THIRD NIGHT.

HC Deb 05 April 1886 vol 304 cc761-873

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 (Fixed rent).

THE MARQUESS OF STAFFORD (Sutherland)

I beg to move at the end of the first section of the clause, in line 41, to insert— (2.) This section shall extend to any holding situate in a crofting parish, and held by a tenant under lease at a rent not exceeding thirty pounds in money; and where the rent of any such holding has been fixed by the Commission under this section, the valued rent shall, as from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Court, come in place of the rent reserved by the lease, and, save by mutual agreement, shall not be altered during the continuance of the lease. The object of this Amendment is to bring before the Commission the case of the small leaseholders in the crofting parishes in the Highlands. They are persons in a very similar position to that which is occupied by the crofters who come under the provisions of the Bill. Now, I think that, in dealing with the Highland townships, it is most undesirable that a large class—and that, too, the best class—of crofters—namely, the small leaseholders, should not derive any benefit from the provisions of the Bill. I therefore propose that this section should be extended to any holding in a crofting parish held by a tenant under lease which does not exceed £30 in rent, that being the sum fixed in the case of a crofter.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, insert— (2.) This section shall extend to any holding situate in a crofting parish, and held by a tenant under lease at a rent not exceeding thirty pounds in money; and where the rent of any such holding has been fixed by the Commission under this section, the valued rent shall, as from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Court, come in place of the rent reserved by the lease, and, save by mutual agreement, shall not be altered during the continuance of the lease."—(The Marquess of Stafford.)

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

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

I quite appreciate the reasons which have actuated my noble Friend in making his proposal, and also the spirit in which he has moved it; but I am afraid that I cannot accept it, because it is obvious that if leases are once brought within the range and scope of the Bill, a great step will be taken beyond the historical reasons upon which the Bill has been justified. Those reasons have already been explained, and it is not necessary that I should repeat the explanation. An attempt has been made to provide for the case of those persons who have succeeded to a continuous occupation from generation to generation by a sort of customary tenure; but if the Bill once permits persons who do not enjoy that tenure to be equally entitled—persons who have made bargains in the shape of leases—bargains presumably involving commercial considerations—we should get into a region altogether outside the purpose of the Bill. I would also point out this consideration—that if you are to include the small leaseholders, there are in the Highlands leases of many kinds. There is one kind of lease in particular which is very familiar with those who are acquainted with the Highlands—namely, a lease where a piece of ground is let at a low rent, for probably 21 or 30 years, on condition that the tenant who occupies under it shall reclaim so much additional land every year. It is only in consideration of that obligation that the land has been let; and it is quite plain that it would be extremely difficult to deal with cases of that kind under the Bill. I may also point out that there might be a question raised under the Amendment of my noble Friend as to what are commonly called building leases. They form another class of leases altogether, and embody commercial contracts which it would be extremely difficult to deal with.

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

I believe that one cause of the failure of the Irish Land Act was its being altogether too restricted in its operation, and that it gave the benefits of the Act only to tenants from year to year, instead of dealing with leaseholders generally; and I think that the Government are ill-advised in framing the present Bill upon similar lines. I cannot for the life of me see why the length of the term during which the tenant is occupier of the holding should in any way affect the legislation upon this question. It is quite patent to anyone who knows anything about the condition of agriculture at the present moment that the leaseholder is in a much worse quandary than the tenant from year to year. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment of the noble Marquess with great confidence if it is carried to a division. I shall vote for it because I feel that, where leases have been forced upon the tenants, they are just as much entitled to the benefit which this Bill confers as the crofter who has not a lease.

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

I have placed an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same question upon Clause 7, and that must be my excuse for intervening just now, because I share in the desire which all of us have to expedite the proceedings in Committee to-night as much as possible, in order that we may get through the Bill. I appreciate very strongly the objections which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has stated to introducing leaseholders into the Bill. I certainly would not be a party to any Amendment which would extend the scope of the Bill beyond the limits which have been laid down, and which I think may be justified on very substantial grounds; and I quite admit that, at first sight, the admission of leaseholders to the provisions of the Bill would be likely to furnish a lever to those who wish to extend the principle of fixity of tenure and fair rent to other parts of the country—objects in which I, for my part, do not concur. But I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to reconsider this point. We are, after all, desirous of doing justice, on certain principles, to the crofters who reside within certain geographical limits. Now, it is quite true that, speaking roughly and generally, a tenure under a lease is a sign that the man is not a crofter. As a rule, a crofter is a tenant from year to year, but that rule is subject to exceptions; and when we know that exceptions do exist I do not think it ought to prevent the Committee from doing justice to the crofters, whose rights are the subject of the Bill. I have put the case in a somewhat different manner from that in which it has been put by the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess's Amendment would apply only to Clause 6, which relates to fixed rents, and it only gives to the leaseholder, as well as the crofter, the benefit of a fixed rent. It does not, however, give to him the right of compensation for improvement under the Bill. I propose, by my Amendment to Clause 7, to provide that— Where a tenant falls within the definition of a crofter in this Act, except when his tenancy is under a lease instead of from year to year, and such tenant within thirty years prior to the passing of the Act or his predecessors in the same family, have been crofters occupying the same holding, which such tenant occupies at the passing of this Act, or part thereof, such tenant shall be entitled, upon one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy as at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, and shall thereafter be deemed to be a crofter within the meaning of this Act. I propose to make a general application of the Bill to a limited class of lease-holding crofters; and those whom I include in my Amendment are those who have themselves, or whose families have been, crofters on the same holding within the last 30 years. I think it is impossible to dispute that a leaseholder in that position is just as much a crofter as others who come within the scope of the Bill. I can point to instances in which that is the case, and in which I think it would be an act of extreme injustice if we were to exclude the individual crofters to whom I refer from the benefits of the Bill—for instance, in the Black Isle a large number of crofters have got leases for 19 years—there are several hundreds, I believe, and only about 5 per cent of the crofters have not got leases. The only reason why those who have not got leases are in that position is that they have been less deserving and less provident than their neighbours. Ninety-five per cent of the crofters are deserving and well-doing men; but if this Bill passes without amendment those deserving persons will be excluded from the benefit of the Bill, although they are crofters in every sense of the word; whereas the 5 per cent of the less deserving and less provident will be included, and will participate in the benefits of the Bill. There are other instances in the county of Sutherland, as the noble Marquess well knows. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment in the limited form in which I suggest it should be framed. I do not think it would in that form be open to any possible abuse, and it would undoubtedly confer a considerable benefit upon a large and deserving class of the community.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, if he is not prepared to accept an Amendment in favour of existing leases, whether he will make a compromise by accepting the modification of this principle as contained in the provisions of the Irish Land Act? That Act does not interfere with current leases; but it provides that at the termination of a lease the tenant who then comes in under the Bill is to be a present tenant. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that modification? The only effect would be that at the termination of an existing lease the tenant would come in as a present tenant under the Act, with all the protection which the law would give.

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

The provisions of the Irish Land Act are very complicated in this respect, and very different from those contained in the present measure. We hope to give an element of permanency, and some other things which the Irish tenant did not get. The man who has made his bargain is out of the historical scope of the Bill; and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept either the Amendment of my noble Friend, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford).

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

There is another argument against this Amendment, in addition to that which has just been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment of the noble Marquess or the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) were carried, it would undoubtedly have the effect of destroying leases altogether, and of substituting in their place the system of common ownership of land. Whatever we may think about that, everybody must admit that the system of common ownership is an old-world system which has been entirely exploded by modern ideas, because it has been found altogether antagonistic to all true progress among the people. I am not going to argue the point whether the Government would be right in stereotyping that system where it exists in the Highlands. I will only say that if they re-introduce it where it has ceased to be operative, everyone must admit that it would be the most retrograde step the Committee could take. I therefore hail with great satisfaction the announcement of the Government that they do not propose in any part of the Bill to interfere with leases.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.), Kirkcaldy

I confess that I cannot see how the adoption of these Amendments would have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has attributed to them of introducing any question as to the common ownership of land. The only effect would be that individual crofters who now hold under a lease would, if these Amendments were passed, be entitled to have a fair rent fixed, the same as any other crofters, from year to year. I understand that that is the only object which the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford) had in introducing the Amendment. I sympathize with the noble Marquess, and I am very sorry that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is not prepared to accept any Amendment on the point. I will not say that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is put in the best possible form; I understand that the effect of it would be the exact converse of the Irish Act. While the Amendment of the noble Marquess provides that the Land Commission should give to these leaseholders a fair rent, but not fixity of tenure, the Irish Act gives fixity of tenure, but makes no provision for a fair rent. No one can doubt that the one point of all others in respect of which the Irish Land Act of 1881 has worked successfully is in giving the leaseholders the benefit of fixity of tenure. It is undoubtedly the case that side by side on one estate there is a class of tenants of a particular character, and a class of exactly the same character on another estate. But in the one case the tenants hold from year to year, and in the other for a certain period of years. Why should the last class be prejudicially affected by that circumstance? Although I admit that in this matter the precedent of the Irish Land Act is against us, still all the experience we have gained by the operations of the Irish Land Act is all in favour of the suggestion now urged. I therefore regret very much that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has refused to accept this Amendment, and I regret still more that he has refused to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) to modify the principle of the Bill, so as to bring it into accord with the Irish Act. This Bill only applies to small tenants; and I think that it is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should refuse to give to the small tenants of Scotland the particular advantage which has been given to the Irish tenants, be they small or large. He has stated that it is impossible to make this concession to a man who holds under an improving lease; but my impression is that that is the very class of tenants you should favour. The tenant who holds under an improving lease has done much to make 100 blades of grass grow where only one grew before; and surely the person who by his industry and skill has improved his tenure is the very person who has a strong moral right to the fixing of a fair rent. Although the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has declined to accept the Amendment in its present form, there are several others aiming at a somewhat similar object which will be brought forward later on in the Bill. I have one down myself; and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the decision he has announced before that Amendment is reached, because I am sure that the determination which he has announced will create very great dissatisfaction in Scotland. It will certainly create an impression that there is an indisposition on the part of the Government to accept any reasonable Amendment of the Bill.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I trust the noble Marquess will carry this Amendment to a division, and I am sure he will receive a considerable amount of support from below the Gangway on this side of the House. Many of us have a notion—and I am afraid it is only too correct a notion—that a large number of these persons have had leases forced upon them. ["Oh, oh!"] What I mean is, that they have had to accept leases or go. I call that having leases forced upon them; and whatever the "Oh!" with which that statement was received may mean, I shall express my conviction in the truth of it by voting for the Amendment.

MR. LYELL (Orkney and Shetland)

I strongly sympathize with the object of the Amendment, and I must express my regret that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has not been more conciliatory in this matter. I am quite aware that the adoption of the Amendment would somewhat extend the operation of the Bill; but as the measure is at present drafted it extends to a very small class of holdings, and it places the leaseholder, who pays very slightly above the rent of the crofter, in an invidious position as compared with his neighbour the crofter. The crofter gets benefit from the Bill, whereas the leaseholder gets no benefit from it whatever. What encouragement is there held out to the crofters to transfer their system of holdings in favour of a leasehold system? One large section of the constituency I have the honour to represent hold their land almost entirely under the primitive system of land tenure, by which they will get the benefit of the Bill, while in another part the tenants hold the land almost entirely as small leaseholders. These peasants who individually pay so small an amount of rent are not free to make terms for themselves when dealing with rich landlords owning the whole land. I am anxious to get for those poor tenants the benefit of the protection now offered to the crofters by this Bill; and, that being so, I entirely concur in the remarks which were made by the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) and the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford). I hope that, in some form or other, one of the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper will be adopted by the Government.

MR. BARRY (Wexford, S.)

I am sorry to find that the Government feel themselves called upon to resist this Amendment, because I think that unless this or some similar Amendment is made in the Bill the value of the measure itself will be very much impaired. A very strong feeling exists in Ireland as to the exclusion of leaseholders; and I am positively certain that in any new scheme some step must be taken by this House to deal with the question of the Irish leaseholders. I am not aware what number of crofters hold leases in Scotland, but I believe they are a very large number. It is further stated by those who know the crofters best that the leaseholders are the very best class of tenants, and a class much more entitled to protection under the Bill than any other. Therefore, if they are allowed to remain in the condition which they occupy at present, the benefits conferred by the Bill will be very seriously impaired. I take it that the object of the Bill is to improve the condition of the crofters, and that object will certainly not be accomplished unless the leaseholders are included in the measure. I would therefore urge upon the Government the desirability of accepting the Amendment which has been submitted to the Committee by the noble Marquess, and I sincerely hope that he will press it to a division.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

I am very glad that the Government have opposed this Amendment, because I regard it as one which, if carried, would introduce an entirely new principle into the Bill. This is a measure which has been brought in under exceptional circumstances, in order to deal with a very exceptional state of things; and I am bound to say that it seems to me we ought to be extremely jealous in insisting that principles should not be introduced into the measure which, I am perfectly certain, would hereafter be made use of for further legislation and for different objects. The Amendment of my noble Friend—and I presume that he will take a division upon it—provides that leaseholders holding at a rent not exceeding £30 shall be able to break their leases. Now, that seems to me to be a proceeding to which there is a very considerable amount of objection on the ground of common sense. A leaseholder paying a rent of £30 a-year is really a small farmer, and he has entered into a bargain with his landlord with full knowledge of the conditions under which he took the lease. In the next place, I hope the Committee will bear in mind that if they accept the Amendment of my noble Friend, they will be adopting a principle which cannot be confined to this particular class of tenants in crofting parishes. On the other hand, there is undoubtedly a good deal of feeling on this side of the House in favour of some concession to leaseholders, under certain conditions. There appears to be a desire that they should obtain some advantages under the Bill—for instance, I cannot see that the same objection would apply to the granting of leases, and that when a new lease is arranged the leaseholder might be allowed to share some of the advantages of common pasturage conferred by the Bill in regard to their holdings. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will abide by the decision which he has announced, and that he will persist in refusing to accept the Amendment. But, on the other hand, I think that the Government might consider the subject and see whether they cannot on Report bring up some Amendment carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane), which would have the effect of placing the leaseholder, at the conclusion of his lease, in the condition of a crofter, or a present tenant. That appears to me to be a proposition in behalf of which a great deal may be said; but I cannot support, and I hope the Committee also will not support, the Amendment of my noble Friend, which has been to a certain extent sprung upon the House and has not undergone that fair consideration which its importance demands. If it were carried, it would, in all probability, introduce principles entirely new and novel into the Bill, and into all the relations between landlord and tenant with regard to the occupation of the land.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

The objection taken to the Amendment by the noble Viscount who has just sat down has reference to the consequences which will follow from its adoption, and not whether it is best in itself or not. It is stated that it is getting in the thin end of the wedge in order to prepare the way for something else. That is the great objection of the noble Viscount to the Amendment; but it is not a matter for the consideration of this Committee at all. The question for the Committee to consider is, what it is best to do, altogether regardless of what the consequences may be. We are told that the Amendment will introduce a novel principle into the Bill; but the Bill itself is a novelty altogether, and is based upon a new principle, and therefore I see nothing very outrageous in the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The only point upon which I differ from the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) is, that he has limited the qualification. I should very much have preferred if, instead of £30, a limit of £50 had been proposed by the noble Marquess. I think it would have been very much to the advantage of the crofters if an increase of that kind had been made. I certainly hope that the noble Marquess will go to a division; but I do not think there is very much use in talking about these matters at all. It would save a great deal of time if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would stand up and say whether he is prepared to alter a line or a word of the Bill. It seems to me that he is not, and that it is a waste of time to discuss the provisions of the measure in Committee, if no Amendment, however reasonable, is to be made in it.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I quite agree with the object which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. McDonald) has in view; but I cannot say that I agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived. I certainly do not agree with the remarks he has made in reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Everyone who has been present during the consideration of the clauses of the Bill must be aware that every Amendment submitted to the Committee has been fairly considered upon its merits, and has received the serious attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. At the same time, while making that acknowledgment, I must express my regret that he has not found himself able, on this occasion, to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford). What was stated a moment or two ago by the noble Viscount the Member for South Molton (Viscount Lymington) was that the Amendment was founded upon an entirely new principle. But if the noble Viscount had followed the discussion of the Bill, he would have been aware that this question of including leaseholders has, on more than one occasion, been made a subject of discussion.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

I have followed the discussion of the Bill closely, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I did not mean to say that the question was one which had escaped attention.

MR. BUCHANAN

I do not understand that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in rejecting this Amendment, has announced his intention of shutting out these leaseholders from all the benefits of the Bill. On the contrary, I gather that there are other benefits in the Bill which they will share, especially in reference to the extension of their holdings. The Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) would, however, relieve the one grievance from which the leaseholders in the Highlands have most suffered, and of which they have most loudly complained. What do the Crofters Commission say on the subject? On page 43 of their Report they say— The isolated crofter deserves our solicitude as well as his associated brethren, though it may be more difficult to meet his necessities and satisfy his demands. Many of these crofters hold under leases of the common kind, and their most urgent complaint is of excessive rents. The Commissioners, as we know, were not able to recommend the fixing of fair rents by an outside authority in their Report. And therefore they confined themselves, as they were unable to suggest a statutory remedy to meet the claim on behalf of the leaseholding crofters, to the expression of a hope that the indulgence of proprietors would be extended to them. The present Bill of the Government, however, does propose the fixing of fair rents, and deals also with excessive rents. Unfortunately, it only deals with that matter in the case of crofter tenants, and it omits to do so in the case of leaseholding tenants, which class suffer the same grievance, and ought to have their interests equally considered.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I desire to point out to the Committee that this Bill is drawn mainly upon the lines of the Irish Land Act. The only point in which it differs is in reference to rent value. By the Land Act of 1881 it makes no difference whether the tenant is evicted for non-payment of one year's rent or 20 years' rent. In this Bill that is not so; and another point upon which the measure distinctly differs from the Irish Land Act of 1881 is in the way in which it deals with leaseholders. The Lord Advocate is in error when he says that the acceptance of an Amendment such as that which has been moved by the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) will create a new principle. There are two provisions in the Irish Land Act which have reference to leaseholders. The first is, when a person who holds a lease can come into Court and prove that the lease was forced upon him by a threat of eviction; in which case he is entitled to have it set aside, and to have the same benefit under the Act as if he were a present tenant, being awarded a practical perpetuity of tenure, with a right of compensation for improvements. The second provision in the Irish Land Act has reference to the case of a tenant whose lease comes to a natural termination. In that case, also, the tenant is to be treated as a present tenant, and he becomes a tenant from year to year, with a fair rent fixed. I cannot for the life of me see why some such provision should not be introduced into the Crofters Bill. The only possible reason which suggests itself is, that the Bill is the result of some kind of compromise between the two Front Benches. It has already been noticed that not a single Amendment of importance has been accepted by the Government, and the only Amendments which have been introduced have related to very small matters indeed, and have generally been proposed by hon. Members sitting on the Conservative Benches. That is an extraordinary fact, but it is undoubtedly true. I think it would save the time of the Committee if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate were to stand up in his place and tell the Committee that he is really not a free agent in the matter. At the same time, I trust that the noble Marquess will press his Amendment to a division. The Amendment is of such a character that it will enable the country to judge who is and who is not the crofter's friend; and I think there is no better way of bringing that matter to a test than by taking an early division. I would ask the Committee to measure the Liberalism and Radicalism of some of the hon. Members who are responsible for the Bill, by the provisions of the measure itself, and I believe that the country will not feel inclined to ignore the fact on some future occasion.

MR. BEITH (Glasgow, Central)

I do not altogether agree with the wording of the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I do not think that it is quite happy. The Amendment, however, of the hon. Member for North - East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) is not, I think, open to the same objection. The hon. Member appears to have carefully considered the spirit and principle of the Act, and to have worded his Amendment in such a manner as to bring it in keeping with that principle. It, therefore, appears to me desirable that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should reconsider his decision. If he could see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, he would do what many hon. Members on this side of the House desire, without involving an alteration of the principle of the Bill to any appreciable extent. I would, therefore, advise the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) not to press his Amendment just now, but to allow the Committee to take up the question when we reach the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire further on.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not be induced to reconsider his determination on this point, but that he will adhere to the opinion he has already expressed on the Amendment. To interfere with existing leases would be an infraction of one of the main principles on which the Bill has been introduced, and would induce us on this side of the House to consider seriously our position in regard to the Bill. Hon. Members here have been anxious, subject to certain minor alterations which were pointed out early in the discussion, to give a general and cordial support to this measure; and that is the course they desire to continue to pursue to the end. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not be induced to alter his decision on this point. If an Amendment of this kind were accepted, we might have to reconsider our position in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member on the other side of the House (Dr. McDonald) certainly laid down what appears to me to be a novel principle in legislation, when he stated that it was the duty of the Committee not to consider in any way the consequences that would follow from their legislation. For my own part, I should have thought that if there was one duty more incumbent on the Committee than another, it is most carefully to consider all the consequences that are likely to follow from their legislation. But, although I differ entirely from the hon. Member upon that point, there was one remark he made in which I cordially concur, and that is when he recommended that the Committee should take a division upon this question as soon as possible; and it was only because I thought that the Committee might, with advantage, take that course at once, that I rose to take part in the debate.

MR. M'LAGAN (Linlithgow)

I did not cordially approve of the Amendment of the noble Marquess when I saw it on the Paper; but I now feel less disposed than I was at first to support it, after the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. McDonald), that the limit should be raised to £50. The hon. Member said—"Why stop at £30? Why not raise it to £50?" In the same way, I would ask why, if we go up to £50, should we not make it £100, or £1,000, in which case you would introduce the system of altering the whole rental of the country? I say that you ought not to do that by a side wind, and by introducing it into a Bill of this kind. I am quite ready to support a Bill for the readjustment of the rents of farms under leases, including those at £30 and £50 rent, or above those sums. But what I say is that this is not a Bill in which that can be done; and if you do it in this Bill up to £30, you may be introducing a principle which will be brought to bear afterwards, when it comes to be a question of the larger tenancies. Under these circumstances, I must vote against the Amendment. But before I sit down, I would earnestly press upon the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the desirability of endeavouring to introduce into the Bill the provisions of the Irish Land Act. He would have my cordial support there, because I think that something should be done for those crofters who are under leases below £30. But although I am prepared to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman to that extent, after listening to the remarks of the hon. Member (Dr. McDonald), I certainly feel myself called upon to vote against the Amendment.

DR. R. MCDONALD

May I be allowed to say that I did not make that proposal at all.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I think the Committee ought to bear in mind the announcement which has just been made by the right hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), that as the Bill stands it has, and will have, the cordial support of hon. Members on that side of the House. I trust that they will also bear in mind the Notice which has been given to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate of the consequences which will result from his acceptance of the Amendment—namely, that by so doing he would earn the opposition of the Tory Party. Now, that is the course which has been taken throughout in regard to this Bill. At any rate, that was the inference I drew from the beginning, and now it is clearly announced from the Front Bench that my view was correct. It is announced from the Front Bench opposite that the Government are not to depend upon Tory support, unless they absolutely and inflexibly adhere to the wording of the Bill. I do not propose to stand between the Committee and the division which must necessarily take place upon the Amendment. I very much regret that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has net accepted any reasonable Amendment—even the reasonable suggestion which I made that he should adopt the principle embodied in the Irish Land Act of 1881.

MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I think this Committee ought not to hesitate in going, at least, as far as the provisions of the Irish Land Act. I only intend to intrude upon the Committee for a few moments, and all I desire to say is, that I and everyone whom I can influence personally will give a cordial support to the proposal of the noble Marquess. We consider that the small leaseholders, whose case has been brought before the Committee, have been forced into engagements which they no longer desire to abide by, and which their instincts all along have repudiated. Surely we are not to be held down by any mere palaver about the sacredness of contract. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House laugh and ridicule the mere mention of the sacredness of contract; but has not that principle been violated from day to day? What is contract, if the contract interferes with the individual liberty of a single member of the community, or with the well-being of that community? Then I say that contract ought not for a moment to be allowed to stand in the way of legislation. You have recognized this principle before, although you are content to laugh at it to-night. I maintain that this Bill is a retrogressive measure. You recognized the principle I desire to enforce, although I admit it was only in a halting manner, in the Irish Land Act. We appeal to you to-night to recognize the same principle now—at least as far as it was recognized by the Irish Land Act—by trying to relieve those persons who have been forced to seal their own doom upon parchment. I shall heartily and cordially vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess, or for any proposal in the same direction. It appears to me that the votes and divisions upon the Bill, as far as they have gone, have been marked almost by a repulsive amount of tameness. Hon. Members have pretended to entertain strong feelings for the people whose interests are to be benefited by the Bill, and yet they have shrunk from giving full effect to their opinions. There has been a little talk and a few trifling divisions, but nothing whatever has been gained. If anything whatever has been gained, it has been gained in a wrong direction; and if a division upon the Amendment of the noble Marquess will have no other effect, we can, by recording our votes in favour of it, even if we are in a minority of 20, say that we have voted in support of a proper principle.

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

I cannot see how the Government can accept this Amendment. As I understand the principle of the Bill, it is to deal with the special case of an unfortunate class of the community known as crofters in Scotland. But if the noble Marquess's Amendment is accepted, instead of treating these cases as exceptional, we should lay down a rule that every tenant under £30 a-year in these crofting parishes—that is to say through-out the whole of the North of Scotland—is to hold at a rent fixed not by contract, but by a Government Department. I should like to know, supposing the Committee were to accept this principle, how long it would be before the same question would be raised in other parts of Scotland, and probably in England as well? It would be, in my opinion, the introduction of a principle which would tend in a most dangerous manner to break down the whole system of free contract in the case of every tenure under £30. I cannot, therefore, believe, this being a principle utterly foreign to the intentions with which the Bill was framed, that the Government will consent to accept such an Amendment.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I am sorry that I cannot give a silent vote upon this occasion. I can assure the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the rejection of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which extends the benefit of this clause to existing leases under £30, will be one of the greatest disappointments which the Government can inflict upon the agricultural community of Scotland. I am also satisfied that this principle will have to come up again, and very soon, and, therefore, that they need not be so very much alarmed at the introduction of the principle now. I did not hear the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate very distinctly; but I have listened to other hon. Members who also oppose the Amendment, and I failed to hear a single argument or statement which showed that crofters under leases are less deserving persons than crofters who hold from year to year. On the contrary, all I was able to hear was that crofters under leases are the more deserving class of the two, and the one which most requires consideration at our hands, because they are probably, on the whole, the better tenants of the two. I will only express my strong desire that the Amendment should be carried to a division; and if it is said that it is a novel one, and that it introduces a new principle into the Bill, I would ask the Committee to consider what would be the use of passing the Bill at all, if it was not intended to introduce something new? If it is only intended to continue the existing state of things, the Bill is not of the slightest use whatever. The only way in which it can be made a really satisfactory measure is by amending it in such a manner that it should benefit, not only a small number of persons, but the general body of the community who now exist in the crofting parishes.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I think it is a most important question whether the provisions of the Bill should be made to extend to those crofters who hold under leases. I am certainly of opinion that it is most desirable to include leaseholders under £30 in the provisions of the Bill. They are precisely of the same class as those for whom direct provision is made, with this difference only—that those to whom it is proposed to extend the benefits of the Bill hold from year to year, while those to whom the benefits of the measure are not extended hold under leases. Now, I am unable to see what distinction there is in principle between the two. I do not see why a tenant who holds from year to year is entitled to more consideration, with respect to fixity of tenure and free rent, than the tenant who holds under a lease. Reference has been made to the Irish Land Act of 1881; but, if I am not mistaken, the Irish Land Act did not include tenants under leases. I think that that was one of the great defects of the Irish Land Act; and it was with very great satisfaction that I noticed at the time of the General Election a speech of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) at Belfast, in which he expressed himself as being of opinion that the Irish Land Act might be advantageously amended, so as to include leaseholders. I trust that the House of Commons will not be deterred from giving that provision to this deserving class until it becomes too late. I quite agree that tenants who hold under leases are a more deserving class than those who hold from year to year. There is more to hope from them than from the yearly tenants; and I think that it would be a most unnecessary and injudicious curtailment if the benefits of this measure were not extended so as to include persons who really belong to the same class, but who hold under leases instead of from year to year.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

I wish to make one or two observations before the Committee proceed to a division. It is all very well for the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay) to say that leaseholders are a better class of tenants than, the crofters who do not hold under leases; but we must go a little beyond that, and consider that class of tenants who desire to take land upon lease. What we are asked to do now is to aim a very severe blow at the leasehold system—a system which has been of the greatest benefit to Scotland—by depriving the lease of its durability. In the great speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) in introducing the Irish Land Bill, one of his strongest arguments against this principle was that it would place the occupiers of land in Ireland in the position of leaseholders in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman—I remember the passage in his speech—distinctly said there was to be a sort of quasi-lease, and that it was by something of that kind that he hoped to benefit the people, My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) read a quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission; but he stopped suddenly, without concluding the whole of the Commissioners' remarks. I wish he had gone a little further. If he had I am afraid he would have found very little in support of his view. Immediately after the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Commissioners proceed to say— It is in this particular that we cannot come to their relief. That these covenanted rents are in many cases high when contracted for in the past years of comparative prosperity and eager competition we can well believe; such has been the case with other orders of occupiers, and over all Scotland; but we are not able to recommend the annulment of existing contracts by Act of Parliament. We must in such cases trust to the discretion and indulgence of proprietors, which have been extensively exercised in regard to large farms by remission and reduction of rent. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was one of the Commissioners, although he did not sign the Report; but I presume that he sanctioned the conclusion at which his brother Commissioners arrived. [An hon. MEMBER: That was three years ago.] Three years ago. Yes; but this is a question of public importance, and I want to know if it is not for the advantage of a person who wishes to farm land that he should be able to obtain the land by making a bargain with the landlord? The question is a most important one, and I think the thanks of the Committee are due to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for the determined stand he has made against the Amendment.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)

The question before us is what amount of alleviation the Bill will give. It was purposely brought in to alleviate distress and allay discontent in the crofting districts of Scotland. I may tell the Committee that in the crofting districts of Scotland there are two kinds of holders—the crofter who holds from year to year, and the leaseholder; and it has been proved that the leaseholders have been suffering even more than the annual tenants, and yet under the Bill no prospect of alleviation whatever of their distress is held out. It is, therefore, essential that the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) or of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) should be adopted; but, on the whole, I think the last the best. I earnestly hope, however, that the Committee will vote in favour of the Amendment of my noble Friend, in order to ensure that the matter will be dealt with in some way, and so prevent an amount of distress and discontent which the Bill, as it stands, would undoubtedly perpetuate.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I think that we are treading on the verge of very dangerous ground indeed. All the Committee have heard during the last few minutes is to the effect that if a man has made a bad bargain, he ought to be able to come to the House of Commons in order to get rid of it. If the Committee adopt the principle contained in the Amendment, I believe that many who are connected with leasehold property would come to this House for relief in order to get the covenants into which they have entered, and which have been signed, sealed, and delivered, broken because they are found not to pay, and which hitherto have been regarded as obligations. I am sure there are many persons in this country and Ireland, as well as in Scotland, who would only be too glad to repudiate the contracts into which they have entered, if they thought it right to do so, especially those in regard to the leasing of minerals and of agricultural property. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has alluded to the case of Ireland. What was originally done in the case of Ireland was to fix the rent for 15 years, and that was done without regard to good or bad seasons and crops. What is the state of Ireland at this day in consequence? You have the Irish tenants at this moment with 15 years' leases on their hands with all agricultural produce down both in quantity and price. And so also with regard to the Scottish crofters. We desire to do our best for them; but it seems to me that we are only going to make bad worse if we are to put the leaseholders into the Bill, and allow them to repudiate the covenants of their leases. The Scottish crofters, no doubt, have their grievances; but those grievances will not, I fear, be remedied by the Bill. As I said before, I think the Committee are treading on the verge of very dangerous ground, and I cannot vote for such an addition to the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 230: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 61.)

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The Amendment which I now propose is to leave out, in the 2nd sub-section to the clause, in page 4, line 4, the words "decision of," in order to insert the words "notice of application to." The clause, as it stands, provides that the— Fixed rent shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the crofter as from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Land Commission, and shall come in place of the present rent, and, save by mutual agreement, the rent so fixed shall not be altered for a period of fifteen years. If my Amendment is adopted, the fixed rent will come in place of the present rent from the first term succeeding "the application to" instead of "the decision of" the Land Commission. I think it would be better to take some clearly defined period of fixing the rent, rather than leave it to the problematical date of the decision of the Court. The result of the present state of the law in Ireland is, that the tenant may be obliged to pay an unjust rent for years and then, when he succeeds in getting it fixed in his favour, he has no remedy and cannot recover the amount which has been extorted from him unjustly. I consider this to be an objectionable principle altogether. The ordinary rule of law is that the rights of the parties shall commence with the application to the Court. If a man brings an action to recover money, the rights of the parties are ascertained from the day on which the writ is issued; and I do not see why the same principle should not be adopted in the case of rent. In this case, also, the provisions of the Bill are very much worse than the provisions of the Irish Land Act. In the Act of 1881 there is a provision that, where application was made at the "first sitting" of the Commission, the rent shall run from the the date of the application to the Court. I may be told, of course, that the number of tenants or crofters who are to get the benefit of the provisions of this Bill are only some 30,000 or 40,000, whereas in the case of the Irish Act the interests of more than 1,000,000 tenants were involved; but I do not see that that is any reason why the law should be more imperfect in the one case than in the other. Although there are only some 40,000 persons who are likely to get the benefit of this Bill, I do not see why their interests should be injuriously affected, because from difficulty of access in the district, or from some other cause, it is possible that the decision of the Court may be postponed. That is a case which often occurs in Ireland, and will probably occur also in Scotland. I therefore submit the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "decision of," and insert "notice of application to."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'decision of' stand part of the Clause."

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

I quite understand the ground on which this Amendment is proposed, and I think the hon. Member who moved it was evidently prepared for certain practical difficulties of a very serious kind. I will briefly state what the difficulties are, and I will then explain the Amendment which I propose to move myself. I quite see that if it were practicable to allow the rent as settled and fixed to run from the date of the application, it would be very just in itself, because a movement has then been made, and the matter has become contentious. But I must point out that the great practical difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment as it stands would be that the payment of rent would necessarily cease simultaneously with the application, because, until a decision was pronounced, the landlord would not know what rent he was entitled to demand, nor would the tenant know what rent he was bound to pay. It would be impossible, therefore, to maintain an action for rent, and the presenting of an application would practically involve, if I may use such an expression, a judicial strike against rent for the period which might be requisite to enable a decision to be come to. It would prevent the payment of any rent at all until a fair rent was fixed by the Court, I do not think that would be right, and I am quite sure the hon. Member will see that it would go far beyond anything that has been done in Ireland. At the same time, I think the matter might be met by making an alteration in the Amendment which stands on the next page in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). That Amendment provides that— The lodging of an application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent shall operate ipso facto as a sist of all proceedings for the removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined. I propose to amend that Amendment by substituting words giving power to the Land Commission, on the application of the tenant to fix fair rent, to gist proceedings for the removal of a crofter until the application should be finally determined, upon such terms as the payment of rent or otherwise as they should see fit. The effect of that would be that if any person did not settle with his landlord, and his landlord was proposing to remove him for non-payment of the old rent, it would be in his power to go to the Land Commission and plead that the rent was too high. The Land Commission, in entertaining that plea, would be entitled to ask whether the crofter was going to pay any rent at all, and if he said his rent was £7, whereas he thought it should be only £4, then the Commission could direct him to pay the £4, and let the other stand over, or it might be that they would fix a higher interim payment. What makes me hesitate in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) is that it would have the absolute effect of making the rent non-payable, practically irrecoverable, to any extent. But by such an Amendment as I propose, there would be a certain amount of flexibility given to the matter, and, pending the decision of the Court, there would be a ready means of ordering payment of a portion of the rent. The Land Court might take time to consider, but the delay would not prevent payment of rent altogether.

MR. CHANCE

I did see the difficulty which has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I would suggest to him one way by which I think it may be met. As the matter now stands the provision of the Bill might possibly nullify the whole of the benefit which would result from the measure. I clearly see the difficulty, and I saw it when I put the Amendment down upon the Paper; but I thought of proposing to add to the sub-section a subsequent provision declaring the present rent to be payable subject to the excess, in the event of a judicial reduction, being refunded.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should not press the Amendment now, but wait and see the Amendment which I intend to propose. The idea of a rebate did occur to me; but I thought my own proposal was the less hard and the more merciful of the two. The hon. Member's proposal would compel the tenant to pay the money, and lie out of it for some time, although he might possibly get it back again. I think it would be much better to accept my proposal. The tenant in that case would retain a portion of the money, which would not be so great a hardship as parting with all of it. As a matter of fact, the crofter would never have to part with more than appeared primâ facie to be right.

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

I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposes to deal with the matter on the lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say exactly what the words of the Amendment he proposes to move are?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I propose to substitute for the first three lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife—namely, The lodging of an application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent shall operate ipso facto as a sist of all proceedings for removal of the crofer till the said application is finally determined, something to this effect— When an application is lodged with the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, it shall be in the power of the Land Commission, on the application of the crofter, to sist all proceedings for the removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined, upon such terms as to payment of rent or otherwise as they shall think fit. The effect of such a provision would be that the Land Commission would take a kind of payment on account, and would allow the rest to stand over until the termination of the proceedings. It appears to me that that would be of more advantage to the crofter than to have the whole of the present rent impounded.

MR. CHANCE

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the propriety of giving the crofter the option of paying and taking the rebate when the rent is fixed?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Certainly.

MR. CHANCE

He will be a better judge than the Land Court.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Certainly, I will consider the matter.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I had placed upon the Table an Amendment similar to that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance); and I certainly think the Committee ought to lay down the principle that the newly-adjusted rent should date from the time of the application. That principle is so just that I am surprised the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should object to it. There ought also to be a provision that that principle does not absolve the tenant from his liability to pay the rent. All I ask is that the Committee should lay down the principle that the new rent should date from the time of the application of the tenant to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, and then, if it is considered desirable, there should be the further provision suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Committee should have power to declare what portion of the rent should go back to the tenant.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I may point out to my hon. Friend that what I have suggested is, that a provision should be inserted requiring that, in the event of a payment having been made by the tenant, in excess of the rent which might ultimately be determined to be fair, there should be a rebate going back to the date of the application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent.

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

I think it would be a very great pity, indeed, if effect could not be given to the spirit of the hon. Member's Amendment in some way or other. All I would say now, without committing myself to a decided preference for either proposal, is that I consider the proposal of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) much nearer safety, if my right hon. and learned Friend will pardon me for saying so, than the proposal made by my right hon. and learned Friend to alter the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear).

THE LORD ADVOCATE

The object of my suggestion is to provide an alternative.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to say that he intends to apply the principle of the Amendment to the Bill? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman go as far as that?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not wait until the Report before he deals with this question. I think that it ought to be dealt with in Committee, and perhaps the proper opportunity for disposing of it will be when we reach the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear).

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

Before we go further, I want to know what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate means by intimating his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment. I wish to know if he is prepared to accept the principle of restitution under all circumstances, no matter what the accumulation in the shape of arrears may be, or whether he only intends to apply the principle to the current year? The latter part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) distinctly opens the question of arrears, and not only provides that arrears shall be dealt with, but that the Land Commission shall take an account of the amount of arrears due, or to become due, before the application is finally determined, and shall decide whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the whole or what part of the arrears ought in equity to be paid. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that as well as the arrears for the current year?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I think the provision should apply to the whole arrears.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury)

The Amendment which stands in my name is as follows:—To insert, after the word "agreement," in page 4, line 5 of the clause, the following words:— Or until the crofter on application to the Land Commission can show that, owing to a decrease in the prices of agricultural produce in the locality, as compared with similar prices at the time when the rent was fixed, and from causes not merely temporary or casual, he is unable to pay such rent. The Committee will observe that, in this Amendment, there is introduced the principle of affording an opportunity to the tenant of having his rent reviewed and altered during the period of 15 years, if, owing to circumstances over which he has no control, he finds himself unable to continue the payment of the fixed rent. I understand the Government to admit that the prices of agricultural produce are to be an element in the calculation of a fair rent. By this Amendment, the only cause for altering a rent will be the fact that there has been a diminution in the prices of agricultural produce. There is only to be one variation in the rent during a period of 15 years, and, in order that the tenant may get his rent altered at all, the burden of proof will rest upon him. The alteration of rent cannot be brought about by any temporary or casual circumstances. Now, as far as we have gone in considering the question of fair rent, it seems to me that the proposition which is put forward in the Amendment which I propose is rather an alternative proposition to that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and, as I understand, accepted by the Government, except that my Amendment deals only with a rent fixed for 15 years, and variable once only within that period of 15 years, whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member applies to a rent fixed for 15 years, but variable year by year according to the varying prices of agricultural produce. I think I ought to apologize to hon. Members who represent the Northern parts of Scotland for proposing to introduce this Amendment into the Bill, seeing that I do not represent a constituency in that part of the country; but I can assure hon. Members from Scotland that this question is looked upon with very great interest by the constituencies in England, because there is a very striking analogy between the crofters in the North of Scotland and the squatters in England. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this, the squatter in this country, like the crofter in Scotland, built his cottage upon waste land, and thereby obtained the privilege of pasturage on common land. Like the crofter, he has now been driven out of the rights he thus acquired, and been compelled to give up his particular cottage holding. I do not deny that the condition of the crofter is even somewhat worse than that of the squatter in England, because at the present moment, and for a long time past, the law has been very seriously against the crofter's interest. From time to time they have been driven out of the inland districts down to the seashore, and the only alternative offered them now is either to be driven into the sea or over the sea into some foreign country. Now, I maintain that there is ample room for these industrious persons to gain a decent livelihood upon the soil of this country. There is one other point I wish to lay before the Committee, and it is the fact that I approach this subject entirely from a landlord's point of view—being myself a landlord. Owing to peculiar circumstances, it has been my lot to inherit a property which has never been managed by any professional agent—certainly during this century—and it has been my duty during the last 15 years to conduct myself the management of the estate to which I refer in a business-like manner. From the experience which I have gained, I have learned the object and wants of the tenants. The tenants have come directly to me, without the interposition of any agent between themselves and their landlord, and I have consequently had a considerable opportunity of ascertaining the feeling of the tenants towards their landlords, from which I have been able to form an opinion as to what their feeling is in regard to a fair rent as between landlord and tenant. In the first place, I must take exception to some expressions which have been used by hon. Members on the other side of the House in regard to fair rent. They seem to consider that the fixing of a fair rent is a privilege conferred upon the tenant.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the line of argument the hon. Gentleman is pursuing is strictly germane to the Amendment upon the Paper?

THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that it is a little discursive.

MR. FULLER

The object of my Amendment is to show that there is a way of arriving at a fair rent which is not included in the Bill—namely, by the adoption of a principle that, when the rent has been fixed by the Land Commission, there should be an opportunity afforded to the tenant of having the rent altered in the event of circumstances occurring over which he has no control. I have placed the Amendment on the Paper in order to give an opportunity to the Government, at all events, of considering the subject, and an opportunity of rectifying the blot which, to my mind, exists in the Land Act of 1881. In this case, it must be borne in mind that the whole principle by which a fair rent is to be arrived at between landlord and tenant is taken from the Irish Land Act. That principle is, that there should be a fair rent and fixity of tenure. I maintain that fair rent and fixity of tenure should go together; you cannot have one without the other; and if you give a fair rent to the tenant with fixity of tenure, you are offering him an inducement to enter on his land and cultivate it for his own benefit; but unless he has fixity of tenure, you place him in a position in which he might at any time be turned out of his holding, and the landlord might step in and take possession of the holding as improved by the tenant. If, on the other hand, you give to the tenant fixity of tenure without a fair rent, you render him liable to have an unjust and an unfair rent imposed upon him; and I maintain that it is impossible for any tenant to get a living with an unfair rent imposed upon him. The result in this case would be that he would have to take shelter under the 7th clause of the Bill and by giving up his holding get out of the farm as soon as possible. Therefore, in my opinion, the two things are tied up together, and fair rent and fixity of tenure must go together. As far as I can judge the Government are making an endeavour, in this Bill, to encourage the landlord to come to an agreement with his tenant, in the first place, and, in the second place, if the landlord and tenant cannot agree it becomes the duty of the Government, or rather of the State, to step in and see that a fair rent is given to the tenant on such conditions as are calculated to insure the preservation of law and order throughout the community.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must request the hon. Member to confine his argument to the Amendment, which is— Or until the crofter on application to the Land Commission can show that, owing to a decrease on the prices of agricultural produce in the locality, as compared with similar prices at the time when the rent was fixed, and from causes not merely temporary or casual, he is unable to pay such rent.

MR. FULLER

One of the great reasons why I ask for this privilege to be given to the tenant is this. The Crofters Commission have constantly shown that a very large amount of poverty prevails among the crofters in the Highlands of Scotland, and I conceive that to be a strong reason why, when a fair rent has been once fixed at the agricultural prices of the day, if those prices become seriously diminished, the crofter ought, at all events, to have an opportunity of having his rent fixed again so as to enable him to meet the changed circumstances of agricultural prices. Of course, I am aware what the nature of the argument is which will be used against me. It will be said that if when agricultural prices are low the rent of the tenant is fixed in accordance with those prices, the landlord ought to have the right of altering rent when the prices of agricultural produce are high. I know it will be said—"Surely the landlord, when prices get higher, should have the advantage of obtaining more rent." But I maintain that we ought to take into consideration the special condition of the crofter, and the poverty amidst which he appears to be living, as one great reason why the State ought not to allow the rent to be raised during a period of 15 years—at any rate, more than once. There seems to me to be no steppingstone—no means, on the part of the crofter, of attaining from the lowest and most abject poverty to a better position in life. We find in the Report of the Royal Commission an instance given of the parish of Farr, in Sutherland, in which they state that there are 295 crofters and cottars who paid a gross rental per annum of £681. Out of the total number, 288 pay a rent of less than £6 per annum; and while the highest croft pays £7 16s., the lowest farm stands for £290; and while 293 small occupiers represent an aggregate rental of £681, a small pastoral farmer, who is not a resident, holds lands of the annual value of £683; in addition to which he has a shooting tenancy of £200, and an angling tenancy of £100. Under such circumstances, how is it possible for a crofter to raise his condition so as to obtain a better living? The condition of the crofters must, therefore, be taken into consideration by the Government; and if the rent at the beginning of a holding is fixed at a low amount, there is strong reason, bearing in mind the poverty of the crofters, why it should not be raised during a period of 15 years. Of course, where there is a lease, if the rent is fixed at a low sum at the beginning of 15 years, it is a matter of mutual agreement that it shall not be raised during that period. There are other reasons why I think this Amendment is very much preferable to the one which has almost been adopted by the Government at the instance of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—namely, that the rent shall be regulated in accordance with the principle of the tithe rent-charge. I contend that the adoption of this Amendment would be for the interest not only of the tenant, but of the landlord as well, and that it would be far better to have the rents fixed in the way I suggest than to have them altered year by year in accordance with variations in the prices of agricultural produce. The tenant, at all events, would know that if his rent is once fixed it will not be altered for a period of 15 years, and he would consequently know exactly what he would have to pay. It would hardly be possible for the crofter to know what he would have to pay if the rent is to vary year by year; and there is nothing in the Amendment I propose which would prevent the landlord from coming to an agreement with the tenant. It does not interfere with any of the ordinary customs which prevail in the country, nor does it establish any new custom; and I venture to hope that it is a proposal which will be accepted by the Government.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 5, after "agreement," insert "or until the crofter on application to the Land Commission can show that, owing to a decrease in the prices of agricultural produce in the locality, as compared with similar prices at the time when the rent was fixed, and from causes not merely temporary or casual, he is unable to pay such rent."—(Mr. Fuller.)

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

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

I would suggest to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment at present. The Government are engaged in considering the terms of a clause it is proposed to introduce on Report which will have the effect of making the fixed rent to be paid by the crofter vary according to the yearly alterations of the average price of the produce of the farm, and if a clause of that description is adjusted and is satisfactory to the Committee, it will be quite unnecessary to deal with this matter in the way proposed by the Amendment. I therefore trust that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I am glad to hear the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), and I wish to impress upon the Government that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done in the direction indicated. I think the Committee are under great obligations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) for having brought the matter forward. I have an Amendment later down on the same subject, giving power to the Land Commission, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, to authorize a revision of rents, in the event of an excessive failure of crops or stock, or a falling off in the price of agricultural produce; but, after what the hon. and learned Solicitor General has said, I shall not press it. As the Bill stands now, it imposes on the tenant a long lease of 15 years, and in times of bad seasons and changing prices the tenant may experience considerable difficulty in keeping upon his legs. I am glad to find that the Government intend to consider both the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and that of the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller), with a view of making some provision for varying the rent according to the changing prices of produce.

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

Does the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. FULLER

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

The next Amendment stands in my name, and it provides that during the period for which rent is fixed an appeal may be taken to the Land Commission to have the rent altered, and that the appellant shall pay all expenses if he fail to prove his case. The Irish Land Act had two grave defects, one of which was that it fixed the rent for 15 years. It is now out of date to fix rents for a number of years without the opportunity of alteration. I think that in these days it is not too much to ask that the rent shall not be irrevocably fixed for so long a period, but that it should be left open for an application to be made to the Land Commission to alter the rent. This leaves it open either for the landlord or tenant to apply to the Land Commission, the neutral authority for fixing the rent; and as the Government have already promised that in the future rents shall be based to some extent on the price of agricultural produce, I hope they will never reach the condition in which they have been placed in the past, both in Scotland and Ireland.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member move the Amendment?

MR. M'CULLOCH

Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN

As the words now stand they are inconsistent with the context of the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 6, leave out all after "shall," and add "only be altered by agreement or on appeal to the Land Commission, the appellant paying all expenses if he fail to prove his case."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'shall not be altered for a period of fifteen years from such term' stand part of the Clause."

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

I would appeal to the hon. Member whether there is any necessity for this Amendment, if a satisfactory clause is proposed to the Committee such as I indicated a few moments ago? In that case, the crofter would be in this position—a fair rent would be fixed, which could be altered, either by agreement or at the expiration of the term of 15 years, which is the term to be fixed by Statute, and then it would also be a rent which would fluctuate annually, according to the average annual value of the agricultural produce of the croft. What my hon. Friend proposes is, that there should be a power given at any time to the crofter to apply to the Commission to have a fair rent fixed. I think that would be very far from a satisfactory arrangement; because, of course, if the crofter applied under the plea that he was not satisfied with the rent owing to the fluctuation in the prices of agricultural produce, there is a great probability that the application would be made under circumstances which would not warrant its succeeding. The Amendment proposes that the unsuccessful applicant should become liable for the expenses of the application. That being so, the Amendment is an encouragement to the crofter to apply to the Land Commission to alter the rent; and, under the circumstances, there may be a great probability of the application being unsuccessful, with the unfortunate result of the tenant finding the application refused, and the costs being awarded against him. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I think the Amendment of the hon. Member simply carries out the spirit of the concession which has been made by the Government, that rent shall be fixed from time to time. It seems to me an absurd thing to fix rent for 15 years and not to provide for its alteration from year to year according to the current price of agricultural produce. Such a proposition I can hardly support.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

Does my hon. Friend intend by the Amendment to give the landlord the right of raising the rent of his tenant upon an application to the Land Commission? [Mr. M'CULLOCH: Yes.] Then I certainly entertain strong objections to such a proposal. At the same time, I do not think the Committee need very much trouble themselves with what is likely to happen beyond the next five years; because I do not think the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will last that time. It is for that reason that I think the Committee may accept the provisions of the Bill, for I hardly think the price of agricultural produce is likely to fall very much within that period. But the Land Commission may probably take a wider view of the subject, and take into consideration the varying price of other commodities. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has laid down the proposition that the crofters are going to convert themselves into fishermen, and therefore the Commission may have to consider the price of fish. Although there may be difficulties in the way, theoretically it is quite possible that the price of labour may increase quite as fast as the price of agricultural produce, in which case it would also form an element. Although, at first sight, it may be considered fair to regulate the rent of the holding by the price of agricultural produce, the fact must also be taken into account that there may be an increase of cost in production.

MR. M'CULLOCH

At least we have the promise that the price of produce will, in some shape, be made the basis of rent. In the present combination of Whigs and Tories, it would be a waste of time to divide the Committee, and I will, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I merely propose to move the next Amendment which stands in my name formally. It is to provide that the period of 15 years for which the fixed rent is to run shall be reduced to five years, and I move it in order to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate what the precise intention of the Government is. Until I hear what that intention is, I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, leave out "fifteen," and insert "five."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

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

The term of fifteen years has been put into the Bill for two reasons—in the first place, because it nearly approximates to the period of 19 years common in Scotch leases; and, also, because it is the period fixed in the Irish Act. Further, it was thought that it would avoid the instability which might result from the too frequent alteration of the rent. But since the clause was drawn up, it has been represented by many persons of great experience that probably a period of 15 years is too long, and I am inclined to that view myself from what I have heard. Two hon. Members have put down Amendments on the Paper to fix the period at seven years, and, if it is agreeable to the Committee, I will be glad to adopt that period.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeenshire, E.)

I think that if the Government are going to agree to an automatic system of rent, according to the price of produce in each year, it is unnecessary and inconsistent to fix rent for any particular number of years. It would be better not to put down any period at all.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

It certainly appears to me that all these Amendments hang together. If we are to have an automatic mode of altering rents, and if we are to adhere to it, then it seems to me that seven years is too long for the tenant, and probably too short for the landlord, so far as Scotland is concerned. If we are to have an automatic method, I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) that it is hardly worth while to fix the rent for any particular number of years.

MR. CHANCE

May I ask whether the Government, in addition to reducing the period from 15 years to seven, intend to provide an automatic method of altering the rent? [The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes.] Then, Sir, I will withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Let me point out what it was that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said. He said that, while the automatic mode would be best, it was by no means inconsistent, nor would it dispense with the necessity of fixing the rent for a number of years. The automatic system would only say how much is to be paid under or over the fixed fair rent; but there might be other considerations which would make it proper to lower or raise the rent at particular periods. I am afraid that the adoption of the one course will hardly do away with the necessity for the other; but I am quite willing to leave the matter over until the Report.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I wish to understand at what period the Government propose that the automatic system shall be adopted? Is it to be annually? [The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, certainly.] Then it does not matter what length of time is put in the Bill.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I do not think that it would be wise to limit the term to a period of seven years, and it occurs to me that the tenants themselves would not be satisfied with that short period. I think that 12 years would be more acceptable. I speak from some experience of the matter, because in my part of the country the custom is to take a lease for 19 years; but considering the circumstances of the times, and the extreme uncertainty as to the price of agricultural produce, I think that nowadays 12 years would be a more acceptable term in many parts of the country than 19 years. I am disposed to think that the crofters themselves would prefer 12 years to seven.

SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)

I have an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the term from 15 years to seven, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree to that term, which has already been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that seven years would give general satisfaction, and I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment I intend to propose.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for South Kilkenny withdraw the Amendment?

MR. CHANCE

Yes.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to have a little further explanation from the Government. I very much doubt the possibility of altering the rent year by year. I think it would only be possible to alter the rent satisfactorily and with good effect when the change becomes permanent, and the result of prices extending over a series of years is taken.

MR. BEITH (Glasgow, Central)

I will take this case. The crofter encounters a bad season, and he has to provide himself with oats at a high price. He has, therefore, a high price to pay for produce, and a high rent to pay besides, and, consequently, he has double need of a reduction. Where the tenant has a large farm, the case may be different; but, even there, it is not very different, because if the prices he receives are low, it is because the quantity is large, and if he has a good harvest, he can afford to take lower prices and still be able to pay his rent. The more I think of the matter, the greater do the difficulties appear.

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

I take it that, strictly speaking, the Committee should discuss, in connection with the Amendment, the automatic system which the Government propose to adopt; but I am far from desiring to do so in any detail. But the hon. Member, who has repeated some of the arguments used by other hon. Members, is quite right in saying that the question will have to be dealt with, and with the utmost caution. I hope that, in giving a general assent to the principle that rents are to vary with external circumstances, we are not committing ourselves to any special provision to make it easy or difficult for the crofter to pay his rent. The more I think over the matter the more difficult does the working of the principle appear to be.

MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will, before abandoning either the fixed or movable period, consider what fees the tenant would have to pay for the reconsideration of his rent by the Land Commission. If the holder of a small croft has to pay fees for getting his rent reduced, the fees might be greater than the reduction would probably be for the whole seven years. Therefore, without impugning or objecting in any way to the principle of making the rent vary according to the fluctuating price of agricultural produce, which is to be the basis for fixing the rent, the payment of the necessary fees in connection with the application to the Land Commission will be an important element for consideration.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

I would make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he is going to introduce the principle that the rent should depend upon the varying prices of agricultural produce from year to year, he ought to give a good long notice of the clause which he intends to propose, because the matter is one that will have a large effect in England as well as in Scotland. If we do anything of this kind, we must adopt the Italian mezzeria system, by which the rent varies with the produce of the farm, which is, after certain deductions, equally divided between landlord and tenant. Unless we adopt a plan of that kind, we shall find it impossible to establish a fair system. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to give long notice of his proposal for altering the present system.

MR. J. E. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)

I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie), which proposes to reduce the term from 15 to seven years, rather than adopt the system of variable rental from year to year. Anyone who has had any experience of the difficulties incident to the calculation and the collection of the corn tithe rent-charge, which is based upon these variable prices, will realize the immense difficulty there will be in convincing the crofters—many of whom will have to pay very small sums in the shape of rent—of what the exact amount of that rent ought to be in each year. In Lancashire, where the corn tithe rent-charge is paid, in a great many instances, on exceedingly small plots of land, I have myself found the very greatest difficulty in convincing the persons who have to pay these small tithe rent-charges of the amount upon which they ought to be calculated in each year. I am, therefore, sure that we shall find, if the system is adopted of fixing the rent annually upon the high or low prices of agricultural produce, or in accordance with any other variable prices, it will be almost impossible to convince the crofter what the exact amount is which, year by year, ought to be paid. I think it would be a very much better plan to reduce the term, as proposed by the hon. Member for West Perthshire, from 15 years down to seven or even to five years, rather than to make it a variable rent from year to year.

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

It would be irregular to go on with a discussion about fixing rent by produce, as the only question before the Committee is that of payment on a term of years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name to reduce the term from 15 to seven years.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, to leave out "fifteen," and insert "seven."—(Sir Donald Currie.)

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

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I did not quite understand your ruling, Sir, in reference to the question of produce. Will it bar discussion on the fixed period or annual rent?—because the question of produce is one of annual rent, while the question of the fixed period is one of a number of years. The former, I think, would break down in practice, and what I want to see is a short period fixed.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that the question he has to discuss is whether 15 or seven should be inserted in the clause.

MR. MACFARLANE

Then, in that case, I will move as an Amendment to seven to substitute five.

THE CHAIRMAN

The first thing it is necessary to do is to strike out "fifteen." If "fifteen" is negatived "seven" will become the Main Question, and the hon. Member will have his opportunity.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I have also an Amendment on the Paper to substitute seven for 15. The experience of the working of the Irish Land Act has, I think, proved that 15 years is far too long a terra, and it would be much more reasonable if the Government would give us a sliding scale. It has been said, over and over again, that a sliding scale will not work; but if it is found that that is so, we could fall back upon the principle of a term of years. I trust that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will agree that seven years, under any circumstances, is a term quite long enough.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness)

I entirely agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. R. McDonald).

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that it is advisable to postpone the consideration of the number of years until we know what the Government intend to propose with regard to the sliding-scale.

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

No; I think not. It does not appear to me that the two things necessarily hang together. There is a general feeling in the Committee and elsewhere that conditions may vary so much in 15 years that what might be thought proper at the beginning might not be proper at the end; and there appears to be a general feeling that seven years should fix the mean between what is too long and what is too short a period.

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

I do not know what the circumstances are to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman alludes, and which are to vary in the course of 15 years. There may be some, but I do not at this moment see what they are. There appears to be a difficulty which has obliged or induced several hon. Members to discuss an Amendment which appears on the next page in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers); but I thought the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie). The Committee generally appear to think that the question of a long or a short term is inextricably bound up with a sliding-scale, and that suggests the question whether it would not be the best plan to drop for the moment the question of the term rent until we have settled whether there is to be a sliding scale or not. I would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. R. McDonald) should drop his Amendment until he knows the fate of that which has been moved by the hon. Member for West Perthshire, and finds whether it is necessary to propose any further limitation of the term.

DR. R. MCDONALD

I do not see why we should not fix the term now; it would not in any way interfere with the sliding scale.

SIR DONALD CURRIE

I agree that it is on Report that the question with regard to the sliding scale is to be settled, and I have no objection to the course which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has promised to take. But, at the same time, we have to consider whether the period mentioned in the Bill should be retained or reduced. I am of opinion, and so are a good many crofters with whom I have spoken, that the period should be seven years, and I trust that the Government will agree to place that term in the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers) intends to move the Amendment of which he has given Notice; but I hope he will not do so, and allow the matter to stand over to Report. I think it would be very much better for the Committee to go a long way to get rid of the present difficulty by adopting the Amendment which Her Majesty's Government have expressed their willingness to accept. I do hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwark, Bermondsey)

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has spoken about six times with reference to the very Amendment which I am about to move, and on those six occasions he has been entirely, continuously, and incessantly irrelevant. That is, of course, owing to the enormous amount of knowledge which he has on the subject. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the two things—the sliding scale and the term of years proposed—are not compatible; because it might be necessary to revise the bargain made seven years ago. But the question is entirely distinct from that which is the subject of my Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, at the end, to add— (3.) Where the Land Commission shall judicially fix a rent, which shall be less in amount than the present rent, the crofter shall be entitled in the next payment of rent to deduct from the amount of the judicial rent such sum or sums as he may have paid over and above the amount of the judicial rent between the date of the notice of application to fix the judicial rent and the date when such rent was fixed."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

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

It seems to me that with one very slight verbal alteration we might agree to this Amendment, which would give effect to what was discussed a little time ago on the matter of rebate. But I venture to point out that as the Amendment stands it makes the payment applicable, not to the period for which the judicial rent is running, and there might have been an old rent payable for a prior period which was only then paid. I would suggest that after the phrase "judicial rent" occurring in the Amendment the second time the words "in respect of the period" should be inserted.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

We understand that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has undertaken to deal with this question on Report, and I think it would be more convenient that it should be so. The Amendment of the hon. Member is not on the Paper. We are quite willing to pass it, on the understanding that it will be dealt with on Report.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I would prefer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate should go on with the Amendment now. I am rather distrustful of settlements on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, at the end, to add— (3.) Where the Land Commission shall judicially fix a rent, which shall be less in amount than the present rent, the crofter shall be entitled in the next payment to deduct from the amount of the judicial rent such sum or sums as he may have paid over and above the amount of the judicial rent, in respect of the period between the date of the notice of application to fix the judicial rent and the date when such rent was fixed."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

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

It seems to me that this amending clause will very satisfactorily meet the difficulty we discussed a short time ago, and I believe it is only what every hon. Member considers to be a matter of fairness and justice to the crofter. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree to it.

Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS (Southwork, Bermondsey)

, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said: I do not pretend to suggest that the words which I have put down are those which the Committee, or the Government, will actually, in their present form, accept. I have consulted my Scotch legal friends, and got from them the best information I could as to the meaning of words in Scotch law; and also my Scotch farming friends, in order to learn the best way in which to arrive at my object. But my purpose is to substitute for a fixed rent payable for 15 or seven years a variable rent based on the value of produce. This has been the practice in tithe averages for the last 50 years, and with the best results. It has done away with incessant heart-burnings, and brought about content instead of discontent. I mentioned the other night that I remembered in my youth that clergymen who had, at the time, a rent from the land in kind, which is as real as that of landowners, were shot at their own doors, or dragged out of their houses by infuriate farmers and threatened with death unless they agreed to give up tithes in kind. The Tithe Rent-Charge Act was passed and the discontent ceased; and here I may observe that the tithe owner is as much a landlord as the landowner. Land has, in fact, a double owner. Now, I am ready to admit that the tithe averages pressed hardly on the tithe owner, clerical and lay; but in the present case the area from which the average is collected can be enlarged, and the landlord and tenant thus justly dealt with. If the Government had listened to me when I urged this policy in connection with the Irish Land Act of 1881 the troubles of 1886 could not have occurred. Produce, we are told, has fallen 30 per cent, and rents which were just enough in 1881 are unfair at present. Besides, it is worth while to meet the bitter and growing hostility of tenants to landlords by timely concession. A friend of mine has said that till lately it was a misfortune to possess land; at present it is becoming a crime. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to lay before us an automatic scale, upon which these rents shall be dealt with. Of course, under those circumstances, if I have a pledge from him that he will bring in an automatic scale on Report I shall be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment which I am about to move; but, otherwise, I must press it on the acceptance of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, at end of Clause, add— Every rent, whether it be the present rent, the yearly rent, including money and any prestations other than money, rent altered by agreement or fair rent, shall be interpreted in produce, that is to say, shall be payable in the following proportions, thirty per centum in the market value of oats, twenty per centum in the market value of potatoes, and fifty per centum in the market value of cattle sold, taken by the fiars court prices for the year preceding the date at which the rent is due, and it shall be the duty of the fiars court to strike these prices. The quantities shall be, in this calculation, the imperial quarter of oats, the hundred weight of potatoes, and the average price of stock for the year preceding."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I can only repeat the promise made on Thursday last, and again this evening, that I will consider the matter before the Report. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I rise to move the next Amendment, which stands in my name, and which I trust Her Majesty's Government will consider pari passu with the other Amendments they have undertaken to look into before the Report. This is a subject that I have spent many years of my life in dealing with. I am of opinion that there should be some means by which, under extraordinary circumstances, you should have the power to intervene equitably to meet the case of rents which cannot, owing to unforeseen causes, be paid. I shall move the Amendment formally, and as I said I do not wish to press it upon the Committee now.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, at end, add—"Provided, That, if within the term for which any rents are fixed under the provisions of this section, it shall appear to the Land Commission that, owing to excessive failure of crops and stock, great changes of value, or other causes which could not be foreseen, and which operate either generally or in particular areas, rents previously fair have become unfair and inequitable, and cannot be paid, the Land Commission may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland previously obtained, declare that rents may be revised, and abatements or suspensions may be granted, on due cause shown, either generally or in a specified area. And, after the issue of such declaration, any crofter, or any body of crofters, in any particular area, may apply to the Land Commission for revision, abatement, or suspension of rent. Upon such application, after due inquiry, and hearing the parties, the Land Commission may either revise and alter the rents or grant any abatement, for any specified term, or may suspend the whole or any portion of the rent, and direct on what dates, and in what instalments, such supsended rent is to be paid."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

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

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to make one remark which, I think, the Government ought to take into consideration. We have actually adopted one Amendment which contemplates that, under certain circumstances, rent shall be diminished, and under others that it shall not be diminished. I want to point out that when the Government are considering the question of the reconsideration of rents once fixed by the Land Court, it would, I think, be absolutely essential that if they are to take into view circumstances under which rent should be diminished they should, on the other hand, take into view circumstances in which it should be increased. If the tenant is to get the benefit of the rent being reduced in certain circumstances, it is only fair that under others the landlord should have the benefit of an increased rent. I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has forgotten that point.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I did not forget that point, which I entirely recognize in theory, although we contend that in practice it is not admissible. I only propose that there should be interference when extraordinary circumstances occur. I can only suppose that any extraordinary circumstances should occur to justify the raising of the rent on the tenant, although we know that in unfavourable times the landlord does sometimes give up a portion of the rent. As I said, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that it should be considered with others before Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) asks me, in his absence, to move the Amendment standing in his name. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are disposed to accept the Amendment; and I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee by dwelling at length upon the subject. In order to save time, and as Her Majesty's Government have intimated their intention of amending the 1st sub-section, I will at present only move the addition of Sub-section (3), after which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate may add the words proposed to be added when a former Amendment was under discussion.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, after Sub-section (2), add—"(3.) The lodging of an application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent shall operate ipso facto as a sist of all proceedings for removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined."—(Dr. Cameron.)

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

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

I said I would inquire into this subject, and I have to suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment, and I will then move an Amendment with some verbal alterations to carry out the object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, at the end, to add—"When an application is lodged with the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, it shall be in the power of the Land Commission, on the application of the crofter, to sist all proceedings for the removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined upon such terms as to payment of rent or otherwise as they shall think fit."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

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

This is a question of great importance, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the 1st sub-section cannot be seriously and adequately considered until we know what will be the effect of the whole clause. From all that we know of matters in the Highlands, the question of arrears is one which does require to be dealt with. It is certainly stretching a point for Parliament to interfere in this matter; but, at the same time, the question is one that has to be faced, and I think it is for the interest of the landlord and tenant that some aid should be given by Parliament for the settlement of this question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I approach this subject with no prejudice with regard to it, and I am quite prepared to deal with it otherwise than in a doctrinaire way. But what will happen when the Land Commission opens its doors to applications of this kind? When an application is made for the fixing of a fair rent, it will be desirable that the Land Commission should consider both the fair rent, and take a just view of past obligations where there are arrears of rent. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that it should be the duty of the Commission to take a primâ facie view of the case, and consider whether there is any ground for the suspension or abatement of arrears; and, although I agree with that in principle, there is this somewhat serious practical difficulty. It is possible that a provision of this kind may be taken advantage of, not only by those who cannot pay owing to bad times, and who, even supposing that they made an honest effort, might not be able to pay; but I think we must all know that there is a great amount of indisposition to pay any rent at all in certain parts of the Highlands. Now, I am sure hon. Gentlemen will agree that it would be highly illegitimate that the Land Commission should be made use of for postponing or rendering difficult the payment of debts which are fair and just, and which the parties owing them are quite able to meet. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has considered this question. I ask him if the proceedings of the Land Commission are to be such as will enable them expeditiously to dispose of a primâ facie case of arrears; because, if not, there would be a congestion of the work of the Commission, and applications might be lodged merely in order to gain time, and to secure the gratuitous possession of a holding for a period. That I regard as one serious practical difficulty in the way of the operation of the new clause; and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me in saying that nothing I have said is at variance with what he has invited the Committee to consider, or at variance with justice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that the Land Commission should have power to sist all proceedings for the removal of the crofter until the application is finally determined. In principle I quite agree with that, or, rather, it seems to me that it is expedient and just; but I point out that its expedience and justice depend on the method by which the Land Commission deals with and solves the question. Therefore, I think that an arrangement should be made for the Commission to consider primâ facie cases of arrears, and leave for ultimate decision the question of fair rent. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider that this is nothing else than the practical way of proceeding. I am anxious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should explain what are the methods and principles on which the question of arrears is to be ultimately dealt with? What I say is that the Commissioners ought to have regard to what would have been a fair rent during the years in which the arrears have run up. It may be that what would be a fair rent for the future has been too high for the tenant to pay in the past—it might be that it was a rent which in better times ought to have been paid. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems hardly to consider that it is possible that the rent should ever be too low; but my point is this—that the Commissioners ought to consider what should be the proper sum, having regard to the different circumstances of the times in the past as compared with the present. I am anxious that the Committee should proceed on some definite principle such as that in considering what should be the action of the Commissioners in the future. I trust that he will enable the Commissioners to pronounce upon this question; while, at the same time, leaving them entirely free to determine what rent shall be paid in the future. I grant that it is a difficult duty to settle one part of this question so as not to prejudge other questions which will ultimately have to be considered; but I shall be most happy to assist in finding out a way which will conduce to this result.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Robertson) agrees with the view that it is desirable to deal with the question of arrears by this Bill; because it would be extremely unfortunate if any outlying question should prevent poor tenants, for whose benefit we are legislating, from getting a fair start. It seems to me that possibly, by the variation of the language before Report, it may be found desirable to introduce the second Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear), which deals with this subject. I should hardly be disposed to accept it as it stands at present; but, if agreed to now, I shall be glad to see if some variation of language cannot be introduced into the Amendment on Report. I have objected to the proposal to substitute notice of action, because it would automatically stop all remedy for the recovery of arrears, and there would be a strong temptation to the tenants who want time to make use of this Act for the purpose of getting time in cases where it was never intended to proceed further. But, according to the Amendment which I have proposed, there would not be that automatic result. What I propose is, that it shall be in the power of the crofter to make an application. I hope that few, if any, removals will be pressed on while proceedings are pending under this Act; but the object of the Amendment is this. If the crofter thinks he can produce primâ facie reasons for the Court to hold its hand, then he ought to be empowered to do so. He goes to the Court and says—"I ask for a fair rent to be fixed, and I ask you to stop any removal until that question is settled." He may come and say—"My rent is too high, and I am being removed for the non-payment of it;" and then the Land Commissioners would be able to say—"What rent do you think would be a fair rent?" It would be, no doubt, necessary for the Commissioners to take a primâ facie view of the matter; but such primâ facie view would not be taken into consideration in the ultimate determination of the fair rent to be paid. I may say that what I had in my mind when I proposed this Amendment was that the Commissioners might adopt some such system as ordering the payment of a certain amount into Court. I apprehend that in estimating the remainder which was due the system which my hon. and learned Friend the ex-Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Robertson) would be a fair one to act upon.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I only want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clear up one thing. By the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman two applications would have to be made by the crofter. Now, the question which arises is the question of expense. I presume that applications of this kind could not be made for nothing; and therefore I wish to ask, would it not be possible to allow one application to combine the two matters?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It appears to me that that would be quite possible. I will undertake to consider the suggestion.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness)

I am glad the Government has consented to deal with this question of arrears, because there is no question which more interests the population of the Highlands than this one. When the Royal Commission to the Highlands was going round, they found that in some cases there were arrears due of from eight and 10 to 14 years' rent. I will go this length, and say that unless the Government are prepared to come forward with some moderate sum—say £20,000—to help to wipe off these arrears, I very much doubt whether the benefits which are given to the crofter by this Act will take effect. The course I suggest was adopted in regard to Ireland, and I think that we in the Highlands are entitled to receive some such small sum as I have mentioned.

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

I think it would be impossible to regard this Bill as satisfactory, unless it contained some scheme for dealing with arrears; but, at the same time, I do think that the question of dealing with arrears involves some anomalies which ought to be accepted by the Committee with very great reluctance. What we are doing by this Amendment is this—we are wiping off a legal debt, and the question is how far are we going to carry that principle? If the tenant has not been able to pay his grocer, for instance, are you going to wipe off that class of debt also? By this Bill it is proposed not only to fix rents for the future, but to go much further, and to say that the debts which the crofter has incurred in the past shall not be paid. Well, Sir, I confess that nothing will induce me to be a party to a transaction of that kind; but it appears to me that if we do not, in some way, deal with the question of arrears, great wrong may be done to the tenant. I have to choose, therefore, between the possibility of a great wrong on the one side, and a great breach of principle on the other; and after great hesitation I have come to the conclusion that I must accept the breach of principle, although I am bound to say I do so with great regret. Now, Sir, there is another thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has dealt with. I think he seemed to have in his mind that the terms of this Amendment contemplates that evictions can only take place for the non-payment of rent, and he appeared to forget the other statutory conditions.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It will apply only to the period before which the fair rent has been fixed, and, therefore, any other reference is unnecessary.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But why should the Committee have a power, before the fair rent is fixed, far in excess of any power hitherto given?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

There will be no statutory conditions until the Bill comes into operation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I mean the conditions that will become statutory. Why should a landlord not have power to turn out a tenant for persistently injuring his holding by the dilapidation of buildings, or after the landlord has given him notice, for going on deteriorating it, or for sub-dividing or sub-letting? Why should the landlord not have the power to evict a tenant for the breach of the second, third, fourth, or fifth statutory conditions of the Bill, when all we want to do is to protect the tenant from eviction for the non-payment of rent, and to provide that an evil-disposed landlord should not prevent a tenant from getting the benefits of the Bill? But, Sir, I am afraid that this Amendment, or any other Amendment which has a fragment of justice in it, will not satisfy those who are at present in arrears of rent. In the majority of cases I am afraid that those arrears are not the result of poverty, but of political agitation. [Laughter.] If any hon. Member has the slightest doubt of the truth of that assertion, he has only to look at the manner in which the arrears of rent have increased in the Highlands during the last four or five years. I venture to say that in the Island of Skye, in 1880 to 1844, they might have been counted by hundreds, but they are now to be computed by thousands of pounds. These arrears are not the result of poverty or destitution, or anything else the Committee can sympathize with; but they are the result of the unfortunate demoralization which political agitation and the extravagant hopes which have been only too easily excited in the minds of a too excitable population. I will give the House an illustration of this in a case which came under my notice lately. In the Island of Skye a dispute arose, not between a landlord and a crofter, but between two crofting communities. The landlord offered arbitration; he used every method in his power to get the dispute settled; but the parties refused every method of conciliation, and finally they compromised by refusing in common to pay any rent to the landlord until the dispute between the two communities could be finally adjusted. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, Sir, that is a proceeding which appears to me to meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but whatever views they may have on the point, I trust that the House of Commons has not yet arrived at that point to consider that it is criminal to pay rent at all, however just that rent may be. I only mention this story as an illustration of the condition into which the crofters have unfortunately got. It is perfectly clear that it is not the legitimacy of their rent that they object to, and it is perfectly clear that the refusal to pay is a political one, and is not the outcome of poverty; and in the case which I have mentioned I do not see how, by any possibility, we can stay proceedings against those crofters. Therefore, while I am prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment, I must put on record both my reluctance to adopt so violent a breach of every principle which has hitherto guided such legislation, and my conviction that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not aid the case of the great majority of the arrears, which now, most unhappily, exist in the West Highlands of Scotland.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must be very imperfectly acquainted with the character of the people of the West Highlands, and also of the conditions with which they have been surrounded during the last few years. He has based an argument upon a story; but he ought to have given the Committee such names as would have enabled hon. Members who represent these people to verify the statements. So far as I know the character of the people, I am satisfied that so long as they have the ability they have the will to pay all their just and lawful debts. But I think the fact is this—and I think that hon. Members ought to recognize it—that up to the last six or seven years the tenants were paying the maximum rents which they had paid in good times. Now, the Committee must recollect that the last four or five years have been exceedingly bad years, and the simple fact is this—that in consequence of these bad times tenants even of good farms have been unable to make their rents out of the land, and arrears have accordingly accumulated. The proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) looks very well on paper; but if my view of the position is correct, that the tenants have not the money to pay the landlords, I cannot see where the money which is to pay the composition is going to come from. It seems to me to be an insolvable problem, and although it indicates a great stretch on the part of the Government to make the Land Commission the machinery for compounding with tenant's creditors I do not see how it is going to work. On the other hand, I cannot support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) to give a grant of public money to pay the landlords, for I already recognize that this Bill is an attempt to bolster up landlordism in Scotland.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

It may facilitate matters if I point out where the real grievance of the arrears question lies. In the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), in which there were arrears extending over 10 and 14 years, I would remind the Committee that these arrears have not been accumulated by the present crofters, but have arisen because when a man takes a croft it is the custom of the landlords to compel him to take over the arrears. The Commissioners appreciated this evil, and they recommended that an end should be put to all arrears, except those within a period of two years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has often appealed to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and I can assure him that he will do well to inquire into their recommendations as far as this point is concerned. I do not think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) goes as far as it ought to go, and for my part I think it ought to be a direction to the Commissioners to deal more peremptorily with such arrears. But I know that to propose any such thing would simply be to waste the time of the Committee, because the Government would not accept it. As we are all practically agreed, therefore, as to the principle of this Amendment, I think it might be accepted; and if we are to make any progress at all with the Bill to-night, I think it should now be accepted at once without any further discussion.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I will not detain the Committee long; but I wish to refer to one remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour). He has stated that the arrears of rent in the Highlands are not due to poverty, but that they are more due to a disinclination of the tenants to pay. I have some knowledge of these matters, and although I will not say that no case of the kind has occurred, this I will assert—that there have been a very small number of cases indeed where the tenants who are able to pay their rents have withheld them. The non-payment is due to a process of exhaustion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that arrears are not due to the fact that the rents are unfair, but that the accumulation of arrears is due more to politics than inability to pay. I will remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the Isle of Skye, which I visited two years ago with an Irish Member who sits on the other side of the House, I found land which was assessed at 25s. an acre, or a higher rent than could be got in the county of Surrey, or in the county of Kent. I asked my Irish Friend what the Irish Land Commission would assess the land at, and he answered me "7s. 6d. or 10s. at the very outside." I should prefer, as the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow has stated, that this Amendment should give the Commission power to wipe off all arrears beyond a certain period back. Two years, I think, would be a fair period. It has been one of the conditions of obtaining a crop that the tenant should take over any burdens attaching to the previous crop. There is no necessity for limiting the period of arrears, because the arrears are carried forward continuously. I do not wish to prevent this Bill from passing through the House. Let it go for what it is worth. I am afraid it will not be worth much; but, at any rate, it shall not be obstructed in the House by me.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I wish to interpose with one word. We hear that the crofters have taken over crofts, and taken with them, very often, the outstanding arrears. I presume they did not accept the burden of arrears for nothing, and I presume that in taking the arrears they take also the improvements of the outgoing tenant. Already, in dealing with this Bill, the Government has put its foot down, and has refused to recognize the right of the crofter to a penny in respect of the improvements for which the incoming pays the outgoing tenant. I fail to see why you should adopt a principle in the case of a crofter and refuse to adopt it in the case of the landlord.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member for Argyll challenges my statement and wishes to prove to me, by ocular demonstration in the Isle of Skye, that his view of the matter is correct. I would ask the hon. Member one question, and it shall be in regard to the Island to which he refers. I find that a large number of tenants there have refused to pay their rents to the landlords. Have they, I would ask, offered to pay any portion of them? If it be true that they are suffering from such excessive rents and that they are burning with the desire to pay their just debts that the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks they are, I ask him whether, under these circumstances, they have taken the obvious course of offering to the landlord that portion of the rent which they consider they ought to pay? I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that they have done nothing of the kind; and when the hon. Member declaims so strongly against landlords allowing arrears to take place, it certainly does seem to me remarkable that such a position should be taken up by the hon. Member, seeing that he, more than anyone else perhaps, was instrumental in making it impossible for any landlord in the West of Scotland to enforce his legal rights at all. I think, at all events, the hon. Member might have spared the landlords that piece of irony. I would ask the hon. Member whether he and the Society with which he is connected have encouraged the tenants to pay what they can, or have done their best to make it easy for the landlords to carry out, by force of law, the legal obligations which the tenants have entered into? However, I do not wish to pursue this question any further.

MR. MACFARLANE

Will the right hon. Gentleman mention one single case in which I advised tenants, publicly or privately, not to pay their rents?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I said the hon. Member's influence had certainly not been exercised in the direction of the tenants paying their rents.

MR. MACFARLANE

I am not a collector of rents.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My regret, and my chief regret, in connection with the Amendment dealing with arrears is that it will encourage this demoralization to spread further in the Highlands; but, as I have expressed my opinion on that point already, I will not trouble the Committee by going into it at any greater length. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will give an opinion upon the technical point raised just now.

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

There would be a question as to the Act having come into operation before anything is settled, and I therefore think we should insert the words "in respect of non-payment of rent," after the word "crofter" in the second instance.

DR. CAMERON

As the Amendment is not on the Paper, these alterations make it very difficult for us to understand it. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read it?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It stands thus— When an application is lodged with the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, it shall be in the power of the Land Commission, either under the same or under another application by the crofter, to sist all proceedings for removal of the crofter in respect of non-payment of rent till the said application is finally determined upon such terms as to payment of rent or otherwise as they shall think fit.

Question, "That the Amendment be amended by the insertion of the words proposed," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

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

I beg to move the addition of the following words:— In the proceedings on such application the Land Commission shall take an account of the amount of arrears of rent due, or to become due, before the application is finally determined, and may take evidence of all the circumstances which have led to such arrears, and shall decide whether, in view of such circumstances, the whole or what part of such arrears ought in equity to be paid, and whether in whole or by instalments, and at what dates the same should be paid, and the amount and dates so fixed shall be deemed to be the total amount of such arrears due by the crofter, and the terms at which the same become payable.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That those words be there added."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

Are these words not to have some amendment?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I will move them here; and if any alteration is required it can be made on Report.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

No doubt the clause is good as it stands, but it is very vague; and I think it will be well to direct the attention of the Land Commission more precisely to what is the fair rent in each year the arrears have run, having regard to the value of the produce and so on each year. Further, it seems to me that the words "in equity," in the 6th line of the Amendment, are not appropriate to a clause of this kind. My experience as a lawyer is that anyone who wants to justify a wrong conclusion always says—"It is done in equity."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

These words in the first part of the Amendment have not been put forward as the only construction of that which the Commissioners are to bear in mind, but as one out of many; so that, in taking exception to them, the hon. Member would simply be picking out one construction from a number. As to his second point, I think there is some force in it, and I shall be prepared to leave out the words "in equity."

Question, "That the words 'in equity' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Renunciation of tenancy).

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

This clause says that a crofter shall be entitled, upon one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy as at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas. To this I had proposed to add a sub-section dealing with renunciation of tenancy in the following terms:— (2.) Where a tenant falls within the definition of a crofter in this Act, except that his tenancy is under a lease instead of from year to year, and such tenant, within thirty years prior to the passing of this Act, or his predecessors in the same family, have been crofters occupying the same holding which such tenant occupies at the passing of this Act, or part thereof, such tenant shall be entitled, upon one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy as at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, and snail thereafter be deemed to be a crofter within the meaning of this Act. The principle of the Amendment has been discussed in connection with the proposal of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford); and it appears to me that unless Members of the Committee show a certain amount of forbearance in pressing on their individual views, we shall have little prospect of being able to pass the Bill through in anything like reasonable time. The Government, I think, have dealt most liberally with us in the amount of time they have placed at our command, which has been a much more liberal allowance than Scotland has received in previous Sessions. It is natural that hon. Members should desire to speak in support of their own Amendments, and each express his views in an eloquent speech—sometimes in a series of eloquent speeches. I would appeal to them, however, to put a little restraint upon themselves in that respect, and to do something to expedite the passing of the Bill through the House. I will not move my Amendment, but will withdraw it in order to save the time of the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Compensation to crofter for improvements on removal).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I beg to move that the subsection which renders it necessary, in order to entitle the crofter to compensation for permanent improvements, that these improvements shall have been executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family within 30 years, be amended by leaving out the words "within thirty years."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 17 and 18, to leave out "within thirty years."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

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

I think it would be an improvement if this Amendment were adopted. The improvements in value to the incoming tenant will be paid for to the crofter who leaves his holding, and who claims to be compensated for them.

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

It occurs to me that it will be difficult to get records of a reliable nature of the improvements which have been effected by a crofter's predecessors. You must, after all, think of the possibility of proving or disproving cases. If you go back any length of time, how will it be possible to distinguish what has been done by the landlord and what has been done by the tenant; and how will the other circumstances of the case influence the decision of the Court? I think the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland must give us some stronger and better reason for permitting the withdrawal of an important part of the clause, more than the vague assertion that he thinks the alteration an improvement. Why is it that he withdrew from the former position he took up? Why does he think there should be no limit of time in these cases? It is clear that there ought to be some limit or other. If you go back beyond a certain period, all knowledge as to who made the improvements and to whose efforts they were due will be lost in the dim and distant past. I certainly think we should have some more precise statement about this matter.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

The improvements will be paid for to the crofter who leaves his holding, and who claims to be compensated for them. To entitle him to compensation, he must prove that the improvements have been executed or paid for by himself or his predecessors in the same family. When that is established, the next thing to prove is that they are of some value to the incoming crofter—that the measure of the compensation for the improvements will be the value which those improvements are to the incoming crofter. It does not seem expedient to complicate that inquiry still further by obliging the Commissioners to ascertain what is the precise period within which the improvements were executed. If the improvements were executed by the crofter himself, or by his predecessors in his own family, and if they are of value to the incoming crofter, it is difficult to see on what principle the crofter has forfeited his right to compensation for them simply because they have been executed more than a given number of years ago. The important question is whether or not they have been executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in title, and whether or not they are still of value to the incoming crofter.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

The onus of proof will lie on the crofter. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that one principle that was universally accepted in connection with the Irish Bill was that it should be assumed that the improvements belonged to the tenant until it was proved to the contrary. This Bill does not go so far as that, and I rest on the improved contention of the Solicitor General for Scotland.

Question put, and negatived.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I rise to move in page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (c). The sub-section sets forth that the crofter, if removed from his holding, shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements, provided that— The improvements have not been executed in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations, or other writings. If a limitation of this kind were adopted, and no compensation is to be given for improvements effected in virtue of understandings expressed in estate regulations, no compensation will be given at all. This is one of those methods by which a boon is given with one hand, and immediately taken back with the other. The understanding upon which all estate regulations are framed is that everything which is put in the land by the crofter becomes at once the property of the landlord. I understand that that is Scotch law, so that practically this clause, if Sub-section (c) is allowed to remain in it, will become one of the confiscating clauses. Clauses of this kind are drawn up by lawyers for the purpose of disabling the crofters; and, unless they are amended, in becoming Acts of Parliament they will destroy all the improvements that have ever taken place on the crofts from time immemorial. If you do not wish this Bill to be a farce, and if you desire to give compensation for any improvements at all, you will require to leave out the sub-section and give compensation, notwithstanding the fact that all the estate regulations require that these improvements shall be made by the crofter, and become the property of the landlord as soon as they are made.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, leave out Sub-section (c).—(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,

I certainly am not prepared to maintain that the words of this sub-section are quite so satisfactory as they might be; but, on the other hand, it is quite impossible to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark)—namely, that the sub-section should be omitted altogether. The effect of leaving out the sub-section altogether would be this—that the tenant might be entitled to be compensated for improvements which he is bound by his contract with the landlord to execute. We know very well that if a landlord, when letting a farm to a crofter, makes the tenant bound to execute certain improvements that necessarily enter into the calculation when the amount of rent, which the tenant of the croft has to pay is settled. In such a case the payment by the crofter or tenant consists in part of a money payment, and in part of the execution of certain improvements on the croft which belong to the landlord. I am sure the Committee will see it would be quite contrary to fairness to oblige the landlord to compensate a crofter for improvements which the crofter was bound to execute on condition of taking the croft, presumably at a reduced rent. I would suggest that the present Amendment should not be pressed, but that when we come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) the words he suggests should be inserted. The result would be that the sub-section would read— The improvements have not been executed in virtue of any specific agreement under which the tenant was bound to execute such improvements.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness)

I can say, of my own knowledge, and in consequence of what I have heard, that, for the last 80 years, the ingenuity of lawyers and factors has been exercised to explain away or do away with all improvements made by the tenants. I shall, therefore, vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark).

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)

The remarks which have just fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) come with peculiar force from him, because of the position which, until quite recently, he occupied. I only wish, however, to express my entire agreement with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher). I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn in favour of that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

MR. BEITH (Glasgow, Central)

I think the proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) might be accepted by the Committee. It is well known that usually everything in the Highlands is done to secure for the landlord the benefit of improvements made upon croft.

MR. M'LAREN (Stafford)

I hope the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) will withdraw his Amendment, because it is quite impossible to carry it against the Government. Besides, if the Committee desires to strike out Subsection (c), we may not be able to get the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I think the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) had better not press his Amendment. I think, however, the words of the Irish Land Act would be better than the alternative Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). The Irish Act provides that a tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of improvements executed under a contract "for valuable consideration; "therefore the words "valuable consideration" would be very applicable in this case.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

Although I have an Amendment on the Paper similar to that now under discussion, I would advise my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) to withdraw his proposition in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

MR. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)

The only question I wish to raise is, whether the words proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) are not covered already by Clause 10?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Preston Bruce) I may point out that Clause 10 relates to a subject entirely different to that dealt with by Sub-section (c) of Clause 8; Clause 10 relates to the amount of compensation, the contribution by the landlord being taken into account; but this sub-section deals with the identity of the improvement. For example, a crofter might become bound to erect a fence, or to execute the drainage of a field. It seems reasonable that if it is part of the contract that he should drain a particular field he should pay so much less for that field. Sub-section (c) applies to a case of that kind, whereas Clause 10 applies to a case where there has been any contribution by the landlord.

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

The real question at issue is, whether we shall or shall not assent to the breaking of improvement contracts. If a tenant has had his rent fixed in virtue of an agreement by which he shall perform certain things, interference ought not to be permitted. I cannot conceive that the Committee will seriously entertain this proposition. I feel that everything which has been urged by the Mover of the Amendment (Dr. Clark) will be met by the words of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), or words of the same purport.

Mr. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I trust the Amendment will be withdrawn. It appears to me that, as the Committee have already disposed of the question of leases, there is really no bearing in this Amendment.

DR. CLARK

I regret I cannot withdraw the Amendment. I do not admit the principle laid down by the occupants of the Front Benches, that the holder of a monopoly can lay down unjust conditions and confiscate the accumulated labour of individuals, and then come to Parliament and ask for its sanction. I must press my Amendment, though I do not propose to go to a division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I now move the Amendment of which I have given Notice—namely, to leave out from "agreement" to the end of the clause, and insert "specific agreement under which the tenant is bound to execute such improvements." I do not know that it is of very much consequence what words are put in; but I think these words meet the equity of the case. I certainly prefer them to the words proposed by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). Of course, it would be open to the landlord to show or attempt to prove that he had made a considerable reduction of rent, in consideration of certain improvements being made. My Amendment is certainly more specific and definite than that just negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 20, leave out from "agreement" to end of Clause, and insert "specific agreement under which the tenant was bound to execute such improvements."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

As the sub-section will now read, I think it needs improvement— The improvements have not been executed in virtue of any specific agreement under which the tenant was bound to execute such improvements. It is not stated that the tenant has received, or is to receive, any consideration for making these improvements. I propose to add after "improvements" the words "in consideration of a lower rent or otherwise." As it stands at present, no matter by what means the tenant has been compelled to enter into this specific agreement, he will be debarred from compensation. What I want to secure is that if the tenant enters into a specific agreement, he shall do so for some consideration. I beg to move to add "in consideration of a lower rent or otherwise."

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

The hon. Member simply proposes to add those words. He will be able to do so when the Amendment is accepted.

Question put, and negatived.

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

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

I do not quite like the words "specific agreement." They are of doubtful construction, and it may be that one agreement may be specified and another substituted for it. I propose that instead of the words "specific agreement" there should be inserted the words "under any contract."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "specific agreement" in order to insert the words "under any contract."—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'specific agreement' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

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

With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), I think the words "specific agreement" are much more appropriate to the clause than "under any contract." The object of the clause is to define the class of improvements in respect of which the crofter is not to be entitled to compensation. It is proposed to disallow improvements which the crofter has executed under obligation to his landlord, and nothing can be better than to describe these improvements as executed under a specific agreement. I understand those words to mean an agreement which relate to the improvements in question. I think the words "specific agreement" are much less likely to create confusion than the words "under any contract." The latter words might involve an examination of documents, while "specific agreement" would get rid of all ambiguity.

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

I am bound to say I prefer the language of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to that suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), and I will explain why. I like the definite and somewhat peremptory language of the hon. Member for Forfarshire. As I understand the matter, this clause would exclude any general agreement that some sort of improvement should be executed. On former occasions I have urged the Committee to adopt stringent and clear language; and I fancy hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have therefore suspected that I have had a wish to favour the interests of the landlords. I have had no such wish; but I have always thought it is much better that there should be no misconception on a subject of this kind. I can fancy a landlord might produce an estate regulation, containing some very general and sweeping clause, which might be made applicable to all improvements. I understand the present proposal, and I approve of it. What is intended is, that these improvements must be done in pursuance of an agreement directly relating to them. For these reasons, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Forfarshire, and the more willingly because I am afraid it is not very often I shall have the pleasure of doing so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think that in Sub-section (c), as originally drafted, it was intended that all agreements or understandings should be written documents. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) that the matter should be very definite; and therefore I beg to move the addition of the words "in writing" after "specific agreement."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment after the word "agreement" to insert the words "in writing."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'in writing' be there inserted."

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

I am entirely opposed to this Amendment, and I hope the Government will support me in my opposition. It happens in many instances, especially in the case of holdings held from year to year, that arrangements are made, not in writing, but at the same time with absolute definiteness, and upon those each party has a right to rely. An attempt was made at an earlier stage of the progress of this Committee to require the insertion of the words, "should be proved to have been entered into." That was very properly opposed by the Representatives of the Government upon the ground that it would be the duty of the Land Commission to accept nothing but satisfactory and conclusive proof. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, or to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland, as to whether it would be necessary in a Court of Law that there should be writing upon this subject? I assert—and I am sure the right hon. and hon. and learned Gentlemen will bear me out—most undoubtedly it would not. This is a completely reactionary proposal; it is contrary to all the methods by which the admissibility of evidence has been extended, and I am entirely opposed to it. I oppose it on the ground that the interest of neither party would be served, but that the interest of both parties in important cases might be frustrated.

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

I am sorry that the interest the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. P. Robertson) has shown in the tenants should have been so short-lived. He is now anxious that these understandings should not be so precise and stringent as he, a short time ago, asked that they should be. I will tell you why I object to any understanding or any estate regulation. In the first place, an understanding can be proved by gamekeepers to be almost anything you like. I have had large experience as an arbiter and witness in Courts of Justice, and I know you can prove anything you care to prove by gamekeepers, rat-catchers, and the like. Moreover, we know well enough what understandings and estate regulations amount to; they simply amount to this—that all improvements by the tenant are to go to the landlord. The agreement ought to be in writing.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I think it would be very dangerous to leave matters of this kind to verbal evidence. A very common practice would be for the land agent or factor, in the presence of the clerk, to tell the tenant that such and such things had been arranged. They can easily prove it, and what defence would a tenant have? Very probably he did not understand what was said to him, and he might make some general promise which would be construed into a specific agreement.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)

I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) will not press his opposition to this Amendment. It takes a very slight experience in the management of land to know that nothing is so confusing, and nothing is open to so much dispute, as a verbal understanding. Not having had the advantage of a legal education or experience, I cannot understand the objection which my hon. and learned Friend has taken to the very simple and, as it seems to me, very reasonable proposal of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), I adhere to the opinion that it is desirable that the words "in writing" should be here inserted. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than that there should be a dispute, probably sharply contested, between landlord and crofter as to whether a particular improvement had or had not been executed under an agreement made between them. Certainly, it would be natural that if a crofter executed some improvement which was to have the effect of diminishing his rent, there should be some document embodying that obligation on the part of the crofter. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Sir Herbert Maxwell) that it is essential that such an arrangement should be in writing. The balance of advantage is clearly in favour of the Amendment.

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

I am very sure that if it was the general view of hon. Gentlemen who are disposed to accept this Amendment that it is the practice to have such arrangements put in writing the Amendment would not meet with the opposition it does. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) has spoken of its being possible to prove anything by the evidence of particular witnesses on one side. If the Legislature is going to frame clauses in Acts of Parliament upon the footing that the evidence of a particular class of witnesses is invariably perjured there is an end to the question; but I presume the Legislature is satisfied that the provisions it makes for obtaining truthful statements from witnesses, and for such tribunals as shall judge of the truthfulness of witnesses, will prevent the Legislature from ever proceeding on the footing that certain classes are not to be believed on oath. The experience of my hon. Friend is, perhaps, not so extensive as the experience of other hon. Gentlemen with regard to the reliability of testimony. My experience is, the man who is pleading for a particular side in a case always has the greatest possible reliance upon the witnesses of his own side, and always has the greatest possible distrust of the witnesses on the other side; and it is just the duty of the Land Commission, or any other Court, to draw an even balance, and to form a sound judgment with regard to these extravagant pleadings which ought not to be used before Courts of Justice, and ought not to be used in the House of Commons. I have yet to learn that gamekeepers and rat-catchers are more given to deliberate perjury than other people; but this I say without the slightest fear of contradiction—that if you pass a law by which no arrangement in regard to small improvements on a croft can be made without a bargain in writing such as will stand the investigation of a Court of Law, you will do the greatest conceivable harm to the crofters themselves. I take it that the crofters, being an intelligent class of men, are quite capable of giving evidence on this matter; and I presume it is not the view of my hon. Friend, or of any other hon. Gentleman, that the Land Commission will be more inclined to listened to the evidence of one class of witnesses than another. It is difficult to understand, and I have heard nothing from hon. Gentlemen opposite to lead me to understand, why crofters should be placed in a different position in regard to this matter from other tenants of property in Scotland. Arrangements with regard to similar matters between landlords and tenants all over Scotland are often made verbally. If anyone on this side of the House had proposed that such arrangements should always be in writing, what would have been the answer made to us? It would have been said—"Oh, it is very easy to cloud up the thing in a string of legal phrases in a written document, and put that before the crofter, who is not educated, and ask him to sign it." You can always make excuses of that kind; but I submit to the Committee that they will make a great mistake if, in dealing with illiterate men like the crofters, they put in such a stipulation as that now proposed. The result will be that everybody in the Highlands will be at arm's length in regard to these matters, and that in drawing up the documents it will be necessary to be exact, perchance the documents have afterwards to be interpreted by a Court of Law, and that will lead to a great deal more expense than if you leave the words as they stand.

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

I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite when he says that it is common all over Scotland for these agreements not to be in writing.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I did not say anything of the kind.

MR. MACFARLANE

I am glad to see that the two Front Benches have fallen out, because I think, under the circumstances, there is a chance that the crofters may get their own. I am strongly in favour of this regulation, and I am now satisfied that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) is aware that, as a rule, there is no writing for specific agreements of this kind in the Highlands. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says this is a satisfactory provision; but I say it is to enable the landlords to confiscate the whole of the improvements for which this clause has provided some compensation.

MR. CHANCE

I am sorry this Amendment has been called a reactionary one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that under the English Statute of Frauds every contract for more than a year must be in writing. In England and Ireland these agreements are always in writing; and this is only an attempt to assimilate the English and Irish law to that of Scotland.

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

I think the words "in writing" would remove a great deal of heartburning between the landlord and tenant; it would put things, doubtless, on a better footing. But if the words were inserted they would inflict some injustice to the landlord; and I suggest the addition of some words to provide that the Amendment should only apply to improvements done after the passing of the Act.

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

The hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has spoken of assimilating the law of England and Ireland with that of Scotland; but he forgets that the Acts he refers to were retrospective. I am sorry to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on on this question; but it is one of real importance, because what we should do, if we assent to the words in the form which the Government propose, is deliberately to say that we should break contracts entered into in a manner which the Court of Law in Scotland have always sanctioned. We do not think it right; and, therefore, we cannot assent that valid contracts should be broken in the manner proposed in this Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

I wish it to be understood that, in the assent which I gave to the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Roberstson), I did not admit anything further than that it would be competent to prove a tenancy for two terms, and that a rent was to be paid for such two terms without writing. I certainly did not contemplate an arrangement of this character—that a tenant who has a verbal contract for a year should be bound, for instance, by a verbal contract to build a house, unless there was writing to prove it.

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

The law of Scotland is, that a tenancy for a year can be proved without writing, and that means that it can be proved in respect of every condition. If it were a condition of the contract that certain work should be done, I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to assert that it must be proved in writing.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)

I wish to know whether the retrospective action of the clause will not affect leases which are necessarily written documents? ["No, no!"] So far as I could understand what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour), his remarks as to the breach of contracts could only refer to the breach of written contracts, ["No, no!"]

Question put, "That the words 'in writing' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 69: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 62.)

Proposed Amendment agreed to.

Words inserted.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

The Amendment which stands next is in my name, and by it I should have proposed to ask the Committee to add to this clause a sub-section taken from the Irish Act of 1870; but, on consideration, I think it better not to move it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Compensation to cottar for improvements on removal).

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I put down the Amendment, the nest on the Paper, to insert "fisherman" after "cottar;" but, in consequence of a larger Amendment to the clause which I have now on the Paper, it is no longer necesary for me to move it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I do not know that it will be of any use my saying anything more about the unfortunate "cottar," who has received but scant justice from the House as far as we have gone. But I propose an Amendment which will make the clause run— When a cottar removes, or is removed from his dwelling.…. he shall be entitled to compensation, and so on. I would set the cottar in this case on just the same footing as the crofter. We have provision made for the crofter when he removes, and I contend that we should do the same for the cottar. I think the cottar should be paid for any improvements done by him on the dwelling or on the land.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, after "cottar," insert "removes or."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)

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

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

The Committee will observe that the hon. Member has not used the same words as are used in the case of the tenant, which are "renounces his tenancy," and the reason is obvious, for the cottar has no tenancy to renounce. If the Amendment were adopted it would come to this—that if anyone who had built a house on sufferance chose to go away without paying rent, he should then set up a claim for improvements. I think the Committee will not agree to that.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

There is an Amendment on Clause 29, in the name of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, which would make the cottar a tenant from year to year, who might have to pay rent not exceeding £6 a-year without arable and pasture land. Under these circumstances, the cottar would be a rent-paying animal; and, therefore, if he removes, he has as much right to compensation as the crofter. I cannot see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman upholds the clause if he intends to give no compensation to the cottar.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

Everything depends upon the definition of the term "cottar." The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to regard him as merely a squatter at one time, and at another as a person in a higher position. If he is a man who pays rent to the landlord, he ought to be compensated for the house which he has built, when he comes to leave it. The cottar is now in a very different position from that which he occupied when we first commenced the consideration of this Bill. He was then looked upon as a squatter; but now he is recognized as a man who pays rent to the landlord, and I think he should be compensated as well as the crofter.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

In the first place, I point out that the two cases are very different. While I hoped the Amendment would be accepted, I did not feel very sanguine about it. If the Committee agrees to accept the Amendment to Clause 29, then this Amendment may be appropriate to it; but it is not appropriate to the Bill at the present time.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I suggest that the Amendment might be amended in this form—"When the cottar is removed, or, if subject to rent, removes from his holding," and so on.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

The case is this. Take the case of a fisherman who has built a house and wishes to leave. Is he not to have compensation, and not to be allowed to sell? I think some Amendment of this kind is necessary in the case of fishermen.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I think the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate must give us a definition of the term "cottar" by which he is going to stand. It is exceedingly awkward to discuss the provisions of a Bill when we have no definition of terms. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will solve the difficulty by putting in the word "squatter." A squatter is a man who has taken possession of land and built a house upon it, and I do not think that such a person is entitled, if he goes away, to get compensation. But the cottar now seems to be a crofter, with the difference that he must have some land besides a garden—I suppose about a quarter of an acre. He may have a garden; but if he has more, he is entitled to be considered a crofter. These are difficulties which arise from not having definitions of the terms used.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I think the clause might be admitted with one or two alterations. I suggest, after "cottar," "if not paying rent," and, in line 23, to add "or if paying rent renounces his tenancy," I will move those words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Now, Sir, I will move, after the word "therewith," to insert these words—"or if paying rent renounces his tenancy, or is removed."

Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Then, at line 28, I beg to move to leave out the words "within thirty years."

Amendment agreed to.

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

The hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Beith) is not, I understand, going to move his Amendment to leave out Sub-section C?

MR. BEITH (Glasgow, Central)

No, Sir.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I beg to move to leave out the words "agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings," in order to insert these words—"specific agreement in writing under which the tenant is bound to execute such improvements."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I agree to that.

Question, "That the words 'agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings,' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I would propose still further to amend my Amendment, by substituting the word "cottar" for "tenant."

Question, "That the words 'specific agreement in writing under which the tenant is bound to execute such improvements,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 18, leave out the words "thirty years."

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

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

Who will have the right to remove the cottar? Not the landlord. I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, whether the cottar will not be the tenant of the crofter, and will be able to defy the landlord?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

That is rather a hard case. All I will say is this—that sub-letting is not contemplated in the future. The landlord, of course, only knows the tenant; and as far as the landlord is concerned, the cottar will be there without any consent of his, and will have no title from him. I suppose the crofter would be able to remove him if he chooses?

MR. MACFARLANE

But not the landlord.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Well, I am not sure about that. I rather think he could.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Principle of valuation).

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, after "improvements," to insert "also the valued amount of any dilapidations by the tenant of the holding." It is admitted that the landlord has, at all events, an equity to be heard before the tribunal as to the value of any assistance he has given the tenant with regard to improvements, and it seems to me that it will only be fair, if the Court is to do ample justice, to provide that if the tenant has made improvements on one part of his holding, and has committed dilapidations on another, both ought to be taken into consideration. It is only equitable that this should be done, and if it is not, there will be only partial justice between the parties.

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

No doubt this Amendment derives a good deal of confirmation from the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act; but I would point out that the clause does not create a debtor and creditor account in regard to different matters between the landlord and tenant, but is merely intended to indicate the principles of valuation. It would be hardly germane to a clause like this to bring a cross entry into the account; and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment. The question might be very well postponed for subsequent consideration, however.

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

At what stage of the Bill will the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) introduce this principle, the equity of which he has already stated he is prepared to admit?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

If a clause embodying the principle is brought up, I shall be glad to consider it.

MR. KIMBER

It does not seem to me that any other stage of the Bill will be so appropriate as this. The proposition which I have made seems only fair also, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

The clause is only intended to take into account improvements which are partly done by the landlord and partly by the tenant.

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

I have looked at the position in which the Amendment of my hon. Friend would place this clause, and I am bound to say that I cannot acquiesce in the objection which has been taken to it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Is it not a legitimate thing to say, when you are finally settling with the tenant, that what he has done for the good and what he has done for the bad shall both be taken into account? The argument stands in this way—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the principle is equitable, and that the bad done by the tenant ought to be taken into account. Well, this is the only place in the Bill, in which it can be inserted; and, therefore, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should allow us to insert it now. If that is done, the Commissioners, looking at the same set of buildings, will be allowed to say—"We shall allow so much for improvements, and so much for dilapidations; we shall set one against the other and strike the balance." It appears to me that that is the only equitable way of settling the matter.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I should like to know what hon. Members opposite mean by dilapidations? I should not object to the word "dilapidation" being inserted, if it is understood to mean something that is actually done by the tenant. But if they are going to impose upon the tenant the necessity of maintaining always the buildings, fences, and drains in good order, the Amendment is altogether unreasonable. Buildings, fences, and drains will not last for ever, and I shall certainly take exception to the introduction of the word "dilapidations," unless it is properly defined.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

Surely in the Common Law of Scotland, the word "dilapidations" is well known, and is clearly denned. Dilapidations does not mean ordinary fair wear and tear and the effect of time, but the results of carelessness and negligence on the part of the tenant.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

If the dilapidations refer to the landlord's improvements, and are limited to that, I shall have no objection to the Amendment; but the buildings are put up by the crofters, and the improvements carried out by them, and I shall strongly object to the Amendment being made to apply to the crofter's improvements.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, E.)

I should like to call attention to Clause 28, which says— Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, provided that: Where any improvements are valued under the said Act with a view to compensation to be paid to a crofter such valuation shall be made, unless the landlord and crofter otherwise agree, by the Land Commission, according to the procedure prescribed by this Act, but otherwise subject to the provisions of the said Act. Well, one of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act deals with the reduction of compensation for dilapidations; and it appears to me, therefore, that that principle is incorporated in this Act by the 28th clause, which I have quoted.

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

I am glad that attention has been called to this subject; but I cannot conceive that a tenant will be asked to pay for the dilapidation of his own improvements even by the most ignorant supporter of landlordism.

MR. KIMBER

I should be glad to accept, as a compromise, a clause in the same words as the clause which is contained in the Irish Act. I think a clause of the same nature would set the matter right.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

When I referred to the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, I had in view the following clause:— The amount of compensation payable to the tenant shall be subject to deduction of any sums due to the landlord. And then there are four heads, one of which is— Any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant. I would not object to such words as these being brought in to get rid of the difficulty; and I will undertake, if the Committee are willing to carry out the spirit, to insert this clause from the Agricultural Holdings Act at a later stage, either in this place, or in any other place in the Bill which seems appropriate.

MR. CHANCE

I merely wish to point out to the Committee that the Agricultural Holdings Act does not refer to crofters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BAIRD (Lanark, N.W.)

I am anxious to propose, in page 4, line 39, after "compensation," to insert— And Provided always, That such compensation shall not exceed in amount five years' rent of the holding. Now, these words are strictly in accordance with the views expressed by the Royal Commission which sat some years ago, as hon. Gentlemen will see by reference to the Report of the Commission, Now, Sir, I do not believe that it is at all likely that a case will ever arise in which a bonâ fide crofter will ask for an amount exceeding five years' rental of his holding; but the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) furnished me with an argument some time ago, by referring to a case in Arran where a holding rented at £18 was raised to £80, because a house was built on it which was made a lodging-house. Now, Sir, what I wish to arrive at in this Amendment is this—I do not think that it can be the intention of the framers of this Bill to enable crofters who are to hold their land at an agricultural rent—a fair rent fixed by a Government Commission—to turn that land into what we in Scotland call feuing land. I shall leave it to hon. Gentlemen who are more competent then myself to complete this argument.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 39, after "compensation," insert "and Provided always, That such compensation shall not exceed in amount five years' rent of the holding."—(Mr. Baird.)

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

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

I am afraid that the Government cannot assent to this Amendment, because it is, primâ facie, right that a crofter shall get what is the worth of his improvements, irrespective of any artificial stipulation. I would point out that the first condition, both in Clause 8 and Clause 9, is that such improvements are suitable to the holding; and if, therefore, a crofter indulged a fancy for extravagant taste in unsuitable buildings, he would not be paid for them. Under those circumstances, there can be no reason why the full value of the improvements appropriate to the holding should not be paid.

MR. BAIRD

Is it to be understood, then, that, under this Bill, a crofter is to be placed in this position—that if he has been fortunate enough to make some money, he is to have the power of erecting buildings on his holding which will make it impossible for the landlord, unless he is a millionaire, to re-enter upon his property?

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I think, Sir, that every encouragement ought to be given by this House and every friend of the Highlanders to lead them to aspire to better dwellings for themselves. In the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down the rent was raised from £18 to £80, because the noble Duke who was the proprietor wanted to get rid of the tenant, who had been guilty of two sins. In the first place, the tenant was a Dissenter, to be which is a great crime in the Isle of Arran; and, in the second place, it was shrewdly suspected that the tenant had dared to vote for a Liberal candidate. Mr. Padwick, who was then acting for the noble Duke, permitted the man to pull down his miserable black dwelling, and to erect a white one, and afterwards sought to raise the rent; but in consequence of the noise made by the newspaper owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), the noble Duke was compelled to change his plan. May I point out to the Committee, Sir, that the highest rental that you allow under this Bill is £15. That means that, in future, you will not allow a crofter to have a house which requires more than £75 to build, because if he erects a house beyond that amount, the excess will be confiscated. If there is one fault or weakness amongst these crofters, it is that they are too fond of their black houses, and an attempt ought to be made to provide them with better surroundings than they have now. The effect of this Amendment, however, will be to perpetuate their present miserable condition; and I say this—having some acquaintance with ulmost all the uncivilized peoples of the world—that there are no people who are in a worse state than these, not even in Donegal, or any other part of the West of Ireland. What we want is to enable these people to live in accordance with their intelligence; but if their condition is to be improved, they will want more than 10 years' purchase of the annual value of their holdings or rent.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

I hope that hon. Members will keep clear from personal references in the discussions on this Bill. I have heard that there are some people in the West Highlands who have put up houses and use them as lodging-houses. Well, that is a good thing, no doubt; but it might fall hard upon a landlord that where a crofter had built a house quite beyond the requirements of his holding, for the purpose of taking summer boarders, he could force the landlord, in the event of his moving, to compensate him for buildings which would be of no value to the landlord, as far as the agricultural worth of the holding was concerned, and which had been put up without the landlord's consent. Everyone knows that such buildings are extravagances, and the landlord ought not to be called upon to pay for them.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It is exactly to meet such cases that we have put into both clauses the words "suitable to the holding."

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

I should not have interposed in this discussion had it not been for the statement the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has thought worthy of obtruding on the notice of the House—a statement which he has made on three separate occasions. The hon. Member stated that in the county which I represent things of this kind are done—that a man paying a rent of £18 put up, at his own expense, a certain building, and the proprietor came down upon him and made him pay £80 rent. The hon. Member has also asserted that this man was guilty of two crimes—first, of being a Dissenter; and, secondly, of voting Liberal. I am glad to say that the great majority of my constituents in the Island of Arran are Free Church people, and better Free Church people and better Conservatives are not to be found in Scotland. And as to the man having voted Liberal, neither I nor the hon. Member for Caithness know how he voted. But as to the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's statement, that this tenant was made to pay £80 of rent for what, before certain improvements, he had paid £18 for, I beg to inform him now that he is absolutely mistaken, and that if he cites as his authority merely the illiterate and mendacious journal to which he has referred, I beg to say that a worse authority he could not cite. It is not the fact that the gentleman in question, who is a valued friend of my own, now pays more, or has ever paid more, than £33 for his holding; and the hon. Member is in this position, that he intrudes into this debate a statement intended to reflect on the proprietor of the Island of Arran, merely because that person has the misfortune to differ in politics from him. I think there is far too much of the political position of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway built up upon fables of this kind. If they were held in, as I hope they will be held in in this House, to facts, and if that rule obtained in more popular meetings, we should not find so much popularity following in the train of these Gentlemen, nor so many simple-minded people ready to be deluded by their assertions. The hon. Gentleman stands in the position that was described of another person, possibly of equal eminence and prominence in a similar movement, of whom it was said, that he was an extremely well-informed man, but that he was always wrong in his facts and never right in his figures. That seems to be the case with hon. Gentlemen who bring forward such charges as these in the House.

DR. CLARK

I am very much obliged for the exhibition of facts we have had from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not get my information from the journal in question. I happened to be living in the house when the noble Duke came to look at it. I happened to be there when the rent was raised to £80. I happened to furnish the information in question; I and if this is the third time the matter has been brought before the House, it is not the third time I have introduced it. The hon. Gentleman one of the Members for Lanarkshire introduced the case, and stated the facts as accurately as the hon. and learned Gentleman has now stated them again. If we are compelled to introduce matters of this kind and to talk about the crime of being Dissenters, I must inform the Committee that upon this Island, owned almost by one man, the great United Presbyterian Courch has, time after time, asked for sites to build churches, and the noble Duke has always refused them. I pledge my honour to the Committee that the statements I have made are true. My brother-in-law, Mr. Brown, of Paisley, who is pretty well known as an advertiser, had the house in question for the summer holding, and when I was there the lease expired, and the rent was raised to £80. A row was raised, and it was found convenient to reduce the rent. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes statements which are absolutely contrary to the facts, to my personal knowledge. He has been misinformed himself, whilst I spoke from personal knowledge.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

There is one reason I should like to point out to the Committee why I think this demand ought to be acceded to, and that even if the term of five years is not decided upon, some other limit should be fixed. The effect of the clause taken with the Amendments already made, would be this—the period of 30 years, beyond which it was proposed that the improvements claimed by the cottar or his predecessors in the same family were not to be paid for, has been struck out. As I understand it, a tenant who has built a house, it may be 40 years ago, may, after the passing of this Act, claim the value of it from his landlord. If that is so, this ex post facto legislation puts an incumbrance on the land as against the owners, and possibly mortgagees may have advanced money on the security of the estate for the purpose of improvement. The effect of this will be that the landlord who has, perhaps, meanwhile had transactions with his property, and probably dealings on the basis of its being unencumbered, may find it subject to encumbrances which he had represented to the mortgagees it was free from. The liability may go back for 100 years, and the mortgability of property may be destroyed; and I understand we are all interested in making estates mortgagable. I wish to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate wishes, by this piece of ex post facto legislation, to raise incumbrances into existence of uncertain character and amount, and jeopardize the mortgability of all estates in Scotland to which the Bill relates?

MR. BAIRD

My intention in this Amendment is to prevent, as far as may be, what I think will be entirely in the cognizance of hon. Members—namely, the threatened possibility of creating a right to use as feuing land, agricultural land. It would be unsuitable to a purely agricultural holding to put up such a house as we have heard of to-night; and it would only be reasonable, in cases where such houses are put up on land let at an agricultural rent, the value of the land being thereby considerably enhanced, to apply the principle of this Amendment. It is to avoid the possibility of tenants holding land at agricultural rents from converting it into feuing land, that I make this proposal.

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to divide on this Amendment. I do not see how you could limit this to the class of cases the hon. Member refers to. The Bill, so far, proposes to give compensation to crofters, subject to certain conditions. One part of a croft, of course, will be in conformity with the whole; and you constitute a tribunal for the purpose of assessing the improvements and seeing that they are suitable to the holdings. Under the circumstances, it would be an ungenerous thing to endeavour to fetter the judgment of the Commissioners, and to cut down the compensation in this way.

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

I would point out that the cases are likely to be exceedingly few in which the compensation will exceed in amount five years' rent of the holding. The Amendment might lend practical assistance to the Court; but perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Baird) will see, after the discussion we have had, that very little is to be got by going to a division. Under the circumstances, it may be as well for him to withdraw the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11. (Application by crofters for enlargement).

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

I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the words "five or more." The clause says it shall be lawful for any five or more crofters resident in a crofting parish to apply to the Land Commission for enlargement of their holdings by pasture or grazing land; and the object of my Amendment is to insert "one crofter" in place of "five or more." It seems to me that one individual has as much right to have justice done him as five crofters collectively. I think it a most absurd proposition that a single one of Her Majesty's subjects should not be able to obtain justice. If the Bill passes in its present shape, we should have the right hon. and learned Gentleman accusing the hon. Member for Argyll of doing something to induce the crofters to combine for the purpose of obtaining an enlargement of their holdings. Such agitation should be quite unnecessary, for each individual should have the right to obtain justice from the Land Commission.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, to leave out "five or more."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)

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

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

The object of this Amendment, as hon. Gentlemen who know the Highlands will perceive, is to take cognizance of the fact that the township or community of holders exists in that part of the country. The Bill does not propose to deal with scattered or solitary individuals, but takes cognizance of the well-known conditions of Highland life. The hon. Member has hardly gone the length of bringing the application down to a single unit, for if his Amendment were accepted, the clause would read— It shall be lawful for any crofters resident in any crofting parish, where any landlord or landlords, after application made to him or them, have refused to let to such crofters available pasture or grazing land on reasonable terms for enlarging the holdings of such crofters, and so on.

MR. M'CULLOCH

I think if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at a subsequent Amendment of mine, he will see that I propose to alter the plural "crofters" into the singular "crofter."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Then, the result would be that there might be a a solitary person otherwise answering the definition of a crofter, but incapable of doing so, inasmuch as he does not occupy pasture with anyone else, making application for enlargement. The whole scope of this Bill is to recognize the conditions of Highland life, one of which is that there are villagers grouped as it were in the enjoyment of common pasturage, which necessarily implies a plurality of persons. The question arose as to what number should be taken. We asked ourselves—"Shall it be 10, 20, or what?" We thought that in fixing five, we were taking a very moderate limit, probably much below what an existing or previously existing Highland township would be. I observe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) thinks the number "ten" more reasonable, and would propose it as an Amendment; but it is a question whether that is not too high. If we are going to recognize the notion of a community at all, it is difficult to see how we can take cognizance of a smaller number than five.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

It seems to me that if you leave out "five," and put in "ten," you would be giving the clause more general application. These parishes in the Highlands are very often large and extensive; and if the statement of five crofters were to be taken as indicating the general expression of resident crofters in the parish, it would not be altogether satisfactory. If you had "ten," you would go over a long and wide area, and you would have a much more definite expression of opinion, which would, at all events, draw the attention of the crofters to a truer feeling of the district. I am anxious that each crofter should have individual justice; but I think that greater justice would be done to all of them, and that all of them would be more likely to have their views properly represented, if it were made necessary that the number should be ten, instead of five.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I shall, of course, support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox, Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch), as I have one on the Paper in almost identical terms. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate says the Government selected "five" as being the probable number of crofters that would be left in possession of what he would call a township.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I say that should be the minimum number. There might be a single individual.

MR. MACFARLANE

And I do not see why a single individual should be refused justice. The clause says— It shall be lawful for any five or more crofters resident in a crofting parish, where any landlord or landlords, after application made to him or them, have refused to let to such crofters available pasture or grazing land on reasonable terms for enlarging the holdings of such crofters, to apply to the Land Commission setting forth that in the said parish there is pasture or grazing land available for the enlargement of such holdings which they are willing to take on lease," &c. What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if an Act of Parliament were passed declaring that, in cases where people feel aggrieved, it shall be necessary, before action can be taken in the High Court of Justice, that five persons shall join in the matter, and that one can not apply alone? I claim for one person as much right to abstract justice as I would claim for five; therefore, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The Amendment I have on the Paper would make the clause read— It shall be lawful for any one or more crofters resident in a crofting parish, and so on.

MR. TREVELYAN (&c.) Hawick,

I only wish to make one remark; but I think it will be a practical one. The reason for introducing, in the original Bill, the provision that the application to the Land Commission should be made by a number of crofters was this—at that time it was the intention merely to restore what we believed to be the old historical custom and right of the Highlands —their common grazings on the hill sides. But I observe—that is not the word—I know well that it is the intention of the Government to accede to the unanimous wish of the Scottish Members—of those Scottish Members who were assembled upstairs, which meeting included at least half the Scotch Members in the House of Commons—to omit "pasture and grazing land," and thereby to include in the land that might be allotted by the Land Commission to the crofters, land that might be used for arable purposes. This alters the rigid condition under which alone land could be granted on lease by the Land Commission under the Bill. That may now not only be granted for purposes of common grazings, but likewise for purposes of tillage; therefore, it seems to me it will be well if my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will consider whether it is necessary or not any longer to keep up the obligation of "five or more crofters." I think that is a reason which, perhaps, has not occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and probably he will consider it.

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

The speech we have just listened to, I think, gives matter for thought to everyone who looks forward beyond the mere operation of this Bill to future land legislation in this country. We were told by those responsible for this Bill—and first and chiefly by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—that its justification lies in the exceptional circumstances which, according to his view—as to which I do not say anything now—prevailed in the Highlands 80 or 100 years ago. It is held that the crofters in the old days had certain rights—rights which were not in any legal Statute, but which were theirs in equity. On that historical foundation, this Bill was framed; and, in conforming with that historical foundation, this limitation of the joint application of five of these crofter units was required. But it appears that the right hon. Gentleman is now of opinion that the historical standpoint is to be abandoned altogether, and that we are to treat these small tenants in the Highlands as if they were small tenants anywhere else. Then, what is it we come to? This Bill, under these new circumstances, is nothing more nor less than a departure, according to which small tenants should henceforth be allowed to claim fragments of larger farms, against the wishes of the landlords or tenants, and absolutely irrespective of any historical right which they may have had, and solely at the will and pleasure of the Land Commission. I think it will be admitted that what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman puts an entirely new complexion, not only on the Amendment now before us, but on that which is to be proposed by the Government to put arable as well as pasture land in the Bill. Pasture land was to be held in common by the old Highland tenant, but the arable land was to be held separately; so that if you commit yourselves to the principle of compulsory leases, and remove, by adopting this Amendment, the shadowy distinction which the Government have set up between the Highlands and Lowlands, I am unable to see how you will be able to resist the extension, in the future, of this most novel and dangerous principle of land tenure from the two or three counties in which you propose at present to establish it, to the rest of the United Kingdom.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I should be the last to object to the custom of common grazings. I have been accustomed to them all my life in India—we have them also in Surrey—but, as a student of history, I find they do not last for ever. In course of time the communal holdings become the holdings of individuals grouped together for certain limited purposes. It seems strange that it should be made a condition of these tenures in the Highlands, that they should be granted in a reduced communal form, and that the grazings should not be allowed to dissolve themselves into individual holdings with certain common rights, two or three or four individuals being allowed to apply for the benefits of the Bill. I think the Amendment is one that is economically and historically right.

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

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) clearly points out that the Amendment, however good it may be in itself—as to which I say nothing just now—will not avail for the purpose of working out the Bill. It is scientifically unsatisfactory; and I will tell the Committee why. He says—and says perfectly correctly—that the original intention was to give rights of common pasture over a tract of land, and it naturally follows from that that the application for that tract of land must be made by more than one individual, because you could not have common rights to exist in one person. That was the original intention of the Bill, and that original intention the Government have now deliberately departed from. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but they have only departed from it by doing something different and exceptional to it. They have departed from it in this way, by saying not only will we give common pasture land, which is historical, but we will give also individual possession of arable land, in addition to present holdings—that is not historical. It is plain you must have separate machinery for working out these two things. If we pass this Bill in such a form that it is going to give the crofter additional arable land for his individual occupation, then it is an absolute injustice to refuse the right of one person to apply to the Commission to get a piece of such land; and in that view I thoroughly concur with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow. On the other hand, if the crofters are going to get common pasture, it is equally clear that it cannot be done on the application of one crofter. It must be done on the application of several, and the Act, when it is passed, must name some number as a minimum. As I said before, it is quite certain that to accept the proposal that one crofter should be able to demand a piece of common pasture would be in itself a gross absurdity; therefore, I think the hon. Member will see that his Amendment as to pasture land, by which he merely strikes out the words "pasture or grazing land" and makes it any land, will not meet the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has clearly brought out how substantial, how marked, and how strong an alteration this is that is now proposed by the Government. It is a proposal to the effect that a person holding arable land is to be entitled to go to the Land Court and say—"I demand more of the landlord's land." Well, that is novel, and contrary to the principle which was stated when the Bill was brought into this House. Is there any ground for saying that that proposal falls within the exceptional character which alone was the ground on which the Government brought in this Bill at all? What is the exceptional position of the crofter in the Highlands, as regards the arable part of his croft, either historically or on present fact, that will make his case different from that of any other person to whom a landlord has given a piece of land in any other part of the United Kingdom? If there is no difference, it is plain to the Committee that, by an alteration adopted in this way, you are establishing a new principle under cover of its being to meet an exceptional case. You yourself are utterly unable to state, when it is put to you fairly, any exceptional case whatever. How are you to answer the demand in the future? In this House, when sitting as a House, it has been said, time after time, that the allegation of a thing being exceptional is coming to be of no avail in dealing with future cases. The former case always comes to be treated as a precedent in cases to which it does not apply. When you are not able to state any exception in the case that you have last dealt with, what are you to do? I ask the Government, then, to account for the fact that this Bill is now so absolutely changed in character that it cannot be defended on the grounds on which it was introduced to the House; and, in the second place, I ask them to explain how the double thing that is to be effected by this Bill is to be carried out by the Amendment proposed?

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

If the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will turn to page 248 of the Amendments, they will see that the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) gives them, unfortunately, as we think, all they ask. We desire to have arable land, and we are told we are getting it. It was asked at the meeting to which reference has been made what would be a fair definition of arable land, and the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) defined arable land as— Land that was now, or within seven years had been, under tillage or under a rotation of cropping. The Lord Advocate proposes to move that the crofters are not to get land— If the land is arable land, which is at the date of the application, or has been within seven years prior thereto, under cereal or green crop, or subject to a rotation of cropping.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The suggestion I made—and I think its adoption would get over the difficulty—is that only grazing land should be taken, and that the crofters might convert it into arable land if they thought proper. We are told that in all the Highland parishes and districts in which complaint is made there is a large quantity of land which was once arable, but which has long gone out of cultivation, and is now practically grazing land. If I were a crofter, I should like to get that land back again, rather than to take arable land which may be under a rotation of cropping. The land which has been under grazing for a number of years may prove very good land, just as good as if it had been under a rotation of cropping. Hon. Members from the Northern districts are under the impression that we wish to take land just as we please; but they must recollect that there are two restrictions in respect to the taking of land. In the first place, the Commission is not to take land from a farm under lease—not until the expiry of the lease. Now, the compromise I would suggest is, that the Land Commission should have the right to take arable or grazing land, even from a farm which is under lease. The extent used for arable purposes would not be large, and I do not think there would be any serious infliction upon the tenant. You have this also to recollect—that any remedy you have to give to the Highlands should take effect as quickly as possible. Now, the effect of this clause, as it stands in the Bill, would be that the crofters would not be able to get land of any kind in any district for a number of years. I suggest—and I come back to the Amendment before the Committee—that my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) should withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane), which would make the clause read "one or more crofters." I think that is certainly a preferable Amendment.

MR. J. C. BOLTON (Stirlingshire)

I wish to say a word or two with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). I was one of the Scotch Members present on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and my impression of the views expressed is not the same as that of my right hon. Friend. The point under discussion, as far as I recollect, was the possibility of defining arable and pasture land, taking into consideration the fact that in the Highlands there are many tracts of land which were formerly cultivated, but which are now in pasture. That land is supposed to be better than the ordinary run of hill land; and it was felt that if the words "pasture or grazing" were retained in the Bill, the crofters might be precluded from obtaining any land which under the Definition Clause might be called arable land, although at the time in pasture. My impression is, that the majority of the Members present at that meeting were in favour of omitting the words "pasture or grazing," leaving only the word "land."

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

Right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches have urged that if this Amendment were adopted, it would necessitate, or it would suggest, an extension of some such provision to the Lowlands and to England as well. Sir, I am not opposed to the idea that considerable Land Law reforms are wanted in the Lowlands as well as in the Highlands; but I would point out that there is an obvious distinction between the two cases. Many of the Highlanders can point out plots from which their grandfathers were evicted; they can point out good cultivable land which is now either laid down under grass, or, in some shameful instances, wasted upon deer forests; and it is not to be wondered at that industrious, energetic, and thrifty young men should feel strong indignation that, though they are willing to work this land, they should be excluded from it by its devotion to luxury and sport. I cannot think it is a sufficient concession to lay it down that five men at least must make application before this wrong can be redressed. It has been suggested that agitation and disturbance is necessary before any right can be done. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a young crofter who knows, by family tradition, that his grandfather or his great grandfather was evicted from a plot of good land which is now used as wintering for deer. I would like to know whether they would not feel that an intolerable wrong was done them if they were called upon to emigrate from their country because they were denied a plot of land which they felt they could cultivate to advantage? I earnestly hope the hon. Member (Mr. M'Culloch) will persevere with his Amendment.

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

I think it must be evident to the Committee that we have now come to the turning point in this Bill. The question is, Do the Government intend to adhere to the principle on which they introduced the Bill, or do they intend to be forced from the position which they originally took up, and to make it a Bill which can be extended by degrees from one part of the country to another, until at last it extends over the whole of the United Kingdom? Now, Sir, I am not the least surprised that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should propose this Amendment. They entertain very strongly—and they have a perfect right to entertain—the idea that the whole land system of this country is to be broken up; and, no doubt, they think the Bill affords a convenient opportunity for them to drive their opinions home. That is their view; but is that the intention of the Government? Is that the intention of the House of Commons? If that is the intention of the Government, it certainly is not the intention which was put forward in the statement in which the Bill was introduced; and I shall be much surprised to hear that the Government have receded from the position they then took up, and that they intend to make the Bill capable of extension to the whole country. It is evident that this requirement of five or more crofters combining together in order to make this application is, as the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) very truly said, a requirement suited to the special case of the crofters. If the Government depart from that position, and allow any one man to make the application, they will depart entirely from the special case of the crofters, and make the Bill one which is just as applicable to one part of the country as another. I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate will not allow himself to be driven from the position which the Government have taken up.

DR. CLARK

Before the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) rises to address the Committee—for I see he is most anxious to rise—I should like to state the case clearly. To give the crofters grazing land alone would be to give them something which would be of no benefit to them. In winter this land will be useless for grazing purposes, and the stock will die unless the crofters have arable land upon which they can grow wintering. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has practical knowledge of this subject, whether what I say is not true?

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) alluded to me or not; but if he did, I shall be perfectly ready to express the view I entertain either with regard to arable land or deer forests when the proper time arrives. It appears to me we are now discussing an Amendment which calls upon us to decide whether the number of crofters who are to make this application is to be five, or one, or more. That is the point to which I desire to turn my attention, and, for the reason expressed by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), I shall certainly oppose the Amendment. I hope the Government will not think of agreeing to it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

There is no doubt at all that to reduce the number to one would introduce a fundamental alteration in the theory of the Bill. I quite see that it might be matter for consideration whether, at a later part of the clause, machinery having been set in motion by some number of persons, however small, representing the community, there might not be a provision for one individual obtaining an addition to his arable land. I shall be glad to consider, before the Report stage, whether, by a recasting of the clause, some difference may not be made between the application for arable land and grazing land.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. M'CULLOCH

Yes, Sir; I withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "one."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 115: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 63.)

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I propose to amend the clause, so that it shall read—"It shall be lawful for any five or more crofters or cottars," and so on. I hope the Committee will agree to this Amendment. All that I ask for the cottars is the right to apply to the Land Commission under the circumstances set forth in the clause, and it will be for the Land Commission to say whether the cottars have any right to what they apply for. I know that, in many instances, landlords in the Highlands will be only too glad to have the words put into the Bill which I propose. We know that many crofters have no money at all; and what, under the circumstances, are the landlords to do with the land, unless they let it out in deer forests? Therefore, I think the House will be right in giving these cottars the necessary land, because it would not only be for their benefit, but for the benefit of the landlords as well, by allowing those who have money to make a proper use of it. It is only a short time ago that nearly all the crofters on an estate in my county were turned out and became labourers. The owners of the estate found work for them, and they are better off than they were; but suppose the landlord dies, and another landlord does not do what is good for the people, should not these men have the right of going to the Land Commission? I repeat that in adopting the Amendment I am about to move, we should confer a boon on the cottars and on the landlords.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 1, after "crofters," insert "or cottars."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)

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

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

The Committee has already rejected the introduction of the words "or cottars" into all the clauses intended to give what I may call the distinctive benefits of the Bill—fair rent and fixity of tenure. But here we have a definition of "cottar" introduced which would be much more inappropriate than it was with regard to fixity of tenure and fair rent. It is true we have on the Paper an Amendment, comprehending under that term a person who is the occupier of a dwelling-house with a garden, but without arable or pasture land. If we were to adopt this Amendment, we should be, so to speak, taking a person who pays no rent for his house, and who, if he does pay, is simply paying rent for a garden, and turning him into a crofter—it would be changing a person from one class into another, and for that I say there is no historical precedent whatever.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

It is amusing to see the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, like the ostrich, hiding his head in the sand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not look at the facts, but at a preconceived theory. The object of the Amendment is to allow the Land Commission to give land to the cottars—who were crofters a few years ago, until landlords like Mr. Pirie, the paper maker, and other commercial landlords, changed their position. On the other hand, some landlords have done entirely opposite—for instance, the old historical Conservative landlords—and as far as they are concerned, if I were to become a crofter again, I should very much prefer one of them to a new commercial landlord. I hope it is not useless to appeal to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to consider the facts of the case outside legal considerations, to bear in mind that if the Bill is to be worth anything at all to these people, it must be amended, and some provision made for the people to whom this Amendment applies. There are two or three classes of people who have holdings who are outside the Bill altogether. There are a great many crofters and subtenants of big farmers, and a great many crofters who are sub-tenants themselves, and who pay rent, or give their service—there are whole classes of whose existence the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to be aware, but who will force themselves upon his attention very soon. Some cottars on estates are taking possession of land and cultivating it, because they do not mean to starve, and something more than policemens' batons will be required to push them off the land, if they are to be pushed off at all. This is the class of men whom we fight for in this House—to give them a chance of being replaced on land from which they have lately been driven, because it has pleased men like Mr. Pirie to change their land into sporting land. If this Amendment is not accepted, one-third of the population of the Highlands will be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I do not know whether it is worth while pressing the matter upon the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; but I trust he will reconsider it, because, unless he is prepared to assent to some of these Amendments, the Bill is likely to go through the House with some difficulty.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

I agree with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that, practically, we are excluding the cottars from the Bill altogether. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed an easy mode of death for them. A few weeks ago, we had a division which displaced the Conservative Government on the question of allotments. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a proposal to grant allotments to these people? I do not ask him to give them "three acres and a cow;" but can he not grant them allotments? I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted on the division in favour of allotments for the agricultural labourer, and I ask him to think to-night of the vote which he then gave. I do not believe it is of any use wasting the time of the Committee in walking through the Lobbies with 100 Members, while the Government and the Tory Party are against us on every occasion. If I had not known that this was a Crofter Bill for Scotland, I should have judged it to be an Irish Coercion Bill, from the number of Government officials and the followers of the Tory Party who vote against almost every Amendment. I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will consider whether he can do something for the cottars, without converting them into crofters, which I do not desire to see done.

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

It would seem that the argument of the hon. Member amounts to this—that a majority is good in every case, except in the House of Commons. It is a new theory. I venture to say that when this Parliament was elected, it was supposed by my right hon. Friend opposite that it represented the people better than they had ever been represented before. But he seems to be repenting of that idea now. The hon. Member for Caithness said a few minutes ago, that if he became a crofter, he would like to have a Tory landlord. Well, we on this side of the House would not be disinclined to agree with him. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment did so, on the ground that he desired to give some land to the cottars; but does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the cottars are right in taking pieces of land, because they happen to live next to deer forests? This is not a proposal to give a piece of land to the cottar, but to add to his holding; it is a proposal to create a holding which is a thing not contemplated by the Bill, and which, if it had been introduced into the Bill, would have prevented its being read a second time.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

In dealing with a question of this kind, it is very desirable to be consistent with the general scope of the Bill, however anxious we may be to make some provision for the cottars. With regard to allotments, I think the whole theory was, that they were to be worked out and administered under a system of local government which has not yet come into operation. I hope that, in one part of the country as well as in another, it may be possible to carry out the allotment system; but it is hardly consistent with this particular Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, after "crofters," insert "or their subtenants."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

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

I cannot support this Amendment, which is one of the most inadmissible that has been proposed. One of the greatest mischiefs recognized in crofter communities is sub-letting, and the Committee has already passed the 1st clause, which so fully recognizes that evil as to make it a statutory condition that there shall be no sub-letting. The meaning of sub-letting is that somebody comes into the holding without the cognizance, and probably against the will, of the landlord; and upon what principle it would be possible to set up such a person as claimant against the landlord it is difficult to see.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

This clause will cease to operate at the end of five years. The Amendment only applies to those who are now sub-letters; and I ask the Government whether, by refusing the Amendment, they are going to perpetuate the misery which exists? All we are trying to do is to obviate some of the evils which unfortunately landlords allow to exist.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

The Amendment I am about to move is for the purpose of allowing a subsequent provision to be inserted, the object of which is that tenants when they have grazing land should be allowed to convert it into arable land and hold it individually. The idea which occurred to us was, that grazing land in a crofting parish might be available for the purpose of the crofters as provided by the Bill, and that this grazing land might be made arable. The Land Commission has power to give grazing land, which it is desirable that the crofters should have, and we want that the crofters should hold it individually and treat it as arable land, cultivating it as they think proper.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, after "have," insert "either individually or jointly."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)

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

I cannot accept this Amendment; but as there might be some doubt about the application of words in the clause to pasture land, I propose to omit the words "pasture or grazing."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, leave out "pasture or grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

This is the time for considering what land the Commission shall have power to deal with. The proposal I made was, that the Commission should have power to take any land useful as pasture or grazing land, and give it to the crofters, and that the latter should be able to treat it as arable land. There is a considerable area of grazing land in the Highlands which was at one time arable. This land, which is good land, should, in our opinion, be available for the crofters in the localities from which they were formerly evicted. The Government propose to extend the powers of the Commission to common land. I think that would be a great mistake; but I should propose that while the Commission should not deal with arable land, they should have power to deal with grazing and pasture lands as if they were common land. It will be years after this Bill is passed before the crofters will have power to get any land; because the whole of the farms are under lease, and therefore the powers proposed to be given to the Commission under this Bill would not be available for the crofters at present. I think the powers of the Commission should be restricted to grazing and pasture land, and that they should extend to existing leases.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

That point arises on a later Amendment. It does not arise here at all. If the Committee accept my Amendment, it will, as far as it goes, empower the Commission to deal with all land.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,

I wish to point out, by way of caution, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes away with one hand what he gives with the other, the concession will not be of much use. I entirely agree with the view taken by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I hope the Committee will consider attentively the point which I am now going to advance. I hope it is merely the result of an oversight on the part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that the principle of the Amendment which I am about to move has not been embodied in the Bill, because it wants but little attention and common sense to see that it ought to be embodied there. The Bill certainly says that crofters may apply to the Land Commission, setting forth that there is land available for the enlargement of their holdings "in the said parish;" but my Amendment would enable the Commissioners to deal with land available for the purpose in the parish, "or contiguous to it." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is willing to insert those words, I shall not take up the time of the Committee by saying anything further on the subject; but, otherwise, I shall feel it my duty to point out the reasons why I think my proposal should be adopted. We know that those men were thrown into corners of large estates and large farms; and I ask, if they are not to be allowed to go beyond their parish, what good will the Bill do them? What is the use of saying "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" The demand which I make is, in my opinion, a most reasonable one, and one on which I shall ask the Committee to divide unless I receive from the Lord Advocate a satisfactory assurance on the subject. I think it is a most indefensible position to take up to say simply that, because you have taken the arbitrary boundary of a parish, you can do no more. The Commission, moreover, recommended that we should not be bound by parishes, nor by the estates of certain landlords; and that is another reason in support of my contention that there is nothing unreasonable in asking that we should not limit the operation of this clause by the arbitrary divisions of parishes.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, after "parish," insert "or contiguous to it."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)

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

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

In a Bill like this, which is not of universal application all over the country, it is necessary to have some territorial unit which necessarily involves the element of arbitrariness. It appeared to us that the most convenient unit was the parochial unit, and therefore that was put into the Bill. If that limit is accepted, of course it follows that it would not be consistent to go outside it; and believing that the Amendment would introduce a great deal of confusion into the working of the measure, I cannot accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 7, leave out the words "pasture or grazing."

DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

I beg to move, in line 9, to leave out "take on lease," in order to insert the word "rent." This is purely a technical Amendment. I think the word "rent" would be much better than the word "lease" in this matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, leave out "take on lease," and insert "rent."—(Dr. R. 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,

I am afraid that there is a grammatical difficulty; besides it is a lease that we are dealing with, and, therefore, I think the word "lease" is the best.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

At the end of the clause I move to leave out the words "than that of a deer forest, or of a grouse moor, or other sporting purpose." The object of these words in the clause is to exclude from the consideration of the value the recognized and well-known value attaching to lands of a particular character, and under particular circumstances. It may be right, or it may be wrong, to insert these words, but it is certainty a novel proposal; and I shall be very much surprised to hear, if this principle is carried out in its entirety, that, instead of doing good to the Highlanders, it will not do a good deal of harm, financially, to the whole of the country. No doubt, certain lands are let for a variety of reasons; but I presume that it is not to be said that land which is let for sport is an improper letting, in the abstract. Of course, the custom is open to abuse, and whenever that is so, no doubt action should be taken in regard to it for the public good; but this Bill does not affect those cases alone, but strikes generally. No one doubts that what is done in the Highlands in the interests of sport is to get the lands into as primitive a condition as possible. If that is to be held to be wrong in itself, there is an end to the question; but if it is not held to be wrong in itself, is it right, as an abstract ruling, to exclude the value of lands which were let for such purposes? I have never shot a grouse in the Highlands in my life, and I have never had a day's deer stalking in my life, but I indulge in other kinds of sport which suit me better; and I should not like to have it on my conscience that in the pursuit of sport I have taken up land and have rendered it impossible for the crofter, who may want it for his actual livelihood, to take it up. I do, however, object to the principle involved in this clause, except in so far as it deals with an exceptional case, or with circumstances of an exceptional character. I believe that there are lands which are better employed as deer forests and grouse moors than in any other way, because they are not suitable to the sustenance of man. Let me take the case of a grouse moor. Can it by any possibility be made more valuable by making it cease to be grouse moor—would it be more valuable to the population of the district generally? Speaking entirely of the question of value, is that so? I venture to think that it could not be made more valuable. I do not suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to assert that what is now grouse moor was once covered with crofters' holdings, and that that is the reason why this clause should be inserted. Such a statement would be entirely incredible. I admit that where land is close to habitations, and necessary or suitable for enlarging the holdings, it is clearly not proper to take it for the purposes of sport; but the objection which I have to these words is that they state as a principle what is not a principle, and deal generally, instead of dealing with particular cases. The places where there is injustice could be scheduled, and then we could deal with particular cases; but I do object to the idea that the rent which can be obtained for every reasonably preserved piece of ground for the purposes of sport, if it is done within limits, and which may be a good thing for the country generally, is not to be considered as "reasonable terms" for the purposes of this Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 12, leave out all after "purpose."—(Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald.)

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 think the speech to which we have just listened must make those hon. Members well satisfied who voted against the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) to alter the instruction to the Committee with regard to the fixing of fair rents. I suggested, on that occasion, that the proposed alteration might let in elements of competition which would not be just for the purposes of the Bill, and I incidentally mentioned the case of deer forests. That, however, was objected to and disclaimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite as an unreasonable and extravagant illustration; but it is exactly the argument which my right hon. and learned Friend now puts forward in support of this Amendment. It is not necessary for the purposes of this discussion to go into the much larger question, which has frequently been touched upon, in regard to deer forests generally. I may say that I believe that there are some places which are more fitted for deer forests than for any other purpose; but, Sir, while I say that with respect to some parts, I do not say it with respect to lands which are approximate to hamlets and townships, and which are necessary for the use and service of the men of those places. The Royal Commission quite recognized that, when they pointed out that there had been a great deal of indiscriminate extension of deer forests; and I think they suggested that the limit of land which should be used for deer forest should be 1,000 feet above the level of the sea. Well, that would be difficult to work out; and without going into any definition of the area within which deer forests ought to be prohibited, or within which no recognition should be given to deer forests as institutions consistent with public policy, I think that we are justified in this assertion—that wherever, upon the inquiry of the Commission, it is found that deer forests are close to hamlets or townships, and that the land is reasonably necessary to the community of those places for enlarging their holdings and giving elbow room to the inhabitants—that itself is evidence that it is not land that ought to have been appropriated to the purposes of a deer forest. Unless the right hon. and learned Member is prepared to go back on the division that was taken the other evening, this Amendment appears to me to be unnecessary. In short, Sir, the object of the termination of this clause, as it is drawn, is to exclude from competition, as against the necessities of the community, the fancy values that are sometimes given for deer forests, or for other land for the purposes of sport.

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think that he has made a point when he says that the principle of this Amendment was acted upon on a previous occasion; but I would point out that the two cases are entirely distinct. In the first place, we were dealing with the land in a man's occupation, and I quite agree that when a man, and his father before him, has occupied land, it would not be expedient and it was never contemplated to say—"This land can be used for some other purpose, and shall be taken away from you unless you pay a higher rent." That is one matter; but there is another. The case is different when an owner, in the exercise of his strict legal rights, makes use of his land as a sporting estate, and you say that he shall be compelled to give it up to a tenant whom he does not want, and at a rent which he has no power of fixing. When we exercise the new power proposed by this clause, we ought, at all events, to give to the man from whom land is taken away the value he got for it before it was taken from him. I observed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech only alluded to the question of deer forests; but the case of grouse moors is also pertinent, and it is very important that they should be considered. I do not wish to raise the question of deer forests. It is a very large one and a very important one, and I hope it will be threshed out in this House, for I think that the more it is threshed out the more the public will see that the wild talk which has been used about deer forests is wholly absurd and erroneous. Looking at this question, not from the owner's point of view, not from the neighbouring tenant's point of view, but from a Highland point of view, I ask the Committee to consider whether the destruction of these properties would be in the interests of the whole community—whether the country at large would be benefited if a deer forest, rated at £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, was absolutely destroyed as a deer forest in order to increase the holdings of the crofters?

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

According to my idea on this question, Sir, the comfort of one family is worth all the deer in the forest. But that is not the question I rose to discuss. I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) whether the crofters are not to have the right of grouse shooting on the common pasture, because if the landlord is to have a rent as well as the exclusive right of killing the grouse the whole question is put in a different light?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I think it is made clear in the 1st clause that the game is reserved to the landlord. I do not think that the value of grouse shootings is likely to be set up as a competitive value against crofters in the same way as deer forests; but I feel that there is a danger of a fancy value being set up in the case of the deer forests, and I think that it ought not to be set up against the requirements of the people.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress.

House resumed.

MR. SPEAKER

What day will the Committee sit again?

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

To-morrow at 2 o'clock, Sir. Hon. Members will remember that this is strictly in accordance with what the Prime Minister said earlier in the Sitting. We have got so far with the Bill that we hope with a Morning Sitting we may be able to finish it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee sit again Tomorrow at Two of the clock."—(The Lord Advocate.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

I do not think that the Motion is in strict accordance with what the Prime Minister said. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he would take a Morning Sitting if it were the general wish of the House, and if there were any reasonable probability of the Bill getting through Committee. Well, Sir, if any hon. Member will take the trouble to look at the Paper they will find that there are a great many Amendments still to be discussed; and I think there is grave doubt that it will be possible to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by 7 o'clock to-morrow. I should not by any means wish to oppose the proposal which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made if it be the general opinion of the House that the Bill is likely to be concluded to-morrow; but I think we should have some further assurances on this subject.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I am not surprised at the right hon. Gentleman looking at the bulk of the Amendments that remain on the Paper; but I do not think we can fairly judge from them. In the first place, there are a great many new clauses which are entirely non-contentious. Some others of the Amendments will be ruled out of Order, and we believe that those which remain will be concluded at a Morning Sitting. Of course, it is in the event of its being the wish of the House that the Government propose to take the Morning Sitting; but we were sanguine enough to think, when I made the Motion, that it was the universal desire of the House.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

We have only four more questions to bring forward, and only two of them are important.

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

Hon. Members will have observed that nearly all the speeches and Motions on this matter have come from the other side of the House; but we on this side have several important questions to bring forward, and we ought to be allowed some time for the discussion of them. We have at least four important matters to bring forward, and I would point out that, apart from new clauses, there are three times as many Amendments yet to be disposed of as have been disposed of this evening, and they are sure to take some time. We have only half the time to do it, so that we shall have to go six times as fast as we have done to-day. I hope that the action of those who sit upon this side of the House has given abundant proof that we have no desire to obstruct the Bill. This will be apparent from the fact that neither in the number of the Amendments nor in the length of our speeches have we been anything but moderate.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

It seems to me that we are beginning very early in the Session with Morning Sittings. I have a Motion down first for to-morrow night, and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham) has a very important one on the Paper dealing with contagious diseases amongst cattle and the transit of cattle. There are other Motions on the Paper; but we all know that if there is a Morning Sitting on this Bill the rights of private Members at 9 o'clock will be worth little or nothing. At the same time, I do not wish to interfere with the course of work; but, having to be in a Committee at 12 o'clock, it would be a great disappointment to me to be unable to come down here to hear the rest of the discussion upon this Bill. I believe there are many other Members of the House who will be in the same position. Though I do not wish to oppose the Motion, I desire to put in a protest against the commencement of Morning Sittings thus early in the Session.

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

I do hope the Government will not give way in this matter; but that, as there is such a general feeling on the point, they will take a Morning Sitting. There is some hope that the Bill may be finished at a Morning Sitting. There is a principle to be discussed, which is not included in the Irish Act, and which, if it is not discussed to-morrow, may have to be postponed indefinitely—I refer to the principle that the fair rent should be fixed not from the date of hearing, but from the date of the payment of the last gale.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)

I am glad that the Government have adopted the course of arranging for a Morning Sitting to-morrow. There is another matter on the Paper for to-morrow night which is of interest to Scotland, and I do trust that the Government will do their best to make a House for us in the evening, so as to make a real working day of to-morrow.

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

I must take leave to add my appeal to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle. We are now between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, and it is proposed, without giving any Notice whatever, and after a great many hon. Members who take a great interest in the Bill have gone away, to proceed with the measure this very day. I am convinced there will be a great number of Members who desire to take part in debate on the Bill prevented from so doing by this sudden resolve to hold a Morning Sitting. For myself, I have to address my constituents in Yorkshire at 2 o'clock to-day; and I, therefore, shall not be able to be here at the Sitting, which will be a great disappointment to me. I think the Government should give more Notice—at least three or four days—of their intention to hold a Morning Sitting.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

I cannot but regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is not in his place. I do not see any Member of the Cabinet on the Front Ministerial Bench. I distinctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would not be a Morning Sitting unless it was the general wish of the House. Well, the right hon. Baronet sitting below me (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has objected to a Morning Sitting, and two hon. Baronets and much-respected Members on the other side have also objected; and I must say that after the statement of the Prime Minister, if this Motion is pressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, I shall consider it a distinct breach of faith.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR) (Leeds, S.)

I would remind my hon. Friends that the Prime Minister distinctly stated at the beginning of this Sitting that if it was a general feeling of the House that a Morning Sitting should be given to finish the Bill he thought that course would be a proper one. Therefore, the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) is mistaken in supposing that this Motion has been sprung upon the House at ths moment. Of course, if there was a general feeling that there should not be a Morning Sitting it would not be taken; but, so far as I can gather from both sides of the House, the objection to the course proposed is not a very considerable one. It is stated on this side of the House that every effort will be made to finish the Bill to-morrow, and that the debate is not likely to be extensive on any of the Amendments. I admit that hon. Members on the other side of the House have shown great forbearance in the discussion of the Bill, and I am sure that a large amount of the time of the House will be willingly accorded to them for the discussion of any proposals they may have to bring forward or views they may have to submit at the next Sitting.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

I have not troubled the House much on this matter; but I venture, differing from some hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, to think that if we did agree to a Morning Sitting we might be in a fair way to finish the Bill. At any rate, I think we ought to try to finish the Bill after a little needful rest.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I will explain, after what my right hon. Friend behind me has said, that I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite understood that I did not intend to raise any objection on my own part. If there is any real desire on the part of the House to proceed with the Bill to-morrow I shall offer no further objection to it.

Question put, and agreed to.