left undone. But there is another difficulty in which you are landed by this particularization. It directs the tribunal to take into consideration what has been done by the tenant's relatives, notwithstanding that the value of such improvements may have been allowed for years before. I have looked through the Bill to see whether there is any provision in the Act that the power proposed to be given to the landlord and crofter to apply to the Land Commission is one which can be exercised from time to time, and for the particularization of what the tribunal is to consider in considering the question of rent, but I cannot discover either one or the other. I contend that we ought to instruct the tribunal what are the improvements which are to be taken into consideration, and within what period they must have been made. Now, Sir, I come to a question of principle, and, if I understand rightly, a question of principle between the two Front Benches, and that is, what is to be the criterion of value? Is the rent to be fixed by the value of the land, or not? Is the owner to have the full value of his land, or is he not? The value of a thing is the amount it will fetch in the market; but if the Government supersede competition, and close the market, they will be attempting to coerce the natural law of supply and demand, and there will be no end to such a principle. Now, Sir, I do not see a single word from beginning to end of the Bill to the effect that the owner shall have the value of his land in the shape of rent, or even the value to the crofter. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, as I understood him, said that the rent should be fixed by reference to the capacity of the crofter to pay.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I said exactly the opposite as to the individual.

MR. KIMBER

Then I must have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Cries of "Divide!"] I trespass very little upon the attention of the House, and when I do, I think hon. Members will admit that I endeavour to economize time as much as possible. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to be that the value of a croft to a rich neighbour might be more than the crofter could pay; but what a particular crofter could pay is nothing at all as to the value of the land. It ought to be the value which any good tenant who would use the land would pay; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the particular crofter who might be engaged in fishing, or other employment, and, therefore, might not be able to pay a competitive rent, or a rent which others would pay. Now, Sir, I ask again, what is to be the criterion of value, because there is nothing laid down in the Bill as to the annual value of the land. Is it to be value or not? If not value, then the sooner the Government say so, and announce to the world that they have introduced a principle of taking one man's property and giving it to another on terms which do not represent the value, the better. If, on the other hand, it is to be a value which is not to be open to unlimited competition, I shall be willing to make a concession on the point. But if we are going to interfere with the laws of supply and demand at all, it is the more necessary that we should define the limit of the market within which the value is to be ascertained.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

It appears to me that the speech to which we have just been listening would have been very appropriate if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kimber) had made it in 1881, before the Irish Land Act was passed, because it has laid down some general principles—principles which I do not for one moment admit—which have been scattered to the four winds of Heaven during the last few years. But, Sir, I have an Amendment to propose which I think will peculiarly apply to the case of the Scotch Highlands and Islands. After the word "particularly," in line 37 of this clause, I would propose to insert these words— Excluding any increased value due to any improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor. Now, I hope that is an Amendment which will be acceptable both to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate and to the hon. Member who has just spoken. That would be a direction to the Commission that they shall not charge rent on the improvements made by the tenant. We know that the complaint in Ireland has been that, notwithstanding the general instructions which were given, full charges have been made upon the tenants' improvements, and I am anxious that this shall not happen in this case. That is all that I desire—nothing but fair play between the two parties. Let the landlord have that which is his, and let the tenant have that which is his, and the more specific this declaration is, the less litigation we shall have in the future. Now, the Amendment which I have to propose will obviate this difficulty, I will not refer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who proposes to remove that limitation from the owners, and to give them carte blanche to do as they please.

MR. KIMBER

I beg your pardon; I proposed nothing of the kind.

MR. MACFARLANE

I was not speaking in regard to what the hon. Member said, but as to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor General for Scotland. (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson). I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment until the Amendment already before the Committee is disposed of.

MR. MACFARLANE

Can I not move an Amendment upon an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I will not follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into the discussion which he has introduced, and which may come on later; but I wish to say a few words upon the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend says, having in view the effect of similar legislation in Ireland, that a clause should, be inserted in this Bill for the guidance of the Land Commission in fixing the fair rent which ought to be paid. He desires that the leading principle shall be the rent for which the holding may be reasonably expected to let from year to year to a solvent tenant, putting aside the improvements made upon the holding. That being the principle, my hon. and learned Friend appealed to the Government to state distinctly whether they will accept the principle which he enunciated, or, if they will not, what is the basis upon which, in the view of the Government, fair rent ought to be fixed? The right hon. and and learned Lord Advocate, instead of giving an answer, proceeded, with more or less adroitness, to criticize the Amendment, and to point out the objections to which it might give rise. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Amendment would lead to competitive rents, and he indicated the case of the neighbouring owner of a deer forest who might be willing to pay £1,000 a-year in order to square his forest. Well, it appears to me that that is not a reasonable argument, because the Amendment merely relates to a croft as a croft, and if there is any difficulty in regard to that matter, no doubt my hon. Friend will consent to the introduction of additional words in order to make it clear. But Her Majesty's Government have given no answer to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has replied instead to some observations that have been made in regard to Ireland, and alleged that there was no reason whatever why a similar restriction as to fair rent should not be laid down for the Land Commission in Scotland as in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his reasons for stating that there is great similarity between the cases of Ireland and Scotland; but I venture to differ altogether from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for I am of opinion that there is the widest possible difference between them. The circumstances of Ireland which led to the introduction of a principle which, it was admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), could only be justified by the peculiar circumstances of the country, and which, if I remember rightly, the Prime Minister stated could not properly be introduced into England or Scotland, were that in Ireland there was a land hunger, leading to a competition which was altogether unknown in the other parts of the Kingdom. The land hunger, which was the chief feature of the peculiar condition of Ireland, produced results by which tenants were willing to give exorbitant rents for their farms. It was stated before a Royal Commission, on which I sat, that a tenant had been actually known to pay as much as 60 years' purchase, in addition to the rent for the goodwill, of a farm of which he became the occupying tenant. But would anybody pretend that anything like that exists in any part of Scotland?

MR. M. HARRIS (Galway, E.)

I do.

MR. CHAPLIN

At all events, the cry of hon. Gentleman from Ireland was that the population was overcrowded.

MR. M. HARRIS

Only in special localities.

MR. CHAPLIN

But can anyone say that anything approaching that state of things exists in any part of Scotland at the present time? What was the complaint of the hon. Gentlemen whom I will call the professional friends of the crofters? During the whole of this debate, their complaint has been that the people have been banished from the country and divorced from the soil, and what they want is to repopulate the country. But there is another great difference to the case of Ireland, and that is that in Ireland the land is the only thing the people have to look to for their living and support. There are no industries in Ireland, except in the extreme North, to which the surplus population could resort for the means of obtaining a livelihood. But everyone who has studied this question knows that in the Highlands there is a great industry, and that is the fishing industry, which all who are acquainted with the circumstances of the country acknowledge ought to be developed as the best means to which the people can look for a profitable existence in the future. Therefore, I think I have proved to the Committee that there is a great distinction between the two countries. The Committee has been told that the Irish legislation at that time was so much and so carefully discussed that we must assume it was wise, and that Parliament acted in a manner which commanded, or ought to command, our support and admiration. Now, I venture to say that the action of Parliament at that time was entirely mistaken. That was my view at the time, and everything that has happened since then has only confirmed me in that opinion. Why, the right hon. Gentleman himself, although he appeared to have believed with the wisdom of that legislation at the time, is not prepared to get up in his place and say that he thinks the Irish legislation of 1881 has been a success. If it has been a success, what is the meaning of the present difficulties and the great crisis we are in with respect to Ireland? It is not necessary for me to say anything more to show that the system of fair rents in Ireland has broken down; and it appears to me that the difficulties of this question, from past experience, are of such a great and important cha- racter, that we ought not to leave the fixing of fair rents to the vague instructions which were given in the case of Ireland, and which are given in this Bill also. But if the House of Commons is disposed, and really does intend, to make the experiment, then the least we can do is to give more definite instructions by accepting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).

MR. FINLAY&c.) (Inverness,

I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bute, the effect of which is to insert in the Bill a direction to the Land Court that they shall take as a fair rent that rent which may be fixed by what is called the higgling of the market, subject only to this consideration—that any improvement executed by the crofter or his predecessor of the same family within 20 years shall not be taken into account for the purpose of enhancing the rent. However appropriate, in other circumstances, the test of the higgling of the market may be in fixing what is a fair rent, it is inconsistent with the whole scope of this legislation that it should be adopted in the case of the Highlands, where there are what are called crofting parishes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) has, I think, felt the force of the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman admits that it is not desirable to include such elements of competition as the Lord Advocate wishes to exclude. A case has been put of a man who is prepared to give a higher price for a croft than anyone else for sporting purposes—the competition of a neighbouring proprietor who wishes to round off his deer forest by securing possession of a croft. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford says that the hon. and learned Member for Bute will be ready to introduce words into his Amendment that will exclude elements of competition of that description. I apprehend that that admission is, however, enough to condemn the Amendment. If my hon. and learned Friend tries to put into definite shape the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, he will find it difficult to exclude those elements of competition which none of us desire to see introduced in that case. I think it would be a far better plan to leave the matter, as proposed in the clause, to the Land Court, giving them a direction to take into account— All the circumstances of the case, and particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor of the same family. That would enable us to get at a result more harmonious with this scheme of legislation than we could attain by leaving the rent to be settled by a form of competition which, in the case with which we are dealing, would be mischievous.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Finlay), I may say I do not think it would be very difficult to insert words such as would secure us against such competition as he suggests. If we amended the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), by inserting, after the word "let," in the second line, the words "for agricultural purposes," the clause would read— The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its natural state be reasonably expected to let for agricultural purposes from year to year; That simple alteration, it seems to me, would exclude all dangerous competition. The only kind of dangerous competition that has been suggested is that which would arise where a landlord might want to take a croft into a deer forest, and would be prepared to pay a large sum of money for it. Competition of that kind is, no doubt, greatly to be deprecated. With the words I propose introduced, however, no such danger could possibly arise. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) will be willing to allow the introduction of those words into his Amendment.

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

I think, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down has remarked, the difficulty could be overcome by the introduction of the words he has suggested, or the objection raised by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate could be met by the insertion of words importing that the holding is only to be let as a croft, and not as a deer forest. But leaving the question whether minute verbal alterations are or are not required in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and turning to the broad question before the Committee, I am bound to say that I think the point was very unsatisfactorily argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. He began his speech, and finished it, with an appeal to the precedent of the Irish Land Act; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) appeared to think that, because the Irish Land Act contained certain words—because the wisdom of Parliament in 1881 had determined that certain words should be adopted, rather than other words—all future Parliaments are to be bound by that decision. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was a Member of the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Argyll was, I am aware; but I do not think that those of us who happened to be in that Parliament entertain such an exaggerated or exalted view of its wisdom, or, at all events, of the wisdom of its Executive, as to cause us to consider that any words it adopted are so obviously and necessarily the right words that discussion of them henceforth becomes impertinent and superfluous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, whilst appealing to the precedent of 1881, referred only in the most vague manner to the language used in the debate to support the words ultimately introduced into the Act. He did tell us that the question had been considered for a long time; but he did not tell us what were the reasons alleged by the Government of the day for preferring those words that were ultimately adopted to words similar in import to those my hon. and learned Friend beside me proposes to introduce into this Bill, and in not doing so I think he was judicious. All of us who recollect that debate remember perfectly well that though the Government of that day were absolutely determined to stick to their own form of words, they were not very strong in the reasons they adduced, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate very judiciously refrained from repeating in the course of the present debate. But leaving the precedent of the Irish Land Act which, after all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out, is no precedent in the case of Scotland at all, let us turn for one moment to the merits of the case, and consider what were the arguments of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in support of the wording of the Bill. He seemed to think that, under the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness, some rent would be exacted from the tenants on account of what we used to be familiar with in the late Irish debates as pretium affectionis. He seemed to think that there is a land hunger amongst the tenants of the Highlands and Islands, and that they would pay almost anything rather than be turned out of their holdings when one of the circumstances arose that would, if the Amendment were carried, be considered by the landlords, and induce them to fix the rent at a figure which no tenant, having regard for his interests apart from his affection for the land, would be prepared to pay. No one on this side of the House, least of all my hon. and learned Friend near me (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), has the smallest desire to exact from any tenant in the Highlands or elsewhere money which is not given on account of the value of land, but on account of the tenant's affection for the land on which he was born and the district in which he was brought up. No one wishes that, and we are not of opinion that the words of my hon. and learned Friend, interpreted by any reasonable tribunal, would have any such result. Then, if you but add to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the words "to a solvent tenant," though we do not think them necessary, being of opinion that any Law Court in Scotland would assume the hypothetical tenant to be a solvent tenant, we should be perfectly prepared to do it if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire it. After all, what is the ground on which my hon. and learned Friend moves this Amendment? If you leave the Bill in the form in which it has been introduced by Her Majesty's Government, you practically give no direction at all as to the principle on which the rent is to be determined. You leave it absolutely to the discretion of the three gentlemen whom you are going to appoint—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has very candidly told us the Government have not the slightest idea who these three gentlemen are to be. Now, you ought not, and you cannot, expect that the Court shall not only interpret the law, but declare the law. If you leave the Bill in its present shape, the Court will not only have to decide how the principles of fixing rent are to be interpreted, but they will also have to determine what those principles are. My hon. and learned Friend, I think, showed in the clearest manner that under the Bill as it at present stands there is no circumstances, however irrelevant to the true value of the holding, which concerns either the landlord or the tenant, which might not by a weak and incompetent or ill-disposed Court be taken into account when they are fixing a fair rent. We think that what the Legislature intends, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate intends, is that the fair and real commercial value should be asked for the holding; and I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will give us a straight clear answer to the question—Is it, or is it not, intended that the fair rent shall be the fair commercial rent which will be given by a solvent tenant, uninfluenced by the pretium affectionis or absurd land hunger? Is that the rent which the Government are propared to say the Court ought to adjudicate and give to the landlord? Is it that, or is it not? If it is something less than that, then we assert that the Government, under the thin disguise of justice to the tenants, are, in fact, passing a Bill which is intended to rob the landlords. ["Oh, oh!"] I say "if"—if they do something other than that. If, on the other hand, they mean that the rent to be adjudicated by the Land Court is to be a rent which a solvent tenant would give for the land uninfluenced by the pretium affectionis, what we ask is that it should be put down in black and white, in clear and unmistakable language, either in the form recommended by my hon. and learned Friend, or in some other form which may appear to the Government more advisable, that that is what they desire, and all they desire, that the Land Court should take into consideration. After all, no human being supposes that the Land Court directed by these words of my hon. and learned Friend would, for one moment, say that the fair rent of a holding was that which some millionaire owner of a deer forest might be prepared to give in order to round off his forest. No one believes that to be possible. If the words of my hon. and learned Friend are open to that construction—which I say they are not—the defect might be remedied by some verbal Amendment. But we should like to have a clear answer from the Government, whether they do or do not think that the fair rent which this Court is to adjudicate is the rent which would be given by a solvent tenant not influenced by pretium affectionis if the land was put up to competition? Let them give us a straight answer to that, and we shall know where we are.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I hope Her Majesty's Government will not be entrapped into giving an answer to a question of that kind. If we are to enter into that question, we shall be discussing it for a week, or a fortnight, or a month. We had it all out at the time of the passing of the Irish Land Act. Every possible definition was tried, and it was found impossible to settle the matter in any other way than it was settled at that time. The provision in this Bill is similar to that in the Irish Act; and I hope we shall not waste any further time on this academical discussion.

MR. RAMSAY&c.) (Falkirk,

I wish to say a word or two in consequence of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He says that this measure is in principle identical with that of the Irish Land Act.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

What I said was that this particular question is identical in the two cases.

MR. RAMSAY

That this particular question is identical in the two cases. Now, there was nothing more frequently repeated in the course of the discussion on the Irish Land Act than the assurance given by the Prime Minister of that day—that none of the provisions of the Bill then under discussion were applicable to any holding in England or Scotland. [Cries of "Divide!"] We are discussing a very important point. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to place Scotland—this limited area of Scotland—in the position of Ireland, he should not adhere to these terms. If there be ambiguities in them—and in my opinion there are, and I am accus- tomed to looking through Acts of Parliament—they should be amended. I think there is ambiguity in the expression, "all the circumstances of the case," especially as it may affect the poverty of an owner or the poverty of an occupier, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) has said—I think it may mean either the one or the other—and I say that a prejudice may arise in the minds of the Land Commissioners to favour either the one or the other. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members persist in these interruptions, I shall move to report Progress. I would do that rather than risk not giving a hearing in this Committee to men whose interests are assailed. To tell gentlemen sitting as a Land Court to determine according to "all the circumstances of the case" is to impose upon them a very vague duty, and is an expression which should not be made part of an Act of Parliament. What I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend below me (the Lord Advocate), is that the clause should be altered—without, perhaps, including all those matters that were alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin)—by striking out the words "all the circumstances of the case," and making the circumstances those of the holding and the district in which it is situated. "All the circumstances of the case" renders the whole thing vague. What are all the circumstances of the case? They may be anything that the members of the Land Court may choose to take into consideration. I would leave it thus— May determine what is the fair rent at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let at from year to year, and determine accordingly. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate should accept that suggestion, and so improve the clause without affecting the interests of either owners or occupiers. I know there are Gentleman on this side of the House who are desirous of injuring the landlords or landowners in every way they possibly can, and would try to introduce the Irish Land Laws into Scotland. I should deprecate the placing of any portion of my countrymen in such a position as Ireland occupies at the present moment. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give some consideration to the suggestion which has been made for the amendment of the clause.

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

I had to leave the Committee for a short time, and as I left it seems the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate got upon his legs. I was very much surprised on coming back to find that either he had stated what he had to state extremely briefly, or that some powerful influence behind him had prevented him from saying what he was about to say. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Divide!" but I want to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to say on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now, I think, quite alive to the fact that this is a very important question indeed, and one that ought to be considered with some calmness, and also on which we ought to have definite statements from the Front Bench opposite. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Hear, hear!] "Hear, hear!" says my right hon. and learned Friend. Now, if I recollect aright, when my right hon. and learned Friend was up before, and when I did hear what he had got to say, what he told us was that he had great objection to the use of the words "might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year," because those words might include the case of a proprietor close at hand, or someone else interested in a deer forest, who, for the purpose of settling the marches and getting his forest squared, might be anxious to take a croft. Therefore, he objected to the words of my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) as not being clearer and better than those he himself had inserted in his clause. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he considers that the words "the circumstances of the case" tend in any way to exclude such a case as he has supposed? I should imagine that if the case is to be taken on the footing of the wishes and intentions of the people and all the surroundings of the croft, the phrase "the circumstances of the case" is a good deal wider than the words of my hon. and learned Friend, because the word "case" refers to the exact moment at which the question of rent is decided; whereas, I take it that any valuator, setting himself to consider at what rate a certain subject might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, would not consider the circumstances of the exact moment only, but would consider the whole surroundings and the circumstances of the district. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that if such a case did arise—the case of a proprietor who desires to take in a croft and lands connected with it for the purpose of squaring the marches of a deer forest—any Land Commission that could sit, even though the chief of it was not merely a barrister—[An hon. MEMBER: An advocate]—I beg pardon. No doubt, I should have said "advocate;" but I am speaking in the House of Commons, and my desire is to make myself intelligible to the whole Committee. In a select circle of Scotch Members, I might have used the correct word; but, under the circumstances, as that word would rather suggest a pleader, I adopted the phrase "barrister," as being, speaking generally, better understood by all sections of Members. I say, would not any Land Commission hold that words so vague, so general, so uncertain, as "the circumstances of the case," would be much more likely to include the case I have referred to than the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman beside me? Now, Sir, no doubt the fact that these words have not been used in this Bill which are used in the Scotch Valuation Act has been well and reasonably accounted for by the circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, when they set to work to frame this Bill, naturally went to Ireland for their instructions. It was more natural for them to take words in the Irish Act than words in a Scotch Act of Parliament; but I have yet to learn from my right hon. and learned Friend, or from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, who has not yet spoken in this important debate—a debate which the Lord Advocate has himself declared to be important—what their objection is to the words used in our Scotch Statute. I have yet to learn whether either of them is able to state the historical fact that any assessor, in considering the valuation of a subject at— The rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, has ever taken into consideration such a ridiculous circumstance as someone, say, for instance, a noble Duke, wanting to absorb it for the purpose of rounding a deer forest, and being prepared to pay an absurdly high price for it. An assessor dealing with the subject deals with it on the basis of what, as a general question, it would fetch at a fair rent in the district. Assuredly the word in question were intended to express, in the most clear manner, that the assessor is to take into reasonable consideration the sum for which the subject could, in its existing state, be let from year to year. It is clear that, with the exception which is stated in this Bill, and with which we all agree—namely, the improvements which have been made by the tenant—there would be no difficulty, in dealing with crofts, in coming to what is their value from year to year exactly in the same way as the assessor deals with value under the Valuation Act. The Land Commission will have to consider what is the reasonable and fair rent as between the person owning the land and the person taking the land, not something between the crofter and somebody competing with him; and I shall be surprised if either of my hon. and learned Friends opposite would state that any Land Court could read the Act in any other way. There is one other matter I wish to refer to—namely, that which has been raised by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane). The hon. Gentleman suggested, as an Amendment, that we should add words excluding from consideration any increased value due to any improvements in the holding which might be executed by the crofter or his predecessor. I would point out that this would make no practical difference in the clause at all. My main reason for rising, however, was to ascertain from the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite whether they intend that the words used in the Scotch Valuation Act, to which there is no real objection, should be used in this Bill; and, whether, seeing that the Bill is one which deals with Scotch matters, and which will be considered by Scotch lawyers, it is not better to have words in it with which we are all acquainted?

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

I should not have risen again to speak on a subject which I have already dealt with, perhaps, at too great length, but for the circumstance that my right hon. and learned Friend went out and did not hear all my remarks.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

I did not go out during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech; I rose when he was supposed to speak but did not, and when I came back he had begun.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I still believe that if the Amendment were inserted, there would be the risk to which I have referred. It is one thing to value under a Valuation Act for the purpose of rating, everybody connected with the land whether as proprietor or tenant, being interested in low rating, and, therefore, in low valuing for rating purposes; but it is another thing when we come to the question of fixing fair rent, where all the considerations I have spoken of may make for the rent being fixed too high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked me a question as to whether a fair rent is anything different from a commercial rent, which a solvent tenant would pay, not allowing anything for pretium affectionis. I certainly think that that is not very far from a correct description of a fair rent; but it is not the language of the Amendment, and the dangers which lurk under the Amendment would not lurk in that language. I suppose that by "solvent tenant" is meant one who not only can pay, but who can pay from a business carried on on the spot, not from other resources. What is the difference between that and the fair rent which a man can live and thrive while paying?

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

May I be allowed to say that, in the course of this discussion, I have heard only two valid objections stated to my Amendment? First, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has said that the great danger and evil in this part of the country is that there is a great congestion of population; that the people cannot live and thrive upon their holdings, and that high rents will be the effect of the competition for holdings. I have the advantage of knowing that he right hon. and learned Gentleman has a large experience in valuation trials, and I ask is it not a settled rule in these proceedings that the Court rejects as evidence of value all leases and agreements which have resulted in insolvency? Accordingly, if in any district the Commission has to ascertain the value of a particular holding, and if it be proposed to hold that a particular rent is the true value, they would at once proceed to ask if that was ever offered or paid, and how the tenant got on, and if they found that the tenant was bankrupt in consequence of that rent they would reject it and turn to another valuation. But is not that the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate ignores? The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to put in a clause dealing with arrears, and these arrears have to be dealt with simply because rents are too high and people unable to pay. That is the first thing which the Land Commission, under the Amendment which I propose, would consider, and they would accordingly reject every precedent founded on rent which the tenants were unable to pay. That is one point. The other point is the somewhat fanciful and somewhat strange hypothesis which the right hon. and learned Gentleman resorted to, of some millionaire tenant of a deer forest proposing to buy up all the property in the neighbourhood. But the same process would be applied by any experienced tribunal to this instance. They would look at each croft and see what it would yield from year to year in its natural state, and that means not as part of a deer forest, but as held by a crofter. That is quite sufficient to reject the objection which my right hon. and learned Friend has put. But, apart from that, are cases of that kind so frequent and so continuous that any experienced tribunal would take them into account? On these grounds, I appeal to the good sense of the Committee. My position on the subject is this—I am not anxious to keep up rents, but I want to have them settled on intelligible principles; and I think it is the duty of Parliament, in dealing with what is an entirely novel and experimental method of ascertaining the value of land, to lay down plain and intelligible rules for the guidance of the Land Commission. I say that the clause proposed by the Government furnishes no rule; and that, on the contrary, instead of concentrating the attention of the Court on the property, it diverts its attention to all the circumstances of every human being connected with the case, and every ancillary circumstance which can be called into play, so as to distract attention. I have not heard that defence or excuse of this method being laid down instead of a plain definition which I should have expected from my right hon. and learned Friend. My object is to furnish a rule to the Commission which anyone who reads may understand, and I cannot refrain from asking the Committee to express its opinion upon it. I think it may be considered as an axiom, with regard to all administrative bodies, that no matter how excellent and well-selected such a body may be, its members are but human, and as such you cannot get together any three men one of whom shall not have a bias towards the irrelevant.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 66: Majority 150.—(Div. List, No. 55.)

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I do not wish to revive the discussion which has occupied the last two hours and a-half. I have listened with amazement to the arguments of many learned lawyers opposite in favour of excluding from the consideration of the Judges "the circumstances of the case." This is the first time that I ever heard such an argument as that the circumstances of a case to be left to the discretion of the Judges should be removed from the cognizance of the Judges. The complaint in Ireland is that the Judges of the Land Court have not clearly understood the meaning of the clause in the Irish Act; and the tenants complain that they have been rented on their own improvements. I propose to amend the clause by the insertion of an instruction to the Commission to the effect that in considering the fair rent— They shall particularly exclude any increased value due to any improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor. I wish expressly to exclude from the consideration of the Court any value of the holding which is due to the action of the tenant—which is due to the expenditure of his labour and capital. I hope that the words I propose will make the matter clear. My object in proposing this Amendment is to avoid a difficulty which has arisen in the operation of the Irish Land Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 37, omit the words "taking into consideration," and insert "excluding any increased value."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'taking into consideration' stand part of the Clause."

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

I am afraid it will not be expedient to accept this Amendment. Reference has been made to the Irish Land Act; and I may point out to my hon. Friend. (Mr. Macfarlane) that, under the 9th sub-section of that Act which he proposes to adopt in substance, though not in exact words, a great deal of difficulty has arisen. There the words were— For which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant, or his predecessor in title, has not been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord or his predecessor. In short, the two things have been held to create a set-off against each other. There is, first of all, the declaration that you are to exclude the one thing, and then a negative declaration that you are to exclude something else. We had that in view when framing the clause; but, of course, it is for the Committee to say whether they will, by adopting affirmative words simply directing that this shall be considered, without absolutely dictating the conclusion at which the Land Commission shall arrive, avoid the dangers which have arisen under the Irish Land Act.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is somewhat mistaken. In the case of Adams v. Dunseath it was decided that the Court had to take two things into consideration in fixing fair rent; they had to ascertain the unimproved value of the soil, and in addition to that they had to take into consideration the improvements. The Court went upon the theory that the improvements were made by the landlord and tenant in partnership, the tenant bringing to the partnership capital and labour, and the landlord bringing what was described as the latent capacity of the soil for improvement. It was held that, owing to the landlord having contributed the latent capacity of the soil for improvement, he was to get some rent in respect of it, and that rent was to be added to the fair rent. In stating that as the result of the case of Adams v. Dunseath, I speak in the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Holmes), who, I believe, was counsel for one of the parties. In consequence of the Court's decision, the tenant was taxed for the improvements towards which the landlord contributed nothing whatever. I do not argue that that is a reasonable construction for any Court to put upon the words of the Act; but the construction I described was placed upon the words; and I have very little doubt that what happened in the case of Adams v. Dunseath would be quoted, if necessary, in the Highlands of Scotland. We know that Courts are inclined to compliment each other on the decisions they arrive at. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) tells us that the same thing could not happen under this clause. We get many legal opinions in this House, and especially from the Treasury Bench, which are not afterwards borne out by the result. I think the Amendment is a necessary one; it will merely carry out in more distinct language what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has in view.

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

I would like the Committee to note the great change which has taken place in the judgment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) as to the merits of the wording of the Irish Land Act since we discussed the last Amendment. The hon. Gentleman, replying to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), who had just proposed an Amendment, thought the wording of the Irish Act was so perfect that he was indignant at the very idea of altering it.

MR. MACFARLANE

What I referred to was, not the wording, but the principle of the Act.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There was no discussion as to the principle; but the question was whether the principle was carried out by the wording of the Act. I think the hon. Gentleman is bound not to persevere with this Amendment.

MR. MACFARLANE

I will not press the Amendment; it is useless to divide when it is evident the majority of the Committee are against me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I beg to move that the word "permanent," in line 38, be omitted, and the word "unexhausted" be inserted instead thereof. It is very clear that a very large part of the value of a farm may arise from the high degree of fertility to which it has been raised by a long and scientific application of manures. Under the operation of the clause, as it at present stands, much of the real value due to the tenant will be entirely excluded from consideration. On the other hand, it is very desirable that words should be inserted to protect the landlord against spurious claims; and I think the word "unexhausted"—would serve that purpose.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, omit the word "permanent," and insert "unexhausted,"—(Mr. Hunter,) instead thereof.

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

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

I must say I think this would be an improvement of the clause. The question which arises under this clause is not that of paying compensation, but that of ascertaining rent; and therefore it does seem to me that there might be improvements which, although not of that permanent character which would demand or require money compensation for the outgoing tenant, might yet be sufficient to take into account in determining what was a just rent to be paid by the sitting tenant.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I have no objection to raise to the principle contained in this proposal; but it appears to me that, if it is to be adopted by the Committee, it would be necessary that there should be another Schedule stating what are unexhausted improvements. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) shakes his head; but, unless there is a Schedule, who is to decide what are unexhausted improvements? [The LORD ADVOCATE: The Land Com- mission.] That is all very well; but I remember that in all previous legislation of this nature the improvements for which compensation is to be paid have been Scheduled. They may have been divided into different classes; they may have been called permanent improvements or temporary improvements; but I think it would be going a great deal too far to lay down in this Bill that compensation should be given for unexhausted improvements without the slightest indication in the Bill as to what unexhausted improvements are to consist of. Unless I receive some assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that this point will be carefully considered by the Government, I cannot say I should be so ready to accept the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

This Amendment is not on the Paper. I think it is an improvement; but I shall be very glad to consider before the time of Report whether any Schedule is needed or not. I must say, however, that the impression on my mind at the present moment is that a Schedule will not be needed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will recollect that in 1883 the great reason for classifying improvements under three heads was, that for one class of improvements consent was required; for a second class, notice without consent; and for a third class, neither consent nor notice. We have no case of that kind here, and therefore the reason does not now exist for classifying the improvements which existed at that time.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I confess I do not quite like the change, so far as the four corners of this Bill are concerned. It seems to me that the very nature of permanent improvements is that they are unexhausted. Besides, these tenants have also the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act. I am willing to accept the Amendment, on the understanding that the tenants will still be entitled to consideration for certain improvements not permanent under the Agricultural Holdings Act.

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

I would suggest that, instead of striking out the word "permanent," my hon. Friend should add the words "or unexhausted."

MR. HUNTER

Yes; I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and in lieu thereof add the words "or unexhausted" after "permanent."

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

Perhaps the whole matter had better stand over till Report, and for this reason—if we are not to have a Schedule, and on that point the Government do not appear to have made up their minds, I do not think we ought to have these words at all. We had better leave the Bill as it is, and let the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate consider the matter.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Of course, if I did reconsider the matter, it would be on the understanding that the evident sense of the Committee seemed to be that, in some shape or form, these words should be inserted. Suppose a man put manure in the land which would last for three years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunter) would see fit to strike out both adjectives, and leave only "improvements." In the Irish Land Act, to which reference has been so often made, only the word "improvements" is used.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I move now to insert, after the word "permanent," the words "or unexhausted."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "permanent," insert the words "or unexhausted."—(Mr. Hunter.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I only wish to have a clear and distinct understanding on this point, so that there may be no mistake when the question is raised hereafter. What we contend is this—that of all improvements by which the fixing of the rent is to be guided there must be a definition in the Bill. The definition of improvements, whether they are permanent improvements or whether they are unexhausted improvements, ought not, in our opinion, to be left entirely to the Land Commissioners. The principle for which we contend has been recognized already in the Bill, because there is a Schedule stating distinctly what permanent improvements are to consist of. There is no reason that I am able to see for making any distinction with regard to unexhausted improvements; indeed, I believe that to make such a distinction would be a clear departure from recognized legislation on this subject. I hope the Government will undertake to add to the Bill a definition of unexhausted improvements, either in the shape of a new Schedule or in some other form.

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

I hardly like at the moment to give a positive promise that we will put in another Schedule. I think the entire Committee will be agreed as to this—that any improvements must have a residue of advantage in them. Whether it would be quite safe to put in a Schedule without rather fuller information as to all possible improvements, I can hardly say; but I will undertake to consider the matter, and confer with those who have knowledge of it. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Nothing is to be done now?] I think the words "or unexhausted" might be inserted. The word "permanent" covers improvements such as buildings; and "unexhausted" those which, though they may not have the quality of permanency, are still not worked out or exhausted, such as manuring and limeing. Drains will come under the category of unexhausted improvements, for they will sometimes last five, 10, 25, or 30 years.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I think the remarks of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) really demonstrated the necessity of there being some Schedule of unexhausted improvements, because he enumerated things which he thinks come under "unexhausted" improvements, but which are already in the Schedule as "permanent" improvements.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has stated the case perfectly intelligibly. There is no Court in the world who would take into consideration improvements of which no residue remained.

Mr. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

Hon. Members opposite object to the word "unexhausted"—["No, no!"]—and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplain) wants a Schedule of the improvements. What is the meaning of all this? It must be that the landlord shall get the benefit of some improve- ments effected by tenants which are not in the Schedule. The Schedules in the Agricultural Holdings Act were put in for the express purpose of making the Act of no effect. The broad principle, that the tenant is to be compensated for his improvements according to the value of them to his successor, is laid down in the 1st clause of the Agricultural Holdings Act; but then a Schedule was appended to the Bill, specifying the improvements for which the tenant was to be compensated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplain) wants a Schedule of unexhausted improvements to this Bill, so that if a tenant makes improvements which do not happen to be in the 1st Schedule they can be confiscated by the landlord.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that both sides might be satisfied if the word "permanent" were omitted, and the words "then existing" inserted?

MR. HUNTER

When we come to the Definition Clause, could not the difficulty be met by introducing some words which would make "unexhausted" clear?

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

This Amendment is not on the Paper, and therefore we have not had an opportunity of considering it. There really is a danger lurking behind these words, unless they are properly guarded. The tenant seeks for a valued rent of his holding, having put in manures which have an unexhausted value of five years. The lease lasts 15 years. The rent for the 15 years is to be determined, and if the Amendment is passed, partially upon the unexhausted value of the five years of manures. At the end of the term, the man comes for a reconsideration of his lease. He has not kept up his land to the same heart, I may say; but the grounds of the decision at the beginning of the first 15 years are not before the Court at the beginning of the second 15 years, and they will take into consideration the rent fixed at the beginning of the first term by the previous Court, without knowing that part of that rent was determined by improvements which have since become exhausted. I only put this point of difficulty before the Committee as one which deserves consideration, and I earnestly recommend them not to adopt at this moment any words at all, but simply assent to the broad principle—that no tenant is to be charged for the value of improvements, permanent or transitory, any part of the value of which is not exhausted. I ask the Government to consider the question in all its bearings, and bring up an Amendment on Report.

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

I beg to support the appeal to the Government to consider this question between this and Report, and not adopt the words brought up on the spur of the moment. The clause contemplates permanent improvements that spread over a long period of years, and date back for a long time, which is hardly applicable to what we now contemplate by unexhausted improvements. I think it is the general opinion that the word "permanent" should stand, and that some special words should be found to cover unexhausted improvements. The words proposed are not at all applicable to the clause, and their insertion would lead to confusion. The whole matter requires a good deal of consideration.

MR. GOSCHEN (Edinburgh, E.)

It appears to me that the Committee is so nearly agreed upon the principle of this Amendment that it would be a great pity if we went to a division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) says he will accept the words proposed—namely, "or unexhausted." Hon. Members opposite consider that there ought to be a Schedule; and my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) admits that the difficulty ought to be met in the Definition Clause. If, then, the Committee are so nearly agreed, these words might be accepted. There would be plenty of time before we came to the end of the Bill for hon. Members either to bring up a Schedule which would embody their views, or a Definition Clause which would make the matter clear. I do not think hon. Members opposite would lose by the insertion of these words, to the principle of which I understand they do not dissent.

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

I think there need be no hesitation in accepting these words, if there be a distinct understanding that we shall have a Definition Clause, or a Schedule, which will bring up the matter for full consideration.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

The difference between a Schedule and a definition is absolutely immaterial. The only definition we have got of permanent improvements is—"Permanent improvements means the improvements specified in the Schedule to this Act."

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

As an Amendment, I beg to move the insertion of the words "be proved to," after the word "may," in line 38. A careful reading of the clause shows that the words are important. When it is considered that these improvements may go back for a period which is not yet fixed, it is clear there should be some evidence that the improvements have been executed by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family; or it would do as well to leave out the word "may," and let the clause read "which have been executed."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "may," insert the words "be proved to."—(Mr. Kimber.)

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

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

I think that these words are not only unnecessary, but might be mischievous. They are unnecessary, because the Land Commission will not take any cognizance of what is not established to their satisfaction; and they might be mischievous, because, if in one particular case, the words "be proved to" are inserted, it might lead to the idea, in some uninstructed minds, that things that are not proved are to be taken into account in other cases.

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

I think the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate might satisfy my hon. Friend (Mr. Kimber). At the same time, my hon. Friend's interposition has been useful. The distinct statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be some guide to the Land Commission.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

If the word "may" is supposed to create a difficulty, we might put in a word not of possibility, but of certainty. I will move to leave out "may" and insert "shall."

Question, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.

Amendment (Mr. Kimber), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, leave out "may."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I have a small Amendment to move, which I think the Government will be able to accept. I desire to insert the words "or paid for," after "executed." The words are used in Clause 8. I think it is necessary the reading of the two clauses should correspond.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, after "executed," insert "or paid for."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

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

If my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) only means something the crofter has paid somebody else for doing work for him, that would be the same as something executed by him. If, on the other hand, he means by the use of the words "or paid for" to bring in again our old friend "free sale," I certainly shall oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it will have a dangerous result.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I mean to do nothing of the kind. I merely wish to use the words in the same sense as they are used in Clause 8.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

If there is anything wrong with the 8th clause, we will gladly amend it when we come to it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 229: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 56.)

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

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—that is, in page 3, line 39, after "executed," insert "within 30 years previous to the date of the application." I think the Members of the Committee will agree with me that it will be very undesirable to leave this Clause 6 in any way indefinite. On turning to the other clauses of the Bill, I find that in Clause 8 the Government have, in drawing this Bill, fixed 30 years as the period which was laid down for compensation for improvements in the case of a crofter leaving his tenancy. I have taken, therefore, the same term of years as the period during which the Land Commission should take into account permanent improvements in fixing the fair rent. I do not wish to trouble the Committee; but I think that as the Government themselves have fixed 30 years in the Compensation Clause, that period ought to be adopted in this clause.

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

I would point out to the Committee that the question here is not quite the same. The object in this case is not to bring out the precise money sum, or the precise money value which shall form a claim against the landlord, but merely to determine what is the fair rent payable. I submit that if the improvement is there, it would be a mistake to say that the residue shall not be taken into account, merely because it was made over 30 years before.

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

But in the Clause the rent is to be determined upon purely monetary considerations; and, therefore, if the Government are right in fixing 30 years as the period within which compensation can be claimed for improvements, I do not quite catch the force of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he says that we are to go beyond 30 years in fixing the rent. I have grave doubts, moreover, whether improvements effected more than 30 years ago are worth taking into account.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I. think it is desirable that we should limit the cost of the inquiry by the Commission as much as possible; and, therefore, it will certainly be advisable to fix the time beyond which their investigation shall not go with regard to improvements.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

The Amendment which stands in my name deals with a question which exists all through the Bill, and that is the hereditary principle. I wish, in lines 39 and 40, in page 3, to move to leave out the words "with the same family," after the word "predecessor;" and I should have thought that the result of the Motion which we had the other night in regard to hereditary legislation ought to have kept this principle out of the Bill. I would like to ask the Committee, is an improvement any less an improvement because it is not executed by the relative of the tenant? Can any Member of the Committee give me an answer to that? I say no. I say it is no less an improvement, whether it is made by a relative or any other person, and I think the tenant is entitled to be paid for it, seeing that he has presumedly to pay for it when he entered. This is a principle which goes right through the Bill; but I hope the phrase will not be insisted upon, but will be dropped from the measure altogether.

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

I shall not go into any lengthened explanation of this matter in stating our reason for inserting these words, as I have already explained the views of the Government in a previous debate, when the sense of the Committee was taken upon it. I then pointed out that, according to Scotch law, there can be no such thing as a predecessor by the way of assignment in a yearly holding. We acknowledge only hereditary right through descent, and this necessarily shuts out the legal possibility of any transmission of any claim from anyone else, because the holding must have been back in the landlord's hands, and come again from him by a fresh arrangement with the new tenant. I cannot see, therefore, on what principle, if a holding has been back in the landlord's hands, and an arrangement has then been made with a new tenant, there should be compensation, the title to which has not been derived by kindred.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

In the Report of the Royal Commission, the Commissioners pointed out that a great amount of discontent in the Highlands was owing to the way in which customary rights were ignored. Now, as a matter of fact, the sale of improve- ments by the old tenant to the new is a customary right which, whether the law allows it or not, exists. If there are districts where this custom exists, I cannot see why the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate objects to the Court being empowered to take such charges into account as a matter of equity, if not of law.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I do not want to go over the same ground again, as we have already discussed this matter. But whenever the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is at a loss for an argument, he falls back on old Scotch law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman always brings forward this argument—that the crofters have never had this right of assignment in Scotland before, and therefore they shall not have it now. But by the Bill he is giving them fair rent and fixity of tenure. Did they have that before? I think not, or we should not have had the land agitation which has been going on in Scotland for the last five years. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that if you grant this, you grant the right of assignment, and he will not grant that concession to others besides members of the same family, because it would make the action of this Bill continuous. Now, that is not the intention of the Bill. The intention of the clause, as it stands, is to extinguish these people for want of heirs. That is the real object of this restriction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, and the whole matter lies in this, that, as the Bill now stands, it will confer certain imaginary benefits on the existing crofters of Scotland; but those who have no heirs—whose heirs may be amongst those lying under the battlefields of the Soudan—although the law recognizes their right to transfer to their heirs, would not be able to sell. The result will be that every crofter who has not a direct heir will forfeit the right of the holding at his death; and, more than that, every crofter who desires to quit his holding, who takes his compensation and goes, leaves his croft to lapse, and perhaps to be added to Mr. Winan's deer forest. The real truth of this matter is that, without some arrangement for the succession of others as well as those in the same family, this Bill will be worthless, and within a few years the people for whom we are con- tending now will be exterminated in the Highlands of Scotland.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I hope the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) will not divide the Committee on this question, as we have already divided on it on a previous occasion. There has been no custom of the sale of tenures; but in many of the Northern counties it is a distinct practice that the improvements, which are called ameliorations, are bought by the incoming tenant from the outgoing tenant, with the full consent of the landlord.

DR. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

This Amendment will appear to be perfectly reasonable to anyone who has read the Report of the Royal Commission to the Highlands. I never heard of a landlord paying for any improvements on his land; bat as soon as the crofter goes, his improvements are confiscated.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

It seems to me that it is an exceedingly painful thing that we should be fighting like this on so simple a matter—that we should have all these arguments on the question of whether the crofter should or should not have the right of assignment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 107; Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 57.)

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 40, after "family," to insert "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors." This Amendment will, I think, commend itself by its reasonableness without a long speech from me. I am sure the Government and the Committee have no intention of acting unfairly to the landlord, and that they desire to act fairly between him and the tenant. On looking through the Bill, I found it patent that, in the matter of compensation, the landlord might already have paid for the improvements made by the tenant in previous years. I found that in fixing the rent there was no provision made for this contingency; therefore I put my Amendment down to make such provision. It seems quite clear that directly this Bill becomes law, though the landlord and tenant may, under private agreement, have come to some arrangement as to previous improvements, yet, under the clause as it now stands, in future transactions that arrangement may not be taken into account. Further than that, if you look at the end of the Bill at Clause 19, you will see the powers conferred on the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill may be "transferred to another body created under Act of Parliament," so that when the Commissioners may have fixed the judicial rent and taken an account of the improvements then made by the tenant and paid for by the landlord, this future Body, when the judicial term of 15 years may have expired, may come on the tapis and deal with these same improvements that the Land Commissioners have already provided for. These two contingencies do not seem to be adequately met by the clause, and on that account I wish to insert the words "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 40, after "family," insert "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)

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

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

If the terms of this Bill were the same as those of the Irish Act, declaring that certain improvements were to be excluded, it might have been necessary to accept this Amendment. But, as I stated to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane), all we say in this clause as to improvements is that they shall be taken into consideration. It seems quite obvious that the result of that consideration could never be to allow anything for which compensation has already been given in one form or another. All we say is—"We direct your attention to these improvements;" and the result of that will only be that the Commissioners shall take into account what has not been satisfied in any other shape or form.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

It seems the only objection to this Amendment is that the words are not necessary. It is conceded that they could not do any harm. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate admits that they carry out the intention of the Bill; and I therefore submit that if there is any possibility of doubting the wording of the clause, or if they can make its meaning clearer, it is desirable to insert the words. Clearly, they carry out the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

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

I apprehend that these words would not be necessary if the tribunal that has to decide on the fair rent is a legal tribunal. If it is to be a lay tribunal they would be necessary. If the hon. Member (Mr. W. F. Lawrence) will withdraw the Amendment until we have discussed the tribunal, he may find that the tribunal will be a strong one, and may, consequently, feel it unnecessary to move. If, however, the tribunal is not a strong one, it might be well to put these words in, in order to have the meaning of the Bill beyond all question.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE

I will follow the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

I beg to move, as an Amendment, the insertion in page 3, line 43, of the following words, after the word "family"— Less by the valued amount of any dilapidation of the holding caused by the crofter or his said predecessors, and also taking into consideration any improvement or contribution of the landlord or his predecessors. I have no doubt I shall find amongst the supporters of this Amendment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane). The hon. Member holds, to my mind without foundation or accuracy, that speakers on this side desire that the Land Commission who will have to carry out this measure shall have excluded from their consideration certain circumstances which it may be necessary to bear in mind in the interest of the tenant. No such suggestion was made from this side. The effect of the words I now propose would be to bring essential considerations before the Land Commission; and no doubt the hon. Member, if he is bonâ fide in his argument, will find it to his interest to support my Amendment. The reasons why the Land Commission should take these things into their consideration are these: Apart from the principle that I have before alluded to, that the particularization of a certain matter to be considered by the tribunal excludes or implies the exclusion from their consideration of other matters than those that are particularized, it is only just in this case that we should not only not be silent on the subject of what is to be taken on the other side of the account, but that we should especially name the things that are to be taken in abatement of those matters that are to be allowed to be taken to the credit of the tenant. Now, it is obvious, as was said on a former Amendment, that one part of a croft may be improved, whilst another part may be injured—one building on a croft may be improved, whilst another is allowed to fall into dilapidation. I think the sense of justice of hon. Members all round the House will admit that if a tenant is to have credit for the value of his improvements, he should also have that value debited with any dilapidations which he may have allowed to take place during his tenancy. The second part of my Amendment calls on the Land Commission to take into consideration, that is to say to have regard to, the fact that some of the improvements which may appear physically to exist on the croft, or any contribution which may have been made in times past by the landlord towards improvements which are visible to the eye, but which do not speak for themselves as being the work of the landlord, are really the work of the landlord. The Amendment will require the Commissioners to consider whether or not the improvements which appear to the eye to be then existing on the croft were created wholly or partially by the assistance—either in money or in kind—of the landlord; and I appeal, as I did before, to another part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill in recognition of this principle. I probably did not enforce attention to it as much as I ought to have done, or did not state the case with sufficient clearness on the other Amendment; but if you will refer to Clause 10 you will find that when the Land Commission are assessing the amount of compensation which a tenant is to receive on removal, for his improvements, they are directed thus— In fixing the amount of compensation payable, the value of any assistance or considera- tion which may be proved to have been given by the landlord or his predecessors in title in respect of such improvements shall be taken into account, and deducted from such compensation. I am only, therefore, proposing to carry into effect, in the ascertainment of the annual value, the same principle of valuation of improvements which is recognized as regards the statutable payment at the end of the tenant's holding. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, when speaking upon this, to explain to the Committee, for our information, why it is that a different valuation of improvements is adopted in one case from that which is adopted in the other? If it is fair to deduct from the amount the tenant is to be paid at the end of the tenancy any contribution on the part of the landlord, surely it is fair that in ascertaining the rent that the tenant is to pay when he is going to continue tenant the annual value of the landlord's improvements, or of his contribution to improvements, should be taken into account. My proposal as to dilapidations is one the justice of which I hope goes without saying. I appeal to the common sense and sense of fairness of hon. Members whether, if they applied it to their own case, and they had a house and a warehouse let to the same tenant, and the tenant, for reasons that appeared good to him, kept the house in repair, and perhaps added a billiard room, but let the warehouse fall into disrepair and decay—I appeal to them, would it be fair that he should be allowed the full value of the improvements he had effected in the house, without having deducted the value of the dilapidations which had taken place in respect of the warehouse? What we want is simply fair play from this tribunal; and I do submit that on the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll, whose sympathies are very large, that if it is fair not to exclude from the consideration of the Commissioners circumstances in favour of the tenant, it is equally not fair to exclude from their consideration circumstances that go to the other side of the account.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 40, after the word "family," insert the words "less by the valued amount of any dilapidation of the holding caused by the crofter or his said predecessors, and also taking into consideration any improvement or contribution of the landlord or his predecessors."—(Mr. Kimber.)

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

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

I will say the same of this, that I did of the last Amendment. It might be appropriate, if you were stating a sort of debtor and creditor account, with a view to bringing out a money balance; but what is to be recollected here is this—The holding is found in an existing condition, primâ facie the property of the landlord, and pirimâ facie the rent would be on the holding as it stands. But that may or may not be the case. It may be that there is something there that belongs to the tenant, and what belongs to the tenant are his improvements. It is necessary to provide that the improvements of the tenant shall not be used as an instrument for raising the rent against himself. The improvements of the landlord will be taken into consideration without question, because they are part of the holding as it stands. Therefore, if the general scheme of the Bill is approved, without binding the Commissioners down to exclude certain things, as was done in the case of the Irish Act, their attention will simply be pointed to what belongs to the tenant, so that all the rest will seem entirely superfluous. The primâ facie case is that the property is the landlord's, and its full value will be taken into account.

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

The objection of my hon. Friend is one which I am bound to say has a great deal of force in it. The framing of the clause does not confine the attention of the arbiters to the "circumstances of the case," but destroys the perspective of the view by projecting forward the improvements made by the tenants. There is a complete parity of reason between the consideration of the two interests, and if the one is brought forward it seems only reasonable that the other should also be put forward. It ought to be admitted, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend is bound to admit, that the clause is not symmetrical as it stands. I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will, at all events, confirm the view taken by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that the Commissioners ought to take into con- sideration the improvements of the landlord.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The object of the Amendment I have to propose is to— Provide that the Land Commission, in fixing the fair rent, shall not have regard to any profession, trade, or occupation carried on by the tenant on or in connection with the holding. If we may judge from past experience, we may expect that the landlord will increase the rent in consequence of improvements made at the public expense. Now, I wish to prevent that, and in order to do so I think that this Proviso should be admitted. We say that the Land Commission ought not to take into account the business or occupation carried on in connection with a building, especially the occupation of fishing.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, after "accordingly," insert—"Providing that the Land Commission, in fixing a fair rent, shall not have regard to any profession, trade, or occupation carried on by the tenant on or in connection with the holding."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

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

I am afraid that if we were to introduce this Proviso it would render the valuation of a large number of holdings almost impossible. It has been explained more than once—and it has been made an objection from certain quarters—that the Bill is proposed to apply to any holdings, however small—not limited to £4, £6, or any other amount of rent; and that it extends to a very largo number of small tenants who could not live by the mere cultivation of the holding on which the house may be situated, but who still find it a very convenient and advantageous thing to have a holding whence they can go forth to their various occupations. Now, if the proposal of my hon. Friend were accepted it would come to this—that holdings which were so small that a man could not live by them would have no value at all; but they might have a value to a man to come and live there, and have his home there. I do not know any kind of property with reference to which you are debarred from considering, in valuing the property, the convenience of a man carrying on business there. It is just those things which gives value to property. Suppose there is a house in one part of a particular area 10 miles inland, and another in another part close by the sea where there is a good harbour for the convenience of boats and access to a market town; would it be at all right to say that the fishing industry for which the latter part of the area is adopted should not be taken into account? You would render valuation impossible by the adoption of that principle; and, therefore, I submit that it would be misleading, and almost absurd, to introduce an Amendment which would debar you from taking into account a very material element in the valuation which you have to consider.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

But a barrister might be making £10,000 in his chambers; and, so far as the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is concerned, I think the barrister would complain very justly of the valuers taking that into consideration in fixing the rent of the premises. A man may carry on a profitable fishing business in connection with the house, or a very unprofitable one. I maintain that the value of a house for rent depends upon the cost of its erection, and not upon whether it is occupied by a fisherman, or by a person engaged in cultivating the land. If I had any doubt as to the Amendment before, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary that a Proviso should be added to the clause, that the Land Commission should not take into consideration the profession, trade, or occupation carried on in connection with the holding.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I do not quite agree with the theory laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, because it seems to me that the principle of the Bill is that the valuation should be for the agricultural and pastoral use of the land, not for its suitability for residential purposes, or the carrying on of trade. In the case of a person living near the sea shore, and having two or three acres of land, it would seem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the rent should be charged on what the fisherman draws out of the water, and not on what he draws from the land. If that is the view of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate I am quite sure it is not the intention of the Act. The case might be that of a fisherman holding land yielding not more than 10s. a-year, but who draws the worth of £100 out of the sea. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the valuation should be on the latter? We ought to have some explanation of his meaning on that point, because there is absolutely no limit to the charge which the Land Commissioners might make on the produce of the fisherman's nets.

MR. M'LAREN (Stafford)

Could not the Government devise some words, and bring them up on Repot, which would carry out the views expressed, that the crofter should not be charged extra rent in respect of any business which he might carry on apart from land cultivation? I believe that would have the effect of preventing misunderstanding; and it is, in my opinion, worthy of the attention of the Government.

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

The real question is, as to whether or not the landlord should have any advantage from the position of his property? It has never been denied to the owner of the soil that he should get the benefit of such position. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that every house should be rented according to the cost of erection. Now, I have built a great many houses, and I will only ask the hon. Member if he is prepared to reduce the rent of every house which has been determined on the basis of its being near a railway station, near the centre of a town, or near the sea? I think the hon. Member will perceive, on consideration, that if anyone has a right to benefit by the position of a house it is undoubtedly the landlord, and not the tenant.

MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (Wick)

The question is, who increases the value of the property? I think it is the man who starts a business on it; and it is he, in my opinion, who should have the benefit of the business created, and not the landlord.

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

It has nothing to do with the question whether a man is successful or not in business. The question is—what is the value of the house to let in the place where it is situated?—and it would be grossly unfair if houses in the best position should be rented the same as those which are not in so good a position. When a person takes a house he considers, in the first instance, whether the house would suit him—he considers the amount of accommodation, the arrangements, and other points. But he likewise considers the suitability of the house for the business he intends to carry on there. Of course, it is not the position of the house alone; it is the accommodation necessary to carry on business there that the fisherman considers; and if that accommodation is due to the circumstances of the place, surely that is a matter to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners in fixing the fair rent. It seems to me almost an outrageous proposition for any hon. Members to put forward that two cottages built in the same way, and fitted up in the same way, but in different parts of the country, should always be rented at the same rate. Then the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) says it ought not to be a question how much a man is to be charged for what he gets out of fishing. But that is not so; he may make nothing at all; but the question is whether the value of the house to him is exactly the same before as after the business was started. The fair rent is fixed according to the locality as well as the value of the house itself, and having regard to other matters.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The Commissioners only found four districts in which they considered that the people were very much rack-rented, and one of those was in the county which I represent. The cause of the rack-renting is that the tenants are paying a rent for fishing, besides the agricultural rent. At first there were small harbours which the people could use, and the houses were all built by them; that is the rule in all cases in the Western Islands. But, unfortunately, those harbours are broken up, and yet the people are still paying £2 or £2 10s. a-year for land near the sea coast; whereas better land, higher up, does not carry that rent. The rent of that land is 25s. per acre, because it does not include fishing rent. In the Island of Arran the crofters make their rent from lodgers during the summer season who come from Paisley, Glasgow, Greenock, and other places. The occupiers leave their habitations, and live in out-houses and other places. On the first reading of the Bill I called atten- tion to the case of a person who built a house himself, and who, having got a 15 years' lease, had his rent increased from £18 to a very large sum, because he had made additions to it for the accommodation of Glasgow merchants. We want to prevent that in future, both with regard to persons who let their houses during the summer to lodgers, and those who are engaged in fishing. We are going to give some £25,000 or £50,000, I believe, for the construction of harbours on the coasts of Scotland; and, unless this Amendment is agreed to, we believe that the benefit of that money will go to the landlords, instead of the tenants, as fishing rents.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

This Bill relates to crofters and agricultural holdings; and it is not, I think, desirable to allow landlords to take double rent; first, for the agricultural use of the holding; and, secondly, for fishing, or any other occupation which the crofters may be carrying on in addition to their agricultural business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) says that the landlord should have the benefit of any houses built upon their land. They may have done so in times past; but it will not be the case in future. We maintain that people who spend money, or labour in improvements, should have the benefit of their own property until they are paid for it. And when we are dealing with agricultural holdings, it seems to me that there can be no harm in agreeing to an Amendment which is intended to prevent crofts having a double rent raised upon them.

MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I have had some experience in these cases, and I represent a constituency which is nearest to that part of Scotland in which the crofters are chiefly situated. I am aware of instances which have occurred of the kind mentioned. I am acquainted with the case of two holdings, of the same extent and value, and held by two brothers. The one brother improved his holding, and added to the house the business of a grocer; he did a considerable trade, and was charged three times the amount of rent paid by his brother, the crofter, who lives opposite to him, and pays only on the agricultural value of the croft. I can perfectly well conceive that cases similar to that should occur in the places we are now dealing with. I understand that it is to meet such cases that this Amendment is proposed, and I think it only just to support it.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I congratulate the right hon. and learned ex-Lord Advocate on the look of injured innocence and holy horror with which he regarded this Amendment. He seems to think that the landlord has done very much for the country by rescuing it from the barbarism of the Middle Ages. But it appears that the landlords still claim all the birds of the air, and all the fishes of the sea. I wish to point out that the principle against which the right hon. and learned Gentleman contends is already provided for in the section; because it is specifically provided that the Land Commission should consider the circumstances of the case, holding, and district. Practically, in the case of a croft situated near the sea, the Commission would be entitled to consider that fact, and the value in consequence; but the effect of the Amendment would be that while they did that they would not be entitled to consider that the tenant was a fisherman, earning money by fishing. The objection seems to me to be that not only does the landlord want to derive rent from the fact that the croft is near the sea, but also from the fact that the tenant is a fisherman.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I will put a case which will illustrate the position. Two crofters occupy two holdings near the sea, with a harbour within reach; the two crofts are the same in respect of quality of land and characteristics; but one of the crofters has a fishing boat, and the other has not. Now, as to the crofter possessing the fishing boat, would the Commission be entitled to charge him more rent? ["No, no!"] I am glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say "No;" because it is amusing to listen to hon. Gentlemen urging now that the Commission should take into consideration the circumstances of the case to which they had so much objection an hour ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the rent would not be charged specifically on the boats. Of course, it is not fair to assess boats for rent; but you are going to take into account the fact that the crofter lives near the sea, and his power of catching fish. I should like to have some assurance that there is no such intention.

MR. J. WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)

I think it unnecessary to go on limiting the powers of the Land Commission in this matter; but I hope I may be allowed to beg the Committee to make some progress with the Bill, if there is any intention that it should be passed this Session. We have not yet got through more than three pages of Amendments out of 23, and we are only on Clause 6. Let us come to a decision upon this question as soon as possible; and I trust that hon. Gentlemen will be as brief as they can in their remarks, so that some progress may be made.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite are conclusive in favour of this Amendment, inasmuch as they have laid down the principle that a landlord is entitled to rent for the sea as well as for the land. That is what I object to; and, as a matter of fact, all round the coast of Caithness, landlords are exacting rents altogether disproportionate to the land, and which would not be paid, were it not that the land is near the sea. I am anxious to make progress with the Bill; but I am bound to say that the responsibility for the delay which may take place lies with Her Majesty's Government. I am one of those who think the Bill almost worthless; and, unless we succeed in amending it, it is of very little consequence whether it passes or not. We feel that, unless we draw attention to the illusory character of the provisions of the measure, we should be incurring the grave responsibility of being parties to a Bill which will not carry out what it professes to do.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 195: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 58.)

MR. T. BLAKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.

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

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

I wish to make an appeal to the Committee to go on a little longer, in order that we may make some further progress with the Bill.

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

I think that there are one or two Amendments which might very well be taken to-night if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Blake) will withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Cranborne)

I would remind the Committee that there is another Bill coming on—the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill—in which a great many Members take an interest; and I trust, therefore, that Progress will be reported very shortly.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I beg, Sir, to move the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 41, at the end of sub-section (1), insert—"Provided that when not fewer than twenty tenants, holding of the same landlord within the same parish, shall conjointly petition the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, the Land Commission shall after due notice visit the locality, and after hearing parties may, if they see fit, make a general order to reduce by an uniform percentage the rents of the whole of the petitioners, or of such of their number as shall be specified in such order. By this machinery a good deal of difficulty which may arise will be got over, and, in the event of the landlord and tenant not being able to agree, the Land Commission could be called in to decide what the fair rent ought to be. The provisions of the Bill are somewhat cumbersome, and the object of the Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to get through their work quickly, which will be to the advantage both of the landlords and of the tenants. In the West Highlands rents have frequently been increased all over estates by certain percentages, and the Amendment only enables that process to be reversed. I make the proposition because I think it will induce agreements to be made between landlord and tenant.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, at the end of sub-section (1), insert—"Provided that when not fewer than twenty tenants, holding of the same landlord within the same parish, shall conjointly petition the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, the Land Commission shall after due notice visit the locality, and after hearing parties may, if they see fit, make a general order to reduce by an uniform percentage the rents of the whole of the petitioners, or of such of their number as shall be specified in such order."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

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

I really do not think that this Amendment is necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make an order in such a form as the hon. Member desires. Further, I hardly think it is quite consistent with what we have already done. It might be said that, although we first of all told the Commissioners to have regard to the special circumstances of each case, we next told them to dispose of the cases en bloc.

Question put, and negatived.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

The Amendment which I propose to move is practically a new clause, and it is a very important one. It is this— In page 3, at end of sub-section (1), insert—"The Court shall schedule with their order a table of the average price of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the county in which the holding is situated, during the year immediately preceding the one in which the order is made. Should prices during any year afterwards rise above or fall below more than ten per cent the average determined for the year previous to the fixing of the rent, the rent paid by the occupier of the holding shall, during such year, rise or fall in proportion to the rise or fall in the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool. And the Act of Sederunt of the twenty-first day of December, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-three, is hereby amended, in order to provide that the sheriffs' fiars in the counties in which this Bill shall apply shall strike the average wholesale prices of potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the said counties. The Irish Land Act has been a dead failure for two reasons; first, because there is a fixed scale which, in consequence of certain things, has become a very unfair rent; and, second, because there was no provision made for the rise and fall of produce. My Amendment, therefore, is for the purpose of preventing in the Highlands a fixed rent, and to have inserted that the rent shall be determined on prices. I may say that this system which I am recommending has been in existence for years. In some parts of Scotland the Sheriff each year determines the average price of corn, and upon that the rent is fixed. We have already the machinery by which these prices can be obtained in what are called the Sheriffs' fiar's scores; and, therefore, I submit there can be no objection to adopting this course. The Courts now meet for the purpose of striking one price; but the Amendment will compel them to strike the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool, by having a rent which is not fixed, but is arranged on the sliding scale according to the prices of these articles. No injury could be done to the tenant or to the landlord. I cannot see that any injury could be done to the landlord. I am told that as the rents of the crofters are very small. The Amendment will be of no practical good; but, although the rents may be very small, I assure the Committee it is a very important thing for a tenant to find the prices have fallen 40 per cent. as they have done in my county during the last four months. The old system of paying rents in the Highlands is payment in kind. And now you are going to fix a fair rent, I suppose a portion of the payment will be made in kind. Well, all this Amendment will do will be to fix a rent, which will be fair to the landlord and fair to the tenant, to be paid in kind, and the only means by which this can be done is by taking into consideration the rise and fall of prices.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end of sub-section (1), insert—"The Court shall schedule with their order a table of the average price of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the county in which the holding is situated, during the year immediately preceding the one in which the order is made. Should prices during any year afterwards rise above or fall below more than ten per cent the average determined for the year previous to the fixing of the rent, the rent paid by the occupier of the holding shall, during such year, rise or fall in proportion to the rise or fall in the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool. And the Act of Sederunt of the twenty-first day of December, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-three, is hereby amended, in order to provide that the sheriffs' fiars in the counties in which this Bill shall apply shall strike the average wholesale prices of potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the said counties."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

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

I have very considerable sympathy with the object proposed to be effected by this Amendment, because I am of opinion that there can be no such just method of arriving at a fair rent as by having regard to the price which the produce of the holding realizes at the time. Undoubtedly, when the whole rent is to be paid in money, the result is, as we have seen during recent years, that it may become impossible, in consequence of the fall in prices, for the tenant to pay the rent. The only thing that I have a doubt about is, whether the Amendment will not be rather too complicated to be appropriate to such small holdings as those which are chiefly dealt with in this Bill. It might be applicable with advantage to holdings of £30 or over, if we were only dealing with such cases; but, as I have before pointed out, the enormous proportion of these holdings are under £4—many of them being holdings of 25s. and the like—and instead of these small tenants knowing each year what they have to pay, and the landlord what he has to get, they would have to enter into an actuarial calculation to work out the proportion upon these very small figures, and I am afraid that that might lead to considerable difficulty. That is the only consideration which makes me object to the Amendment; and if there is a practical way of solving that difficulty I shall be glad to entertain it. If, however, the Committee should think that the scheme will be reasonably practical for small holdings, I am willing to submit; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that I fear it is not practical.

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

I entirely share the sympathy of the right hon. and learned Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) in regard to this Amendment; but there are other difficulties besides those which he has mentioned which we ought not to lose sight of. There are other circumstances which ought not to be forgotten. In the first place, we cannot regard these small holdings as we regard farms which are worked solely with a view to the sale of the whole of their produce; for, in a great many cases, these small crofters consume the majority of their crops, and it is quite a matter of indifference to them whether the price of that produce is high, or whether it is low. In fact, the smaller crofters send to market hardly any of the commodities with which the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is concerned. Then there is another point which is of even greater importance, and that is the fact that the crofts do not produce the large variety of articles named in the Amendment as those which are to form the subject of the average which is to be struck. The hon. Member says that an average can be struck on these varied articles of agricultural produce; but some crofts will only produce potatoes, others will only produce oats, barley, or wool, or other produce of that kind, and the mere fact that they do not produce the same description of crops will render the scheme of the hon. Member wholly unworkable. I think it is better, therefore, not to adopt the Amendment.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwark, Bermondsey)

I also have an Amendment down on the Paper on this subject. I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will go to the trouble of looking at the principles of the Tithe Commutation Act, and of its working, which are based upon the principle contained in this Amendment, he will find that there are many who pay those tithes who are paying far less sums of money than many of these crofters have to pay as rent. There are tithe rent-charges based upon rents as low as 30s. a-year. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has told us that the crofter consumes all he produces; but, however that may be, he has to pay his rent all the same. The question is, what is the value of a pound sterling to him from what he produces, and what is the value of that pound sterling to him when he has to pay his rent? What I have to say is this—that if this system of fixing the rent according to the prices of the produce had been introduced into the Irish Land Act of 1881, all the difficulties which have arisen in regard to that Act would have been obviated. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has told us that there is a difficulty in regard to the details of a scheme such as this. Now, it has always occurred to me that one of the uses of the lawyers that we have in this House is that they should interpret into their own jargon what is the sense of the House of Commons, and I should imagine that they would be able to work out the details on this question. I venture upon saying that if my right hon. and learned Friend were to ask those persons who are at present engaged collecting the average prices of produce, he would find that the application of this system to very small rents, instead of being a difficult rule-of-three, as he seems to suppose, would be one of the easiest things possible. Very small rents can be paid in money value payable in kind, and I want to see that system introduced. Payment should be made upon the value of what the agriculturist procures. I argued some time ago that it would be impossible to settle the Irish Land Question unless we settled it upon the principle of tithe-rent averages. The only fault is the length of time over which the tithe-rent averages are carried; but shorten that period, and I think the difficulties will all be removed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some assurance that he will consider this matter I think the matter might now be left over to Report. With regard to this system, I am of opinion that the difficulties are small; that the conveniences are great; that the interpretation is easy; and I venture to say that the results will be good. I think I may venture to say that I have the warmest approval of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) in this matter; and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will see that the system is a desirable one.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I have been watching for the introduction of this Amendment for a long time, because I think it is the natural and logical sequel of any attempt at the assessment of rent. For my own part, I am opposed in principle to the assessment of rents as proposed in this Bill, because I think it would be better to stick to simple contract and short notices between landlord and tenant; but if you assess the rent, you ought also to assess the value of the produce of the soil on which the rent is raised; and I do not see how the principle is to work, unless we adopt in some form the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). I do not think, however, that the words he has proposed will work out without further addition and extension; I think it would be more satisfactory, therefore, if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would look into this question, and bring up an Amendment on Report, which would embody the principle in a practical method of carrying it out.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

For my part, I venture to submit to the Committee that this Amendment comprises a very valuable suggestion, and I do not think it is open to the objections which have been stated against it by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The right hon. Member's arguments appear to me to amount to this—he urged that the proposal was not a suitable one in regard to the large proportion of the produce of the crofts which is consumed by the crofter; but, if that is so, I venture to think that the crofter ought not to pay at all, because it is only after what is to be consumed has been consumed that the question of rent should arise at all. I do not think that the rent ought to be paid out of the fishing of a crofter, and we are to assume that it ought to be paid out of the croft itself. It is upon the surplus which a crofter has after he has fed himself and his family that the question of rent arises at all. It should only be upon that part of the produce which goes to market that the element of value should enter, and the question of rent arise; and, therefore, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground altogether. Then his second objection is that the crofters do not produce the same things. Well, the remedy for that is easy; and I think that the matter is dealt with in an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers), which provides that the rent shall be paid in produce—in so much meal, in so much oats, or so much corn. The precedent of the tithe-rent charges shows that the very smallest sums can be estimated. The principle is a natural one, and, so far from being inapplicable to small holdings, I think it is particularly suitable for them. I therefore hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will accept the principle of the Amendment, and that he will undertake to adjust the clause before the Report stage of the Bill is taken.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I think that the principle of the Amendment is an exceedingly desirable one; but, at the same time, it appears to me that the details will require some amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN (Edinburgh, E.)

There is just one point in connection with this matter which I should like to see cleared up, and it is this. Does not the ability of the tenant to pay rent very often depend as much on the quantity of produce he obtains as upon the price which it fetches? When the prices are high the crofter is to pay a higher rent; but these prices may be high on account of the scarcity of the produce he is selling. He may have so little to sell that the high prices will not recoup his loss; and the consequence may be that the period of high prices may be a time of pressure on the tenant; so that it may be very difficult for him to pay the high rent, and vice versâ. A sliding scale, therefore, might have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desires. I think it is worth considering whether that might not be the effect of the principle which has been suggested. The point is worth considering, at least, although I do not insist upon it.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)

It would be impossible to frame clauses to meet every difficulty which may arise; but with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), whose opinion is always valuable, it is a fact that when prices are high the farmer generally is benefited by them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will withdraw his objection to the Amendment. My right hon. Friend who sits below me (Mr. A. J. Balfour) appears to think that this is a novel principle; but I venture to say that there is nothing novel about it. It is quite a primitive system; and I cannot help thinking that if the system of sliding rents had not been universally abandoned as it has been, a great many of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to the management of land might have been avoided. I would urge the Committee to look favourably upon the Amendment; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) does not feel able to accept it at once, at all events I hope he will take it into consideration, and see if it cannot be brought up in some form at a later stage. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman based his objection to the Amendment on the difficulty of the calcu- lation in regard to small holdings; but that calculation has to be made annually already for other purposes, and I think it could easily be applied to the matter of rent.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

It appears to me that we have entered into a matter which it is very difficult to discuss at this time of night. I am afraid that it will be impossible to work the plan of the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) exactly as it stands—to make it compulsory to pay by grain, or wheat, or whatever it may be. My own impression is, the existing fiar's system ought to be extended so as to cover the prices of barley and oats, and beef and mutton, and that the Commissioners ought to be allowed to decide on one or the other, having regard to the circumstances of the holding. In Scotland a half-grain half-money system of fixing rent has prevailed; but changing circumstances favour first one and then the other. Therefore, I do think that it is an exceedingly difficult question—first, whether you are to fix the rents in money or in produce; and, secondly, if you are to fix them for 15 years or any longer period. That, I believe, is the rock on which the Irish Land Act has split; because, since 1881, there has been a complete revolution in prices. If the Government can arrange for this matter to be postponed till a later stage I shall be very glad.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwark, Bermondsey)

The only way you can ask the crofter to pay rent on a fair basis is to enable him to pay it in accordance with the price that he has got for it. By doing this, we shall get rid of the theory that the cause of the losses to the tenants is the result of the extortion of the landlords. The losses to the tenants would then be due to the prices in the market, or to bad seasons; and, therefore, I earnestly hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will be able to see his way to deal with this matter.

DR. CLARK

I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment with the consent of the Committee, in order that the matter may be brought up again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.