THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,My first Amendment is to omit the words "pasture or grazing," in line 16. The clause will provide that the Land Commission, upon receiving an application by crofters for enlargement of holding, shall intimate the same to the landlord who has refused to let available pasture land for 919 that purpose. I propose to leave out "pasture or grazing," so that the section will apply to a refusal on the part of the landlord to let any available land for the enlargement of holdings.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the words "pasture or grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI also propose to make a similar alteration in line 22 by omitting the words "pasture or grazing."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 22, to leave out the words "pasture or grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. Macdonald), to leave out the sub section and insert—
In order to enable the Land Commissioners to make advances for the stocking of holdings, building of houses, and other expenses incidental to the enlargement of holdings under this Act, it shall be lawful for the Public Works Loan Commissioners, from time to time, to advance to the Land Commission, out of any moneys which may be placed at the disposal of the Commissioners by Parliament for the making of loans, such sums as may be approved by the Treasury.The amount of such loans shall not exceed five years' rent of the entire holdings (including any additions made to them by the court, or with the consent of the landlord or landlords), such sum or sums to be secured on the parochial assessments, and to be repayable in such half-yearly instalments as will repay the whole, with interest at three and a-half per centum per annum, in twenty-five years.It shall also be lawful, under this section, to grant loans to fishermen to enable them to get boats and nets, and other appliances for prosecuting their industry, as well as for the building of harbours, under such terms and conditions as the court may think fit.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I must point out that the adoption of this Amendment will convert the clause into a Money Clause.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHThen I will move the next Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend, to insert in line 23, after "crofters," the words "or the forming of new holdings." The effect of the Amendment is to provide 920 that the Commission shall be satisfied that there is land available for enlarging the holdings of the crofters or for forming new holdings.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, after the word "crofters," to insert the words "or the forming of new holdings."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, seeing that it deals with a subject which is entirely beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I have to move the omission of the last part of the second sub-section. The subsection runs—
(2.) That the applicants are willing and able to pay a fair rent therefor, and that in the event of an order for the letting therefor being made, the applicants are unable properly to stock the same.I propose to omit all the words after the first "therefor," which apply to the ability of the applicants to stock the land properly. I move the Amendment as briefly as possible. The sub-section is based on the principle that the applicants are willing to pay a fair rent for the land allotted for the purpose of enlarging the holdings; and then the section proceeds to lay down as a condition of the enlargement that the applicants shall be able to stock it properly. I maintain that that is a question for the consideration of the tenant, and the tenant only. All that the landlord has to consider is that the tenant is in a position to pay him a fair rent. I therefore beg to move the omission of the words of the subsection after the word "therefor."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from the word "therefor," to the word "same," in line 29.—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,It appears to me that the clause as it stands is not only consistent with common sense, but in accordance with the direct recommendation of the Royal Commission, which provides that the crofter applying for an enlargement of his holding should 921 be in a position to stock the land. I can see no just reason for objecting to this provision. I do not suppose that any crofter would desire to have an enlargement of his holding unless he was in a position to stock it properly. Surely that is precisely one of the things upon which a stipulation should be clearly laid down. It is the only way by which there would be some reasonable security that the object for which the enlargement was made was properly carried out—namely, that the tenant is in a position to do justice to the enlarged holding. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already struck out the cottars from the benefit of the provisions of the Bill. In the next place, he struck out the leaseholders; and, now that the benefits can apply only to the crofters, he appears to be desirous to reduce them to as small dimensions as possible. In point of fact, the Lord Advocate is endeavouring to exclude from the benefit of the Bill so many of the parties whom he ought to benefit, that if he goes on there will be nobody left to enjoy the advantages of the measure.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I certainly cannot admit the force of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. I presume that these men would have the right of stocking it with game as much larger landowners do. Suppose, for instance, a crofter chose to stock his holding with rabbits fur his own amusement; he would have just as much a right as the larger proprietor has to stock his land with deer for his own amusement. I have heard no argument whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman except that of unnecessary interference with the provisions of the Bill as they now stand. My contention is that the only thing the landlord has a right to consider is whether, when the land is taken, the tenant who takes it will be able to pay the rent. That is all he has to do with the matter. I shall certainly insist upon this Amendment, and I am afraid that I must put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 77: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
922THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,The next Amendment I have to move is a necessary sequel to the Amendments already adopted, by which "pasture or grazing land" has been struck out of the clause. It provides that the applicant shall not only be willing and able to pay a fair rent, but that he shall, in addition to being able to stock the enlarged holding properly, be also able to cultivate the sane in so far as it consists of arable land.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, after the word "to," to insert the words "cultivate the same in so far as it consists of arable land, and properly to."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURThe next Amendment is to the same effect—namely, to insert at the end of the subsection the words "in so far as it consists of pasture land."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 29, after the word "same," to insert the words "in so far as it consists of pasture land."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON (Bute) moved, in line 33, after "duration," to insert "not exceeding fifteen years." The hon. and learned Member said: This provision clearly points to the duty of letting, by lease, for a fair rent, and otherwise, upon such terms and conditions as the Land Commission may consider just. I have some difficulty in reconciling the provisions contained in the clause with what is to be found in Clause 14, which relates to assigned land, and which provides that—
Land assigned by the Land Commission under the authority of this Act, shall be deemed to be part of the holding, or holdings to which it is so assigned, and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act relative to crofters' holdings.
The Committee will observe that the effect of the last provision will be to give fixity of tenure on the added part of the holding, and that it is not quite consistent with the provision I am now criticizing. I do not, at present, say whether there ought to be a lease added on to the tenure, or whether the whole land should be let upon the principle of fixity of tenure; but I consider that the question
923
is one which is well worthy of discussion, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be in a position to clear up the matter; because I think it is well that the Committee should be able to determine, first, whether the land is to be held upon a duration which may be long or short. If that is to be the tenure, then the Committee will have to consider what length of lease will be appropriate. I have, in my Amendment, put down 15 years as the duration of the lease; but that is merely a tentative proposal, in order to raise a question which, I think the Committee will agree with me, is well worthy of being distinctly considered. There are two points which require to be kept in view; the one is, that it is not desirable that there should be incessant chopping and changing as to tenure; but, on the other hand, it may be undesirable that portions of the ground, which may or may not turn out to be useful to the new cultivators, or the new sheep farmers, or profitable to them, should be dedicated to such purposes for an indefinite period. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of having a term, at the end of which it shall be open for consideration whether the provisions of this clause have succeeded or not. In the meantime, I do not propose to go further than place this alternative view before the Committee; and I invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to say what position the Government intend to take in the matter.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, after the word "duration," to insert the words, "not exceeding fifteen years.—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,I think the best course would be to leave out the words "as to duration and otherwise." I would ask to be allowed to move the omission of those words which come in before the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment now before the Committee must be withdrawn before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) can be proposed. If the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire (Mr. J. 924 P. B. Robertson) chooses to withdraw his Amendment it can be put.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI think I have already placed before the Committee sufficient grounds on which to elect between a lease and fixity of tenure; and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary that I should withdraw the Amendment.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.) Elgin,I am rather inclined to accept the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), which, I think, would be the best way of dealing with the matter. My hon. Friend proposes to leave out the words "as to duration and otherwise." The condition of the crofter is this—that his tenure would not be for any specified term; but he would have a right to continue in the occupation of the holding as long as he did not commit any breach of the statutory conditions. This clause proposes to enlarge the crofters' holding, and it is expedient that the portion added should be held by the crofter on the same tenure as the croft to which it is added. Therefore, if the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend were inserted, the result would be that the Commission would be invited to give the crofter a tenure of any additional land he might occupy for a specified term; where as he would not have a tenure of the original croft for any specified term, but only on the condition of not committing any breach of the statutory conditions. This the Government cannot agree to. It would be more expedient to leave out the words "as to duration or otherwise" altogether, and simply leave it to the Commission to enlarge the holding—the addition being held by the crofter under the Act on precisely the same footing as the original croft to which the enlargement has been added. Section 14, as has been pointed out, would have that effect; because it declares that—
Land assigned by the Land Commission under the authority of this Act, shall be deemed to be part of the holding or holdings to which it is assigned, and shall be subject to the provisions of this Act relative to crofters' holdings.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)The last sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to make the matter clear, or I am afraid that otherwise it would not have been satisfactory, seeing 925 that it would have left a discretionary power with the Land Commission as to the terms of the assignment.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONI have accomplished my object in bringing the matter to a clear point, and I am bound to say that I think the most logical system is that which the Government have now adopted. I do not profess any great attachment to the system; but, at the same time, having heard what my hon. and learned Friend proposes to do, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and to allow that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to be put to the Committee. I must say that my hon. and learned Friend might have admitted this—that any criticism he may have made as to dovetailing the one system into the other applies as much to the proposal of the Government as to mine. But in order that the more methodical and coherent system may be followed I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,I have now to propose the omission of the words "as to duration and otherwise."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the words "as to duration and otherwise."—(Sir George Camphell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,The next Amendment is in line 38, to leave out the words "or grazing."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 38, to leave out the words "or grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURIn the next line I propose to insert, after the word "crofters," the words—
Or for conferring upon the applicants rights of pasturage common as among themselves over available land specified in the order.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 39, after the word "crofters," to insert the words "or for conferring upon the applicants rights of pasturage common as among themselves over available land specified in the order."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. LYELL (Orkney and Shetland)The Amendment which. I have now to 926 propose deals with one of the minor subjects of complaint which came before the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands. No doubt the question of dealing with sea ware for the use of the holding is a small one compared with many of the questions affecting the crofter. It is limited in area to the seaboard around the coast; but as that seaboard is very extensive it affects a very numerous class of crofters. In looking at the draft of the Bill I find that there is no mention in it of sea ware, which is an important element in determining the value of a croft where it can be easily gathered and applied to the land. Thus, when the Land Commission comes to deal with the question of fixing fair rents I am afraid, as there is on mention of sea ware, that rents may be determined independently of it. In that case the proprietor, having had the rent fixed, would have it in his power to demand an extra rent for the privilege of gathering seaweed, which in many cases, especially in Orkney, Shetland, and on the Northern coastline, is the life of crofter holdings. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the matter should be dealt with in the Bill. Some evidence was adduced upon it before the Royal Commission, and the Commissioners were of opinion that the matter should be dealt with definitely, seeing the effect it would have upon the husbandry of the crofters, and that it should be finally determined by the townships holdings having the right to cut and gather seaweed for the purpose of putting it upon the land. I am not desirous of pressing the particular wording of the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper; I rather prefer the wording of that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. R. Macdonald), and I am quite willing to withdraw mine in favour of that of the hon. Member. All I desire is that the Lord Advocate should kindly help the Committee to insert a properly worded provision in the Bill, instructing the Land Commission to deal with this question. The Commission already possesses very wide powers indeed. It has been referred to as a Roving Commission, not only dealing with the question of rent, but with the circumstances of the district and of the holdings. Now, I think that all matters connected with sea ware, with the cutting and carrying away of the turf, and also 927 with the thatching of the crofters houses should be included among the circumstances of the case which the Land Commission should have it in their power to deal with, and that those questions should be considered in finally determining the rent of a particular holding. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 39, after the word "crofters," to insert the words "and where the holding is contiguous to the sea shore, to cut and gather sea ware for the use of the holding."—(Mr. Lyell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable to settle this matter at the same time we are settling other questions. There can be no doubt that the use of sea ware, in many places, is absolutely essential to the cultivation of the croft, because it is the only natural and available manure. There have been cases in which a good deal of irritation and mutual misunderstanding have arisen with regard to this matter. But it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross-shire (Dr. R. Macdonald), if we take the first part of the second Amendment with a slight verbal alteration, would meet the case better than the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell). The Amendment I refer to declares that—
It shall be competent for the Land Commission to draw up a scheme regulating the use of seaweed, peat bogs, and heather or grass used for thatching purposes, the charges for all these being included in the rent.When we reach that Amendment I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw the words "the charges for all these being included in the rent," in order to add the word "and to include the charge for all these in a fixed rent." The reason why I think it desirable that the Land Commission should draw up a scheme is this—sometimes there is a good deal of difference, and almost open, quarrelling, among the crofters themselves in regard to the sea ware. There is a considerable amount of competition for it, and ill-feeling is constantly arising over it. I is, therefore, desirable that a scheme 928 should be drawn up by the Land Commission, suitable for certain places, in which shall be laid down the rights of hose who are entitled to be supplied. I entirely sympathize with the general object of the Amendment; but, perhaps, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend will withdraw it, and allow the discussion to be taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. R. Macdonald).
§ MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,Does the Lord Advocate propose to confer on crofters whose holdings are inland, and which are not on the seashore, or adjacent to the seashore, the right of obtaining this sea ware quite irrespective of their geographical position? Will crofters have a right to come from a great distance to the seashore in order to lift the seaweed? because, if that is so, I am afraid we shall be depriving the proprietor of that which, in many instances, brings him a considerable revenue. I believe it is a fact that seaweed, in consequence of the high price at which it stood not many years ago, brought more to the proprietor than the value of the land, and many persons were employed by owners of land in the preparation of kelp for the market. Not only was the landlord able to pay to these persons a considerable amount of remuneration, but after the payment of all expenses he himself derived a considerable revenue from the utilization of the seaweed. I wish to know if the Committee are to understand that the Government are contemplating the desirability of taking from the landlords this source of revenue and giving it to those who never enjoyed any right of ownership?
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)Surely I do not understand the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) to lay any claim on the part of the landlords to a property in seaweed? I speak under the correction of the Legal Authorities; but, as I understand the law of Scotland, there is no property at all in seaweed. The whole difficulty—and I have been taught it by experience—is one of access; and if the Lord Advocate proposes to deal with the question, I suppose it will be in the direction of giving access to the foreshore.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR (&c.) ClackmannanI think the Committee ought to be made aware 929 of the exact manner in which the law stands. According to the law of Scotland, where a landlord has an express grant of sea ware, or, without such an express grant, has exercised an exclusive enjoyment of it for 40 years, the property in it is his. Sometimes it is said that there is a distinction between the growing ware and the drift ware; but, however that may be, it is highly expedient that in places where it is the natural and necessary manure of the land, provision should be made for its collection by the tenants. At the same time, I think we might venture to take a few words from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell) and introduce them into the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. McDonald). When we come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ross-shire, I think it will be necessary to insert words to meet the case of the landlord who now possesses the absolute right in the sea ware.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY (Glasgow, Blackfriars)The question of seaweed is one which is constantly arising on the West Coast of Ireland and in other parts of Ireland, and certainly the law is not identical with that which appears to exist in Scotland, because it is the same in regard to floating seaweed as to growing seaweed. The Islands around which it is collected certainly belong to somebody; and if they belong to somebody, that person only would have the right of getting the seaweed upon them. I am very much in favour of the proposal of the Lord Advocate, because I know that there is no dispute so common among the tenants as that about the property of sea ware. I think it is, therefore, necessary that powers should be given to the Land Commission to settle disputes in every particular, because experience has shown that there are tenants who get up very early in the morning, look out for the seaweed, take it all away if they can, and leave none for their neighbours; and seaweed, when once cut, can only be cut with advantage every second year. In some localities the people make an arrangement among themselves to cut the seaweed in alternative years; and if, in dragging the sea, they get the floating weed, it is brought in and divided proportionately among themselves. The very point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member 930 for Orkney (Mr. Lyell)—namely, the case of tenants whose holdings are not immediately adjacent to the seashore, has constantly given rise to dreadful disputes. These tenants think they have quite as good a right to some portion of the seaweed as those who live on the seashore itself, and there have been serious disputes in consequence. Allusion has been made to the industry of kelp-burning. I am told that that is a reviving industry at this moment, and that the iodine made out of the kelp is advancing very much in value from what it was some years ago. We all know that seaweed was of extreme value not very long ago. Many landlords gained hundreds a year from it, and so did the tenants. Some of the proprietors let the land on which seaweed can be obtained to their tenants, and received a royalty upon the seaweed itself. Owing to the discovery of other means by which iodine can be produced, seaweed has declined in value; but it is still a very valuable property, when iodine in a remunerative quantity and at a fair price can be obtained from it. Therefore, it must be remembered that seaweed is not merely a manure, but that iodine is made out of it, and that it forms a valuable commodity. My hon. Friends in Scotland will know, however, whether they are giving away in this matter something which is of great value both to the tenant and the landlord. At any rate, it is quite certain that the matter ought to be determined in any scheme to be laid down by the Land Commission, and such scheme should settle what the tenants are to have and what they are not to have.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)It occurs to me that, whether we discuss the matter now or on a subsequent clause, it is important to consider the question of access. There may be an abundance of seaweed, and a right given by Parliament to use it; but if there is no right of access there will still be constant disputes. It is, therefore, most desirable that the question of access should be dealt with.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I am not going to continue the discussion; but I wish, to make an appeal to hon. Members who have more admiration for this Bill than I have—mine is very small indeed—that if they want the Bill to 931 pass, it is desirable they should limit their speeches to the Amendments, and not introduce irrelevant matter as to Ireland, and iodine, and other scientific questions. I do not care whether the Bill passes or not; but if hon. Members wish it to pass, they ought to limit their speeches at least to five minutes, and not to occupy 20 minutes upon a scientific disquisition, as was the case with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry).
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY (Glasgow, Blackfriars)I decline to accept the implied censure of my hon. Friend, who has certainly talked 50 times as much about the Bill as I have. I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the fact, because he always talks with perfect satisfaction to himself, and, I am sure, to all who hear him. All I did was to give the Committee some practical information derived from cases which are analogous. I merely wished to point out that the question is not so simple as some hon. Members appear to think.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I have no doubt that we are all anxious to make as much progress with the Bill as possible; but, at the same time, our progress ought to be judicious, and we ought not to insert Amendments by wholesale without giving them proper consideration. I wish there were more hon. Gentlemen in this House who were acquainted with the question of utilizing the kelp on the Coast of Scotland. Am I wrong in saying that there are Islands off the West Coast of Scotland where the proprietors let out the right of collecting kelp to Companies? If so, how will such contracts be affected by this Amendment?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR.) (&c.) Clackmannan,It appears to me that under this power the provision would not necessarily mean that the tenant was to have the exclusive use of the seaweed, but that such appropriation of it might be made as would be reasonable, under the circumstances, to all the interests which might be concerned. If the landowner had the right to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and there exists a large quantity of seaweed, I think the Commission might say—"So much to the proprietor for this purpose, and so much to the crofters for their own necessary use for the land."
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)I would suggest that, in order to make progress, the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell) should withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I will merely mention the first part of my Amendment, in order to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the subject. It empowers the Land Commission to cause provision to be made of suitable allotments and houses for farm servants on the farms on which they are employed.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 40, at end, add—"It shall be competent for the Land Commission, by an order under this section, to cause to be provided suitable allotments and houses for farm servants on the farms on which they are employed on application made to it for this purpose."—(Dr. R. MCDonald.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not think it is germane to the Bill. I may, however, express a hope, although it is only a personal hope, that an opportunity may be afforded for dealing with the matter.
§ Dr. R. MCDONALDYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. R. MCDONALDI am quite agreeable to alter my second Amendment in the way the Lord Advocate has suggested. It will then empower—
The Land Commission to draw up a scheme regulating the use of seaweed, peat bogs, and heather or grass used for thatching purposes,and to include all these purposes in a fixed rent. I do not think there is any occasion to say much upon the Amendment after the discussion which has just taken place. There is only one remark I desire to make, and it has reference to the fear which has been expressed as to the difficulty of access. Now, practically, there is no difficulty of obtaining access to seaweed at all. It can be got at everywhere by boat; and, therefore, there can be no difficulty of access whatever.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 40, at end, add—"It shall be competent for the Land Commission to draw up a scheme regulating the use of seaweed, peat bogs, and heather or grass used for thatching purposes, and to include the charges for all those in a fixed rent."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I would suggest another Amendment, after the word "seaweed"—namely, to insert the words "by crofters occupying holdings contiguous to the seashore." [Cries of "No!"] I have taken those words from the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Lyell). I think that we ought not to give rights which do not at present exist to persons whose holdings are at a considerable distance from the seashore.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "seaweed," the words "by crofters occupying holdings contiguous to the seashore."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,I speak under correction; but I am very much mistaken if crofters who are not contiguous to the seashore are not as much entitled to the seaweed as crofters who are contiguous to the seashore, and may want it just as much. Unless all crofters who desire to use sea ware are included in the Bill future difficulty will be sure to arise.
§ MR ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)It is quite clear that the fact of being on the seashore would not create a right in regard to the ownership of the seaweed. I think if my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will leave the matter to the Land Commission they will be able to do what is right.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E)I apprehend that the law is as the Lord Advocate has stated—namely, that no man has a right to the seaweed except the man who owns the foreshore of the estate. Where the landlord has crofts situated inland, but not far from the seashore, he has given the privilege of collecting seaweed, not only to crofters whose holdings are on the seashore, but to crofters whose holdings are inland. But what is to happen to his rights if 934 this Amendment is adopted? The principle put forward by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) is that the crofter is to be the heir of all the privileges of the landlord, whatever those privileges may be—not merely the privilege of holding the croft as a freeholder, but those privileges which, at present, appertain to the landlord only. I must express my very great surprise that the Government should desire to increase the power of interference with the landlord. They are absorbing in the hands of the Commission not only every duty, but the power of making every species of bargain, not only between the landlord and tenant, but between one tenant and another. I confess I think that the more we limit the power of the Commission, consistently with the interests of the population concerned, the better. That is a general observation which I desire to make. There is, further, one particular observation which I wish to make, and it is to express a hope that the Government will introduce into the Amendment words which will save existing rights. I am afraid that if the Amendment is carried in its present form, it will be found that such rights and privileges as those which have already been adverted to—rights under which the landlord has contracted with a Company to turn the seaweed into an article of commercial profit—will be materially impaired, and the people which these Companies now employ would have their interests seriously damaged. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce words which will have the effect of saving existing rights.
THE CHAIRMANIt will be convenient, in the first place, to dispose of the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,After what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont), it appears to me that there should be some limit to the power of collection, and that it is necessary to introduce some words, such as "on the same estate." It would hardly be proper to allow a tenant to go roving from one estate to another for the purpose of collecting sea ware; and, perhaps, it would be best to introduce, after the words "used for thatching purposes," 935 the words "by the crofters on the same estate."
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURYes.
§ Amendment to the said Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)I now propose an Amendment which will make the proposed Amendment read—"for regulating the use by crofters on the same estate of seaweed, &c."
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "use," the words "by crofters on the same estate."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)I am afraid that a difficulty may arise from the use of these words, which I think are hardly the right ones to apply. The word "use" amounts to something which has occurred in the past, and the Land Commission will find it somewhat difficult to judge in arriving at a decision whether the taking of sea ware has been a right or not.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I am quite willing to agree to the Amendment suggested by the Lord Advocate.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I think that it is very important that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advovocate should propose some Amendment for giving access to the seashore.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny S.)I should like to know whether the Lord Advocate has considered the propriety of including the cottars in this clause? I believe that in numerous cases the landlords refuse to grant the cottars the right to take seaweed for the purpose of sale.
MR. FRASER-MACINTOSH (Inverness-shire)I also am of opinion that the Lord Advocate might agree to the insertion of the word "cottars," because there are questions included in the clause with regard to the cutting of peat and the thatching of houses which will materially affect that class. As these cottars have no land, I do not see how they are 936 to be benefited by this provision unless they are specially included in it.
§ MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,I was going to suggest the insertion of words which I think would define the purposes for which sea ware is to be taken. I think the clause, as it is proposed to amend it, will only embarrass the Land Commission in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them. The clause includes power to the Land Commission to draw up a scheme for regulating the use of heather or grass in connection with thatching purposes. As a general rule, the privilege of cutting heather or grass is not conferred as a matter of right upon the crofter, but with the assent of owner; and, as a rule, something in the shape of rent or acknowledgment is paid, not to the owner of the land, but to the person from whose holding the grass or heather is taken. I would suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend might deal with the matter by inserting in the clause words to provide that the sea ware should only be taken for the purpose of manuring the land. That is really what sea weed is wanted for. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken of this sea ware as being essential to the cultivation of the land. Now, I do not consider that sea ware is essential to the cultivation of the land. I think, on the contrary, that in many instances it does more harm than good where it is used. One of the disadvantages the Committee are labouring under is that the Bill is under the charge of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are altogether ignorant of the circumstances for which they are legislating.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON (Bute)There is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. I quite understand the system which my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to inaugurate—namely, that the Land Commission shall have power to draw up a scheme for regulating the use of seaweed for these purposes, so that they may settle the particular area over which, the crofters who make application to them are to exercise this privilege. But I want to know whether the power of the Commissioners will be exhausted when they have once drawn up a scheme, or whether there will be a recurring power to regulate future questions which may arise? That is a point of very 937 great importance, and I see in the clause we are now considering an illustration of one of the great defects of the establishment of a Land Commission at all. You will have a third party continually standing between the landlord and the tenant, and taking away the responsibility and interest of the landlord in the administration of the estate. It has hitherto been one of the duties, as well as the privileges, of the landlord to harmonize as far as possible the interests of the several holdings on his estate. This, however, is an illustration of an opposite system about to be introduced in which you subordinate the responsibility of the landlord to a new tribunal for the settlement of these matters. I think that is a very serious question, and that it may, to a large extent, destroy the value of the property by subjecting it to this sort of dual control or double system of administration. Landlords who have hitherto been most loyal in the discharge of their duties, will throw up the matter in disgust if a third party is to be brought in between them and their tenants for the regulation of these trivial questions. By taking this course, you weaken the responsibility of the landlord towards his tenants, destroy his public spirit, and lessen his sense of duty in a manner which cannot be otherwise than prejudicial to the crofters. I would, therefore, ask whether the Lord Advocate contemplates that there shall be a recurring right on the part of the Land Commission to settle new schemes?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,As this part of the Bill stands, and taking the Amendment as an Amendment to this part of the Bill, the regulation of the matter is intended to be a thing done when the enlargement of the holding is made. The part of the Bill we are now considering relates merely to the enlargement of the holding. The crofter cannot set up a title ad hoc; but the question must be regulated and settled when the addition is made to the holding.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I presume that when the Land Commission have laid down a scheme, and have provided certain terms and conditions as between the tenant and landlord, they will have the power of seeing the scheme carried out?
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)I quite see the difficulty pointed out by the Lord Advocate in the way of including the cottars in the proposed Amendment; but I would ask him whether he may not be able, at a later stage of the Bill, to introduce an Amendment giving the cottars a right to turbary and turf?
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURThis is a provision which distinctly applies to crofters, and does not deal with cottars at all.
§ Amendment to the said proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted."
§ MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,I think it would be desirable to restrict the right of the crofters to the use of the seaweed for manuring purposes, those being the purposes for which the Lord Advocate desires to confer the right upon them. If they do not require it for those purposes, in the event of seaweed becoming a costly commodity as it has been on many previous occasions, this clause would give to the crofter the right of taking seaweed to be used in the manufacture of kelp. Now, I do not think that that could be contemplated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in framing the Amendment; but unless some additional words are inserted in it, I cannot see how the crofter could be prevented from exercising his right in that way. Unless a restriction in regard to the use of turf and peat bogs is also imposed, a great deal of confusion and litigation will undoubtedly ensue. All these things belong to somebody, and form part of an estate, and I do not think it is possible for the Government to contemplate that the crofter shall have an absolute right of carrying away peat and turf at his own option. The only effect of this clause, as it stands, will be to produce litigation; and I think it very absurd that an Act should be passed to promote litigation. Of course, it is impossible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can have had in his mind the interests of his own Profession; but I certainly think that that is the only good purpose this provision can serve. As it is said in Scotland—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good;" and, undoubtedly, if this Bill becomes law in its present shape, it will admirably 939 serve the purposes of the lawyers, if of no one else.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY (Glasgow, Blackfriars)As this is a practical point, perhaps the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) will allow me to say a word upon it. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) is a very important one. The object of allowing the crofters to take this seaweed is to enable them to manure the land in order that they may live upon the holding, and not find themselves reduced to a position of destitution. Experience, however, has shown that there are many of the small tenants who will sell their rights to the seaweed to larger tenants, who will contract with some Company to make use of it, not for manuring purposes, but for the manufacture of kelp. If the crofters are tempted in that way, and sell the manure, which ought to go upon their land, to some speculative neighbour for the purpose of being utilized in the manufacture of kelp, the condition of their crofts will be no better in the end than it is now. This is a practical point, in regard to which I have had a great deal of practical experience on the West Coast of Ireland, and I think the Lord Advocate should consider if he cannot put in some words to restrict the use of the seaweed to manuring purposes, which is a legitimate object.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)I would remind hon. Members that the seaweed, and other things, will be included in the amount of rent fixed, and will therefore be paid for by the crofter with his own money. Seeing that the crofter is paying for what he gets, I do not see why the Committee should be so particular as to the purpose to which he applies it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)The hon. Member appears to think that the crofter will have a right to use the privilege given to him by this Bill in the way contemplated by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry). I will remind the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) that although he made a speech upon this subject, he did not conclude by moving an Amendment in the sense of his observations.
§ MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,I thought I had done so. I will move to 940 insert the words "to manure the holding."
§ MR. RAMSAYI would insert them after the words "on the same estate." The clause would then read—"used by crofters on the same estate to manure the holding."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the Amendment ought to come in after the word "seaweed."
§ MR. RAMSAYI accept the suggestion.
§ Amendment proposed, after the word "seaweed," to insert the words "to manure the holding."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I think that the words proposed by my hon. Friend are altogether unnecessary, and in some cases they would be vexatious, because there have been instances of great destitution in some of the Islands of Scotland, during which cattle have had to be grazed on seaweed, and even the people have had to eat it. Surely there can be no idea that the crofters will set up any large business for the manufacture of kelp.
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)I should have concurred with the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend, if it were not for the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) just now. The hon. Member said that although the principal object was to provide that the crofter should be able to get a supply of seaweed for the purpose of manuring his croft, nevertheless when he had once obtained it he ought to be able to do anything he liked with it.
§ MR. MCIVER (Devon, Torquay)I do not understand that the Amendment would create any new right. It only proposes to regulate rights which exist at present. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Not rights.] Certainly the crofter has rights now, or, if the right hon. Member for Manchester prefers the words, they have immemorial privileges. The use of seaweed by the crofter has been recognized in regard to most of the crofters' holdings in the Highlands and 941 Islands of Scotland, and it is not proposed by the Amendment to create any new right. As far as I understand the clause, it is only proposed to give the Land Commission power to draw up a scheme for regulating the use of seaweed; therefore, I think that a great deal of what has been said has no reference whatever to the real point at issue.
§ Amendment (Mr. Ramsay) negatived.
§ Amendment (Dr. R. McDonald), as amended, agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "due regard being had to existing interests."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 177: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)I think the reason for the Amendment I am about to move is obvious. It is clear that crofters and cottars in townships where there are no roads should not be compelled to pay for them. The Commissioners found that in many places in the Highlands there were no roads, although rates for roads had been paid. In some cases there were no roads nearer than 10 miles, and there is an instance of a place with a population of 400, which is at a very considerable distance from any road. I have received a great many letters on this subject, amongst others from the people of Skye Island, who asked me to put down this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, at end, add—"The Land Commission shall have power to order that township crofters and cottars be relieved of road rates, so long as there are no roads to the townships."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.) Elgin,I have no doubt that roads in the neighbourhood of some townships are not in a satisfactory condition; but the proposal of my hon. Friend is to incorporate into this Bill legislation with regard to a matter with which it has nothing to do. This is an Amendment which would be appropriate to a Road Bill; but it is 942 certainly not appropriate in a Bill dealing with the tenure of crofters' holdings. It is one of very doubtful propriety besides, because it makes a proposal for the maintenance of roads of a partial character, which it would be very difficult to carry out. Although the roads in the vicinity of a township may not be as good as may be desired, the roads to other parts of the county are satisfactory, and therefore it cannot be said that the people in question get no benefit from them.
§ MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not read the Amendment of my hon. Friend. There is no complaint as to the quality of the roads. I understand the reason for the Amendment to be that there are no roads at all to some townships, but that the crofters and cottars have to pay nevertheless.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)In some parts of my own constituency there is no road at all; I had to charter a special steamer to get there. The people there do not know what a road is. One man with a croft of an acre and a-half assured me he was paying 10s. a-year for road money, although there was no road in the place.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)The Amendment which I have put on the Paper is one embodying a very important principle. But in the speech in which I introduce it to the Committee I shall endeavour to consult the exigencies of the Government with regard to time rather than the magnitude of the subject. The object of the Amendment is to give to every landlord, when the State steps in and takes from him the management of his land, the power to dispose of the laud. It gives to every landlord power to say—"If you forbid me to use my land in the manner in which it has been hitherto used—if you prevent my being full owner of my property, I do not object to it, but take the ownership yourself." It will be observed that this Amendment is in strict analogy with the procedure of English law wherever land is taken for public purposes. If a Railway Company requires land, the owner has the power to sell outright his property at a price which is generally settled by arbitration. If this Amendment be carried, you will 943 avoid the system of joint ownership which you have tried in Ireland, and found to fail, which you are about to try in the North of Scotland, where you will also find it fail, and which you may be tempted to try in other parts of the United Kingdom, with the like disastrous results. I have been long a convert to the theory that it would be greatly for the social advantage of the country if we could increase the number of freeholds. I do not approach this question so much from the landlord's point of view as from the point of view of one who desires to see stability given to the institutions of the country by a large multiplication of the number of owners of land; and, of course, the direct result of my Amendment would be to substitute for tenants to whom you give fixity of tenure and fair rent, an equal number of freeholders, who would in no way be dependent on the Land Court or the landlord. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers), in a speech made a day or two ago, said that one of the chief objects which this Legislature should have in view was to restore those amicable and harmonious relations between landlords and tenants which had been so unhappily shaken by the legislation and agitation of the last few years. Sir, I entirely agree with the wish expressed by that hon. Member; but I greatly fear that in the Highlands we shall be too late. Things have got to that pass in the Western Highlands that I do not believe it is possible by any legislation to restore the old friendly relations which once subsisted between the landlord and tenant; and I am certain that by the legislation you are now engaged in you will not move a step in that direction. The landlord in the Western Highlands, if this Bill is passed, will feel—and in my opinion will be justified in feeling—that henceforth the only duty he has in connection with the land is to extract from it as much rent as the Land Court will give him. Formerly—and if anyone doubt my words, I point to the Report of the Commission—the relation between the landlord and tenant in the Western Highlands was one not only of justice, but of generosity. I believe that henceforth, if you pass this Bill, when the terms on which the tenant holds from the landlord are fixed by the State, when you have raised up the im- 944 movable figure of this Land Commission, all feelings of personal friendship, all feelings of mutual interdependence between the two classes, will be for ever destroyed. The landlord henceforth will not regard the misfortunes of the tenant as misfortunes which he is bound to share and, if possible, to obviate; he will feel that he has the right in law and equity to exact that rent which the Land Commission awards him to the uttermost farthing, and to give nothing in return to the tenant who occupies his land. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) uttered a prophecy, of which, to do him justice, he is doing his best to bring about the fulfilment, when he said that landlordism in this Kingdom wasdoomed—that the landlords were destined, at no distant date, to become rent-chargers of their property, and with very small rent-charges indeed. Well, Sir, I do not think that would be a desirable state of things, or one to be proud of. If you object to landlordism in the sense of large landed proprietors, by all means, after due consideration, substitute for it small proprietors; but do not attempt to substitute this absurd scheme of small properties held in joint ownership. Of all others, is this the time to initiate an experiment of that kind? I am sorry that the Prime Minister, who was in his place a short time ago, is not now present; but what does the right hon. Gentleman think of the scheme of double ownership which he initiated not long since in Ireland? Does he regard that scheme as an unqualified success; or are we all in a dream when we suppose that one of the grand proposals which is kept in view is to come down to this House and ask us, at vast risk and expenditure of public money, to abolish the very scheme of double ownership which was adopted with regard to Ireland in 1880, and which you have adopted in the most reckless mood for Scotland in 1886? I remember a speech made by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), in which he said he would never have assented to the Bill unless the principle of double ownership were to be the prelude to a system of peasant proprietorship. If we are to adopt this system of peasant proprietorship, let us not take that doubtful step before we reach the object of our wishes. Let us rather adopt the system 945 which, in my opinion, is the only proper one—namely, that of giving to large or small owners the management of that part of the soil which is legally their own. I do not wish to trespass any longer on the time of the Committee. I think they will have seen in the words I have addressed to thorn that the question which I have laid before them is no small one. I would warn hon. Members who, perhaps, know little of the technicalities of this Bill, and have listened, it may be, with weariness to these long discussions on points of law and practice, that on the fate of this Amendment or of the principle which it embodies may depend the future of land legislation in this country. I have not put down my Amendment in the interest of Highland landlords—I believe very few Highland landlords would take advantage of it—I put it down in view of the time when the experiment now extended to Scotland may be, with still greater rashness, extended to England, and when those who take part in this debate will look back on the question we have initiated to-day and feel that the principles which I now advocate are the only principles which can guide legislation upon and are consistent with the present system of land tenure in England.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words—"An order under this section shall not take effect if the landlord or landlords shall offer to sell the lands affected thereby, as herein provided. The Land Commission shall cause a copy of every such order to be forthwith delivered to such landlord or landlords. The landlord or landlords may, by writing under their hands, delivered to the sheriff clerk within thirty days after receipt of the copy of the order, intimate that he or they are willing to sell the said lands. Every such intimation by the landlord or landlords shall be held to import an offer to sell the said lands to the crofters named in the said order, for a sum amounting to twenty-five years' purchase of the rent fixed in the said order, and such offer shall be open to acceptance for thirty days from the intimation of the offer. The price shall be payable as follows: not less than one-fifth part on acceptance of the offer, and the remaining four-fifths in portions of not less than one-twentieth each year thereof for twenty years, interest being chargeable on the portion unpaid at the rate of three and a-half per cent. per annum. The unpaid portion of the price shall form a real burden on the lands. The landlord shall have right, on failure of due payment of any instalment, to reacquire the said lands on repayment by him of the moneys paid to him."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman over the very large field of discussion which he has opened, because his speech has not only been a second reading speech against this Bill which we have before us, but also a second reading speech against a Bill which we have not seen, but which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates we may soon see. Now, that almost fills the imagination with alarm both with regard to the past and the future. If we are bound to go back and make a second reading speech, and also forecast what may be the legislative proposals of the future, we should be going very far afield. I ask the Committee to consider where we really are in this discussion. We have got the principles of security of tenure, fair rent, and compensation for improvements settled by the clauses of the Bill which we have already passed. We have also agreed to the principle of enlargement of crofters' holdings by way of compulsory leasing; and, more than that, we have got all the leading principles of the Bill not only recognized by the second reading being taken without a division, but by all the principal clauses being passed by the Committee. Therefore, the few words I shall say will have relation purely to the practical stage which we have reached in the discussion of the Bill. Well, Sir, I say that I entirely demur to the notion that the proposals which the Committee have passed create anything that can be described as dual ownership. There would have been some justice in the description if free sale had been admitted; but inasmuch as free sale has not been admitted, there is, I repeat, nothing in the Bill which can be reasonably described as dual ownership, but simply tenancy subject to statutory conditions. The relation of landlord and tenant will remain. With regard to the Amendment, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is that, if the application for the enlargement of holdings already sanctioned by the Committee is presented, it may be met by a counter offer which is to defeat the object of the provision—that is to say, the Legislature is assumed to have enacted that the Land 947 Commission shall have power to make additions to holdings in the way of tenancy, and that is then to be met by an offer to sell, which those who propose it know perfectly well would make the Bill absolutely nugatory. Who is to buy the land? Is the crofter to buy it? I do not think that the crofter has the desire, the will, or the ability to become a landed proprietor. He has been a tenant in the past, and it is proposed that he should be a tenant in the future on better conditions. I do not see why the crofter should wish to become a landed proprietor if he gets a fair rent and fixity of tenure; but if the landlord wills to sell, and if the crofter wills to buy, then let them buy and sell like anybody else in the market. Therefore, I say that, as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, the provision proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is needless. But it is proposed for the ease of the man who does not want to buy and who cannot buy; and I say it would be altogether idle to have passed the provisions of the Bill which have been passed if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman were to be accepted. The Committee would stultify themselves by so doing, because it proceeds upon the assumption of a condition of things which is known to be impossible. Now, as I have said, I do not know that we need pursue the discussion over the large field which the right hon. Gentleman has traversed. I admit that there is something novel, so far as legislation is concerned, in this Bill. I do not apologize for this; I applaud it. I am glad that this subject has been taken up, and that, so far, we have formulated in this Bill conditions which we say have existed historically. Their application is likely to give a little elbow room to the Highland crofter.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON (Bute)The theory of my right hon. Friend's proposal is that the provisions already assented to operate a complete change in the rights of property which previously existed in the proprietor of land, and that it is not right to say, while taking land for public purposes and in the interest of the community, that the owner of the land should not have power to divest himself of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has missed one of the points of the Amendment. If the proposal had been 948 that the market should be declared open to the persons willing to sell and to buy, there would have been left over the question as to what was the value of the subject; and I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said that that would be stultifying the intention of this legislation, because the higgling of the market might take place. The Amendment settles the price at which the sale should take place, and all is done that is required to bring about a purchase. If you say it is idle to attempt to bring about a sale with persons who have no money to buy with, I reply that that point has already been got over by the authors of the Bill, because you have placed by legislation impecunious persons in a position to obtain additional land which notoriously they are unable to stock and if that difficulty has been surmounted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think they may stretch their courage a little further and clear the ditch between the want of money for stock and the want of money for land. We say that if this object be one which it is fair to accomplish, the money ought to be found for the purpose, and, feeling the truth of that, we challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to deny the justice of the proposal in its principle.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, I think, made a mistake as to the object of the Bill. The Bill takes cognizance of two parties who are in the position of partners, each of them having property in the soil, and one of whom has by law been enabled to override custom and raise the rent of the other. The Bill is merely for the purpose of preventing one of the partners unduly taking advantage of the other, and establishing equity between them. The practical meaning of the Amendment is to prevent any of the clauses of the Bill taking effect for the benefit of the crofter. If the crofter gets a fair rent fixed, the landlord, instead of conforming to the decision of the Laud Commission, may offer to sell the tenant the land in lieu of it, and the first thing which the tenant would have to do would be to pay one-third or one-fifth of the purchase money—you might as well say that he should pay a fiftieth part of the purchase money, for he would be just as able to pay the one as the other. The crofter is poor and scarcely able to pay for the 949 stock he has, and unless there were a scheme by which the State could lend to the Local Authorities, and the Local Authorities to the crofter, the purchase of the land would be impossible. If such a scheme comes forward, I, for one, should not then oppose the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe, with the right hon. Gentleman, that the landlords must go, and that it is only a question of their getting away under equitable conditions. I would not like to expropriate even Irish landlords without giving them some compensation for interests which past legislation has created and public opinion sustained. I agree with the Lord Advocate that this is a question which is not pertinent to the present clause; it opens up a new question altogether, and in practice the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would only make the clauses of the Bill inoperative.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour), in introducing this Amendment, said that he did so because he objected to dual ownerships. I would point out that the effect of the Amendment, if it were adopted in its present form, would be to place the tenant absolutely at the mercy of the landlord. By the Amendment the landlord could compel the tenant to purchase the fee of the fringe of added land, while keeping him a mere tenant of the original holding subject to many restrictions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURPerhaps I may be allowed to say that I have another Amendment down, which deals with the question of new holdings.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (&c.) Hawick,It is the custom of this House that no one should ever ask other hon. Members not to speak at length except those who have spoken at great length themselves. I certainly have not acquired that privilege, at least in this Committee, and I only rise to ask that this debate may now come to an end, and that, if needs be, we may take a division at once. I can add one observation that may induce the Committee to come to that resolution. I am not in the Government any longer, but I know something of their intentions, and I am afraid there is not the slightest chance that the Government will provide from the public purse the means which my right hon. Friend (Mr. 950 A. J. Balfour) appears to aim at as a last hope. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend, without those means provided by Government, would really be a prohibitive Amendment, absolutely destroying the effect of this Bill; and, therefore, as a practical man, I must ask hon. Members to oppose it, and, if possible, to put themselves in a position to oppose it at once by not continuing the discussion.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)I have merely one word to add. I have read the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I do not think he quite understands my criticism. There are really two clauses introduced by the right hon. Gentleman—one dealing with the original holding and another dealing with the added portion, and it will be in the power of the landlord of his own option to put either clause into operation, and to compel the tenant to become the freeholder of part of his holding and to remain the mere tenant of the rest.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)I do not wish, to prolong this debate, but I do desire to point out that no one on that side of the House—no Member of the Government—has attempted to contest the force of the plea put forward by my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour). What does he desire to insist upon when a novel principle of legislation is introduced like this? The effect of what my right hon. Friend said was this—that when the Government stepped in and insisted upon dealing with a man's property in opposition to his wishes, and in opposition to what he believed to be his interest, you should at least give to the landlord in turn the power of insisting that you should buy his land outright instead of compelling him to let it upon a compulsory lease. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had nothing to say against the justice of the proposition, but he met my right hon. Friend by saying—"Oh, it is too late to raise this discussion; we cannot go back on what we have done." But this is a totally new principle. It is true that fair rent and fixity of tenure have been accepted, but the present proposal is to make a landlord let his land on compulsory lease for ever. The Lord Advocate says—"Well, but this Amendment is merely an Amendment to render nugatory the whole of the Bill." And he proceeded to ask—"Who is to buy the 951 land—is the crofter to buy it?" It does not follow that such an Amendment as this renders the Bill nugatory, and who is to buy the land is a question for the Government to settle. When they undertake to introduce novel principles of this kind into measures of this sort, and when we, in reply, insist upon their taking a course the force of which they cannot contradict, it rests with them to provide for the difficulties which may arise out of the evils inherent in the nature of those principles. That being the case, it is impossible for us to accept the Bill in its present shape; and unless the Government do see their way to make provisions of the nature we require, whether defeated or not, the supporters of the Amendment must take a division as a protest.
§ MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)I shall not stand long between the Committee and a division; but I desire to say a word in support of the important principle contained in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I am anxious to make progress with the Bill, and I have endeavoured to make the measure a good one; just, not only to the crofter, but to the landlord. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are too ready to give all to one side and nothing to the other. It must be admitted that the landlords do not deserve ill of this House in regard to their treatment of the crofters up to this time. It is admittedly well known that there has been no attempt on the part of landlords to exact many of the arrears which have given rise to great difficulty, and which are the chief source of contention on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, the landlords have shown a very generous spirit towards their tenantry; had they not done so there would not have been half the difficulty which now exists. The landlords do not wish to evict—they have not evicted—and the consequence is that in many instances they have not received any rent at all for years and years. Now, when you come to introduce a new principle into Scotch legislation, it is not fair to say that the landlords are not entitled to anything in the sense of justice from this House. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) says he is sure it would be very difficult to persuade the Government to give any money towards enabling 952 tenants to buy their land from the landlords, and thus get rid of the difficulty; but there may be other Governments in store for this House before a very long period of time has elapsed, who may look upon the question in a very different light. I do not believe that were another Government to come into power in a few weeks, or possibly a few days, they would withhold what is only just and fair in the interests of the landlords. I hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 215: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 66.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Available land).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 1, to leave out the words "pasture or grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLE (Lancashire, S. E., Westhoughton)I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, the first of the few Amendments which stand in my name—namely, to leave out "it fulfils the following conditions, viz. (1)," in page 6, line 2. I should like to explain how it comes about that I, an English Member and a new Member, venture to intrude myself upon this occasion. I am afraid that the Scotch Members may think that I am unacquainted with the Highlands; but when I tell them that for the last 15 years I have spent more time in the Highlands of Scotland than I have spent in my own home in Lancashire, they will admit that if I do not know something of the condition of affairs in the Highlands I ought to. The deep interest I feel in the people and in the country which has exercised so powerful an influence over me for so many years is my excuse for intruding myself upon the attention of the Committee. But I am convinced it does not require a long residence in Scotland to enable anyone to see the force of my first Amendment, which I simply move in the interests of grammar and common sense. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will read the clause, he will see that the 2nd sub-section cannot be called a sub-section at all. It 953 says that land shall not be deemed available "unless it fulfils the following conditions," and then one condition is given. What purports to be the second condition is really not a condition. The so-called 2nd sub-section provides—
If the land is subject to an existing lease. …. it shall not be competent to assign any part thereof," &c.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 2, to leave out the words "it fulfils the the following conditions, viz. (1)."—(Mr. F. Hardcastle.)
§ 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 was waiting to hear where the defects in grammar are when, suddenly, the speech of the hon. Member came to an end. It may be there is a certain grammatical I imperfection in the want of the word "that" at the commencement of the conditions. But really it is immaterial whether the conditions run smoothly or not, if the substance is correct.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEAllow me to point out how the clause reads—
Land shall not be deemed available. …. unless it fulfils the following conditions, viz.The second condition in the clause is that the land must be subject to an existing lease. Now, that is exactly what you do not wish to express; you wish to say "it shall not be subject to an existing lease."
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURIf it is really necessary, I shall be willing to leave the words out. I will consider this question of grammar or phraseology before Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEThe next Amendment I have to propose is to leave out "near," in line 4, and insert "nearly adjoining." The words "nearly adjoining" form a better definition of the meaning of the framers of the Bill than "near" does. I am sure the promoters of the Bill could not have meant that the crofters should apply for and take land at a considerable distance from their present holdings. I do not know that the words I propose to substitute are the best that could be found; but I maintain that the words "near to" 954 are very vague and indefinite. The crofters are generally remarkably active men, sound in wind and limb, and they would consider something "near to" which perhaps you, Mr. Courtney, would consider a very long way off. I think it is very desirable this point should be made as clear as possible.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 4, to leave out the word "near," and insert the words "nearly adjoining."—(Mr. F. Hardcastle.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,I do not think this Amendment is at all necessary. "Contiguous" means where the boundaries are touching, and "near to" means, of course, where they almost adjoin.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I am bound to say I think the words of my hon. Friend are better than those of the Government—they are more precise—but if the Government strongly object to adopt them, I would not recommend him to press them.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEIf I am to understand that "near to" means in the close vicinity, I will certainly withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)Mr. Courtney, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, in order that the Land Commission may have power to deem as land available for pasture or grazing not only land near to that already in the occupancy of crofters, but land at some previous time occupied by crofters.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 5, after the word "application," to insert the words "or has at some previous time been occupied by crofters."—(Sir Donald Currie.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (&c.) Clackmannan,It appears to me that this would be language of limitation against the crofter. It would open a very much wider field. Irrespective of whether there are any 955 crofters in a particular place, the land is to be available.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,I understand the Amendment to mean that if there are crofters and there is land not contiguous to their holdings which some time or other has been occupied by crofters, we are not to insist upon contiguity. I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURIt must be borne in mind that there may have been an exchange of land at some time or other.
§ SIR DONALD CURRIEThere are lands of which the crofters have been dispossessed, and I desire that these lands should be brought within the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)This Amendment is intended to give to the crofters a greater selection of land. It is one of the chief grievances of the crofters that they have been dispossessed of certain lands; and I think my hon. Friend (Sir Donald Currie) ought to insist upon making this addition to the clause as a sort of indication to the Commission of the steps they should take for the benefit of the crofters.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.) Elgin,This clause enables the Commissioners to take any land which is available for the enlargement of holdings, providing the land is—
Contiguous or near to land already in the occupancy of the crofters making the application.The hon. Gentleman's proposition amounts to this—that land should be taken which has been at some time in possession of crofters, although it is not contiguous or near to the present holdings. Surely that is not a good description of land to take for the purpose of enlarging holdings.
§ MR. RAMSAY (&c.) Falkirk,I think the language is so vague that the Amendment can serve no purpose whatever. "Has at some previous time been occupied by crofters." What does that mean? What is to be taken as "previous time?" Many lands occupied by the crofters of Perthshire during the last half-century have been taken and cultivated by others. Surely it is not expedient or desirable to give these lands to the crofters again. I do not 956 think that in its present form the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir Donald Currie) will do any good in so far as the crofters are concerned; and, therefore, I hope he will either withdraw it, or not waste time by continuing the discussion upon it.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)Perhaps the difficulty might be met by adding, after the word "application," the words "from which crofters have been removed during the last 50 years." If that is too long a time, it might be made 30 years.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. M'CULLOCH (Glasgow, St. Rollox)Although I disagreed with the last Amendment, I think that some amendment of the clause is necessary. It very often happens that the land which it is desirable to acquire belongs to a different proprietor to that of the land now held by the crofter. It would restrict the operation of the Commissioners if they could only take land belonging to the proprietor of the holding for the enlargement of which they wanted the land. I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 5, by leaving out all the words after the word "application" to the end of line 6.—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.) Elgin,The adoption of this Amendment would have a most unfortunate effect. It would entitle the Land Commission to take land from one proprietor for the purpose of enlarging the holdings belonging to another proprietor, and the result would be that if a landlord had managed his estate so that the land was fairly distributed amongst his own crofters, he would be subjected to the risk of having his well-managed estate deranged to cure the defects in the management of an adjoining estate. That would be unfortunate. This Act ought to stimulate proprietors so to manage their property that the interference of the Land Court would be as small as possible.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I think this is as important as Amendment as any we have had. The Bill is being so whittled down by one restriction and another that in the end it will be worth nothing. This is an Amendment which is absolutely necessary in the interest of the crofters. We are the men who have been sent here by the crofters; we know their wishes and their wants, and yet we have not been consulted in the least. This Bill has been drawn up in Edinburgh or in London by lawyers who know little or nothing about the condition of the crofters, and the consequence is it is a Bill which bristles with restrictions favourable to the landlords. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Culloch) will go to a division, because unless this Amendment is made the Bill will be worth next to nothing.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)Under the sub-sections of this clause practically nothing but unoccupied land can be taken for the purpose of increasing the crofters' holdings. This question is really reduced to one between deer and game and human beings. I most earnestly hope the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) will carry his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)There is no doubt that the Members who represent Highland constituencies consider this a most important Amendment. I know a gentleman in Skye, more kind than his fellow-landlords, who has taken in a considerable number of people evicted from other estates. This gentleman wrote to me lately complaining very strongly indeed that because he has taken in a number of poor people he should be saddled with them for ever, while there are estates which will not be touched at all by the Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) will take a division.
§ MR. ASHERMay I point out that under the Bill as it stands land will be available for enlarging holdings which is contiguous to the present holdings, and which is in the occupation of the same landlord, whether occupied as a deer forest, grouse moor, or for sporting purposes. The only land not available is land belonging to a different proprietor, or land held on lease for arable or pasture purposes.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 116: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 67.)
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLE (Lancashire, S.E., Westhoughton)The next Amendment which I have to move, Sir, is on page 6, line 6, after the word "crofters," insert—
No matter whether such pasture land be let on lease, either as a sheep farm or deer forest.Although the object of this Amendment will be brought about by the next Amendment, which is to leave out Subsection 2, I propose, in order to make it quite sure, to add these words to Sub-section 1. It is a very important matter, because this Bill seems not to respect leases of deer forests, while it does seem to respect the leases of sheep farms. I cannot myself understand why a difference should be made. I think it is very desirable that if the principle of breaking the leases of deer forests is adopted, as appears to be the case in the next sub-section, it should be extended further to the breaking of the leases of sheep farms also, and for this reason—that the land which is contiguous or near to the crofter communities is almost invariably sheep ground. A deer forest is almost always surrounded by a fringe of sheep ground, and the result will be that, unless this Bill is amended in the way in which I propose, I am afraid, from my know-lodge of that part of the country, that the crofter will be bitterly disappointed, and I am afraid that he will look upon this portion of the Bill as nothing else than a mockery. I am afraid he will regard it as something like this—"We have asked you for bread. You have asked us to wait nine or ten years, and then you give us a stone." If we want to avoid this we must give them the land they want, and that is sheep land. I shall not be surprised if this Amendment of mine is considered by hon. Gentlemen on these—the Conservative—Benches as rather a Radical one, more especially so when it is noticed that the hon. Members for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) are with me on this point. What I would ask hon. Members on this side of the House to consider, however, is whether they are not straining at a gnat after swallowing 959 a camel? The whole principle of this part of the Bill is entirely new; then why not go a little further and break the leases which are existing in regard to sheep farms? Another point is this—that the Commissioners ought to deal with this question of the extension and improvement of holdings at once, because the Bill only refers to existing holdings. If you admit the principle of breaking the leases of sheep farms, the Commissioners can deal with the whole thing at once, and have done with it. But, on the other hand, if you do not, they will have to wait until these leases have dribbled out—and they may have to wait for a great many years, which will be lost to the crofters. But I advocate this course on much broader grounds. I advocate the putting of sheep farms in the same catagory as deer forests as being only fair, and because if it is not done a very new and very dangerous precedent in legislation will be initiated. I have another Amendment, if the Committee will allow me to refer to it, lower down on the Paper which has for its object to give deer forests the same protection, from having the best portions of I them picked out by crofters, as is accorded to sheep farms, and I wish the Lord Advocate will consent to strike a bargain between these two Benches—between the Radical Bench and the Conservative Bench—by accepting both my Amendments. I think that will give a great deal more satisfaction in Scotland than the Bill as it stands. I cannot understand why we should treat deer forests in any different way to sheep farms. Why not tar them both with the same brush? If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) were here, he would say—"What is sauce for the deerstalking goose is sauce for the sheep-farming gander," and I think he would say rightly. How can you separate them. It cannot be because one is reserved for recreation and the other produces food, because if that were so it would lead to making distinctions between the manufacture of different qualities of the same kind of goods. It would lead you to a very extraordinary state of things if you carry that system out. It will lead you, for instance, to treat a silk mill to harsher terms than you would treat a cotton mill, because one produces an article of luxury and the other an article of necessity. I submit that if 960 you carry out this system you will kill the deer forests, which are sources of very considerable wealth, and give very considerable employment in the High lands. There really seems to be so much prejudice surrounding the question of deer forests, that the most fair-minded and right-minded of men when they approach the subject seem as if their vision becomes obscured, and they see things through a distorted light. Now, even the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), who we all admit is a most fair-minded and impartial man—even he, when he approached the question of deer forests, fell into considerable errors. I should like to point out to him and to the Committee——
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing his Amendment on line 20, which is quite different, and has nothing to do with the Amendment he is moving.
THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment which the hon. Member is moving deals with the breaking of leases of deer forests, and therefore he is perfectly in Order.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEThe whole question of deer forests has to be raised, and therefore I think that it is better that it should be raised at once.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,I rise to Order, Sir. I should like to ask you whether this 1st sub-section does not refer to the question of contiguity of available land, and does not refer to deer forest, sheep farms, or anything else? It seems to me that this subject would be much more satisfactorily dealt with later on.
THE CHAIRMANIt would be more convenient to deal with this question on Sub-section 2; but I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order if he cares to proceed.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEThen, Sir, I will withdraw this Amendment, and raise the question on the next subsection.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEThe hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), who has precedence with a similar Amendment, gives way to me on this point, and, therefore, I suppose I am in Order. 961 [Cries of "Go on!"] Well, Sir, in introducing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) said this—
And now the deer forests are spreading fast at the expense of the sheep walks, and also, unfortunately, at the expense of the poor remains of the crofters' holdings."—(3 Hansard, [302] 1308.)Now, there is no evidence to that effect either in the Report of the Crofters' Commission, nor anywhere else as far as I can find. He said later on—There are cases in which the crofters have been turned out neck and crop in considerable numbers to please certain tenants of the deer forests."—[Ibid. 1309.]Now let me read what was said by the Select Committee on the Game Laws of 1873, which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks - Beach) will remember. They say—That the charge against deer forests of having caused a clearance of human habitations cannot be substantiated. Some removals of cottars have taken place from one part of an estate to another; but in no case did they find this was a change for the worse, but in most cases an improvement as regards their habitations and their circumstances.Then, again, the Crofters' Commission say that they can find only one case of removal of crofters for the purpose of adding to a forest, and this took place some 30 years ago, and I believe I am right in saying that those crofters were reinstated. They say, further—Depopulation cannot be directly attributed to deer forests unless it can be shown that they employ fewer people than sheep farms,and they go on to say that—Deer forests employ more people than sheep farms.Now, I quite expected some hon. Gentlemen from Scotland to follow that line in the debate which took place on the second reading; but they were much too "canny." But the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), in his speech which, he made at the end of the debate, made use of these remarkable words—It has been frequently the case in making clearances for deer forests, and still more frequently in making clearances for sheep walks, that a man who has built a house and cultivated the ground round him, has had to see that ground laid waste and his house pulled down without 1d. of compensation for his expenditure or labour."—(3 Hansard, [302] 203.)Now, after what I have read of the Reports 962 of the Game Commission in 1873 and the Crofters' Commission in 1883 I must say I am very much surprised that the late Secretary for Scotland should have made use of such an expression as that, and I feel sure that he could not have meant it. We must look at deer forests without prejudice and in a practical way; we must look upon deer forests as being, practically, the only industry suited to vastly the largest portion of the land of the Highlands which is now occupied by them. Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, who was one of the Commissioners, says—If forests were rendered impossible by harassing legislation seven-eighths of the land of the Highlands now under deer would be unavailable for any other purpose.And the Crofters' Commission saythat—Comparatively little of the land occupied by forests could now be profitably cultivated or pastured by small tenants.It would be quite easy, under this Bill, for the Land Commissioners to grant a certain portion of a deer forest to crofters for about £50 or £100 a-year; but yet the abstraction might reduce the letting value of the forest by £1,000 a-year. Well, that I submit would be a serious loss of wealth to the district. I need not go further, I think, to prove my case than the Crofters' Commission. As long as the Government stick to the Report of the Crofters' Commission they do not seem to go far wrong; and if they will only abide by that Report in the case of the deer forests it will be a great benefit to the Bill. The Crofters' Commission say on page 95—We do not think it equitable that existing forests should be subjected to exceptional legislation other than that which may be made applicable to agricultural or pastoral lands.I do not think I can say anything that goes beyond that extract from the Report of the Crofters' Commission, and therefore I will not longer detain the Committee; but I wish to express the hope that the Lord Advocate will see his way to strike the bargain which I have already suggested.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 2.—(Mr. F. Hardcastle.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'If the land is subject to an existing lease for a term of years entered into prior to the commencement of this Act' stand part of the Clause."
963THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER) (&c.) Elgin,I shall endeavour to state in a very few words the answer which I have to make to the speech of the hon. Member. I have listened as attentively as I could to what the hon. Member has said; but I confess I am unable to decide in my own mind whether his remarks were made in the interests of the crofters or the deer forests, because I find the hon. Member has an Amendment further down on the Paper by virtue of which it will not be competent to enlarge crofter holdings out of lands occupied as a deer forest or a grouse moor, even though not under lease, if taking a portion of such land would have the effect of prejudicing the letting value of the remainder. Now, the effect of omitting this Sub-section 2, would be to make it competent for the Land Commission to take land which is under an existing lease and occupied as arable or pasture land prior to the passing of this Act for the purpose of enlarging crofters' holdings. On the other hand, the clause as it stands will make it competent to take land which is occupied as a deer forest or a grouse moor, or for other sporting purpose, in order to enlarge crofters' holdings. Now, Sir, with regard to the proposal to take arable or pasture land under lease for the purpose of enlarging a crofter's holding, the Committee will see at once that it is a most serious proposal. The Committee will see that Her Majesty's Government are desirous of doing everything that can be done to improve the condition of the crofters; but it is absolutely necessary that due regard should be paid to the interests of others. What would be the effect of this Amendment? If this section were omitted, we might have a tenant occupying arable or pasture land under lease for a fixed term who had laid out a large amount of capital in stocking his farm, yet his rights would be invaded and ignored, because it is not suggested that any compensation should be paid to him. The hon. Member seems to suggest that certain principles have already been adopted in this Bill of a new and novel character; but I would point out to him that there has been no principle adopted which would warrant the acceptance by the Committee of the proposal which he now makes. It is quite true that in a portion of this clause which relates to 964 deer forests there is an evasion of the rights which at present apply to them; but that principle would not apply to arable land or pasture land under lease, because the only portion of the forest which can be taken for the enlargement of the crofter's holding is a portion that is in the sense of being contiguous or near to the holding. The meaning of the clause is, that suitable land in that position shall not be taken for deer-foresting, so as to be excluded from occupation by crofters. I therefore submit that the Committee ought not to adopt this Amendment, because it would involve a great injustice to tenants occupying arable or pasture land, if their leases were disturbed by taking away part of the land occupied by them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I am not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to decide whether the remarks of my hon. Friend were made in the interests of the crofters or the deer forests, because my hon. Friend's view is that the interests of the deer forests and the crofters are identical. If you preserve the interests of the deer forests you thereby preserve the interests of the crofters. That is my view, but I will not go into the question of deer forests now. I will merely point out that the amount of money which has been spent by the lessors of deer forests is ten times the amount that has been spent by sheep farmers; and I must say, therefore, that if the Government are not prepared to break the leases of sheep farmers they ought not to countenance the breaking of sporting leases on the faith of which such large sums have been expended. I merely rise now, Sir, to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, S.E., Westhoughton (Mr. F. Hardcastle) whether he thinks it worth while to divide the Committee on this particular form of the Amendment, and whether it would not be better to wait for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Sir Michael Bass)? If he divides now he will probably have against him everyone who objects to the breaking of leases at all; whereas if he waits for the Amendment I have suggested the question will be strictly confined to the point which he has brought out in his speech. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. Friend will probably see that the discussion which he has initiated will 965 be more appropriately taken upon the Amendment of the Member for Staffordshire (Sir Michael Bass) than upon his own.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)I am glad the Amendment has been introduced. This is an important question for the crofter. There is a third standpoint from which to consider it. Just now, as the Bill stands, you have the maximum of irritation to the landlord, and the minimum of benefit to the crofter; and I am doubtful whether the irritation to the landlord will not do more harm than any benefit which may accrue to the crofter can compensate for. The first class of men who drove away the crofter and robbed him of his land was the big sheep farmer of the South; and though the big farmer is now being driven away to make way for the sportsman the crofter does not like either, and wants the land they both occupy. He requires it all. This clause takes away, perhaps, three-fourths of the land that the crofter can now get under Subsection 1. Three-fourths of the land will be under lease. These big sheep farmers are not tenants-at-will from year to year, but they all have leases; and before you can get a single inch of land back for the crofters you will require the sanction of the landlords and the tenants who have the leases. I do not think you will be able to get any of the land if you have to depend upon that sanction; and here, again, you will be promising the crofter land and breaking your promise. If hon. Members understood how those matters affect the real condition of things at present existing in the Highlands they would not support the clause in its present form. We have not brought many facts before you, because we have been anxious to avoid any waste of time; but I must say something as to this important point. As to compensation, no doubt we wish to give full and complete compensation to all the big farmers. We would not confiscate any of their improvements, and if any change is made we should support the giving of compensation to the big farmers for the improvements they have made. We would give them compensation for the arable land and for any other improvements they have made; but we want the arable land and we want the grazing land. In the county I represent 966 the great bulk of the arable land is held by three families as tenants. There are two brothers of the name of Clyde who hold 17 farms, and pay over £4,000 a-year. A brother-in-law of these gentlemen holds five farms, and pays £2,000 a-year. There is another farmer with 22 farms paying £6,000 a-year, another having two farms of £1,000 a-year rental each in Sutherlandshire, his nephew having three farms and paying £2,500, and his cousin having four farms and paying £2,500. So that in this family there are 10 farms for which nearly £7,000 a-year is paid. In another case three brothers in Caithness have nine farms and pay £4,500 a-year, and hold, besides, another largo farm in Sutherland-shire. These gentlemen have come from the South, have cleared out the crofters, have formed these big farms, and will hold them unless this House gives power to get rid of them, and give them compensation for their improvements. If the Government are going to introduce such an important principle as is primâ facie contained in this Bill, and are going to face the irritation which the establishment of the principle must cause amongst the landowners, they should, after so much bother, give the crofters something. They now propose to give them nothing. If this clause remains in, they will be conferring no benefit whatever on them, because before three-fourths of the land can be taken a double sanction will have to be obtained, and there will not be the smallest chance of securing that. If you get the sanction of the landlord you will want the sanction of these pluralists. The Bill will only give five years for carrying this out, so that unless the leases expire within the five years the land cannot be obtained, and the whole thing will be without effect. As to these deer forests, time after time we have been told that no evidence has been given that land has been taken from the crofters for the purpose of making forests. I wish hon. Gentlemen would read the Report of the Crofter Commission before making these statements. On page 365 they will find the statement of the Rev. Angus M'Rae, Free Church Minister of Glen Urquhart, Inverness-shire. He says—
I beg to submit to the Royal Commission that there has been a decrease of the population of this parish during the last "Census decade" 967 of 342 in a population of 2,438, which I ascribe principally to our large deer forests.The late laird of Glenmoriston, who was one of the kindest and most humane of the proprietors in the North, erred latterly in adopting the system of turning farms into deer forests; but it is to be hoped that the young heir will reverse this system as soon as he gets full possession of the estate. The deer forest of Balmacaan, in Glen Urquhart, is about 12 miles in length, and is rented for £3,000 per annum; to this forest a great deal of good land has been added, even within the last 16 years, besides the large tracts that were added to it at different periods formerly. About the year 1867 the whole township of Balmacaan, where there were over 20 families who were living pretty comfortably, had to be turned out in a body, as the place was to be directly added to the forest. But the late Earl of Sea-field, who was a kind and unoppressive man, gave patches of land elsewhere to such of them as had land at Balmacaan, which they had to improve and build houses upon; and since that time a large piece of the pasture of the farm of Drumclune was added to the forest. Some of the people here remember to have seen 16 tenants on the farm of Shenglie in comfortable circumstances, where there is now only one farmer and a gamekeeper, the most of the pasture having been added to the forest. Of course, there was a small forest above the ordinary pasture from time immemorial; but recently there has been added to it the grazing of about 10,000 sheep from the following farms, namely—2,000 on the hill pasture of Shenglie; 500 on the hill pasture of Drumclune; 1,300 on the hill pasture of Glencoiltie; 1,600 on the hill pasture of Monadh, Leumnach, and Melfourvonie; 800 on the hill pasture of Cat-House; 700 on the hill pasture of Lochletter; 300 on the hill pasture of Allanmore; 2,000 on the hill pasture of Divach; 1,000 on the hill pasture of Ruskich. Four and a-half pages on, we come to the evidence of a parish minister—the Rev. James Bain, of Duthil, and he gives evidence to the same effect. He says the population of his parish has largely decreased since 1841, that the rental has increased four-fold, and that—Large areas of the best pasture land in the parish were enclosed for large sheep farms, 968 plantations, and a deer forest. It is estimated that the extent of ground so dealt with is equal to about three-fourths of the area of the whole parish. This necessitated the small farmers generally to part with a considerable number of their sheep and cattle, and with that loss they had henceforth to depend for their rents and living mainly on the produce of their arable holdings, than which nothing could be more precarious and uncertain as a source of livelihood.On these two points—in the matter of giving more land and of breaking leases—the Bill to be effective must be amended. Unless we can break leases where all the big farmers have them, and where they will not fall in within the five years specified in the Bill as the period during which the Commissioners will have power to seize holdings, you will practically be giving nothing to the crofter.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (&c.) Kirkcaldy,If the Government are able to screw their courage up to the point of breaking the sanctity of sporting leases in the case of deer forests, I do not see why they should not go further. I do not see why they should turn their back upon the effort to apply the same principle to sheep farms. The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) says that no proposal has been made for compensating the sheep farmers, but I would point out that terms can be imposed by the Land Commission, and if the sheep farms are taken it will be on such conditions as the Commissioners consider just. The words of the Act will be quite wide enough to enable the Commission to adjust the relative claims of all the parties. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that if you would make the Bill really effectual you must accept this Amendment, and make it possible to take land under lease. There is no such thing as a farm being held from year to year in Scotland. They are all under lease, and if you make an exception of those all that you will be able to touch under the Bill will be those that have been thrown on the landlord's hands—those sheep farms which have been found to be unprofitable, which the tenants have thrown on the landlord's hands, and which the landlord has been unable to relet. I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider the matter very carefully before they reject this Amendment altogether. In the matter of deer forests, I think we have so far 969 broken through the rigid rules of political economy for the public good that we ought to deal in the manner indicated with deer forests.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)It must be evident to the Committee that in the minds of some people this Bill is undergoing considerable development. It began by being an attack on the property of the landlords; but now it is sought to make it an attack on the property of some of the large farmers in the North of Scotland. We are getting on, and I must say that if we are to continue in this course as soon as this Bill has been passed and carried into law we shall see an agitation started, the object of which will be an attack on the property of the crofter by the cottar; and so it will go on getting lower and lower down the scale. I think it is undesirable that this sub-section should be struck out, and I sincerely hope that the Government will adhere to their decision in the matter.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)The Solicitor General for Scotland has shown that there will be little provision for the crofters under the arrangements the Government have made in the clause. The crofter is not to get arable land under any circumstances whatever, nor grazing nor pasture land, if it is under lease, even though it could be easily made available in such a case, for instance, as where a deer forest is contiguous to the holding which he now occupies. So great is the ingenuity of the Scotch factors that, though there may be deer forest leases of this kind, the land of the deer forests can be kept from the crofters by the simple process of turning them into grazing lands. There is no reason why the wild black cattle of the Western Highlands should not be turned into the deer forests, and so far as I can see there would be quite as much sport in hunting and shooting them as in hunting and shooting deer. It would come to much the same thing. I have seen deer quite as easy to approach as the black cattle. Practically, the effect of passing the Bill in its present shape will be that while it professes to give liberally with one hand it will take back with the other all the benefit supposed to be conferred upon the crofter. I should like to see the Government give what they are professing to give liberally and freely. The Agricultural Hold- 970 ings Act was passed in similar policy, and the result is that it is regarded as practically worthless. The Bill, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), seemed to be a fair one; but examination now shows all its benefits to be shadowy. I am certain it will give very little land to the crofter. As to deer forests, it seems to me unprofitable to take up time in discussing them. We have only assertion on the one side, and assertion on the other. The Commission which sat some time ago came to no conclusion on the question. Evidence was given on the one side and on the other, and no decisive conclusion could be arrived at. I think it is only time the Government should explain fully their policy with regard to land. There are certain Amendments on the Paper, and certain proposals in the Bill; but I would propose a compromise which I think it would be well for them to adopt, and it is that they should give the Land Commissioners power to take grazing land even from the hill farmers. I do not see why theirs should not be dealt with as well as other people's. I should not consent to give the crofters any of the arable land belonging to the hill farmers, because the quantity of arable land they possess in nearly every case is less than it should be. The hill farmer wants means to keep his cattle during the winter just as much as the crofter does. The land now grazed that was at one time arable must be brought back and given to the crofter, and that is what occurs to me as a practical settlement of the question. I think hon. Gentlemen who represent the crofters here would do well to accept this compromise, because, under the proposal of the Government, I am afraid they will get nothing.
§ DR. R. MCDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)With regard to this question of leases, it is a fact within my knowledge that within the past two years new leases have been taken by the farmers in the North of Scotland in anticipation of the passing of this Bill. The farmers and the landlords have agreed, the latter saying to the former—"Your lease has five years to run, and instead of waiting for it to expire I will give you a new lease for 19 years or 21 years." This is done to defeat the Bill. What is to prevent all landlords and farmers in the North 971 doing that, and so cutting off the crofter altogether?
§ MR. F. HARDCASTLEThe Amendment stands in the names of two other hon. Members besides my own; but I do not wish to press it to a division myself. If, however, hon. Members opposite desire to do so, I shall vote for it very cordially.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 105: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)We have had a pretty discursive discussion on the deer forests in the course of this debate, and I should be glad if the Committee would now permit me to say a few words on the Motion that stands in my name. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Burton Division of Staffordshire (Sir Michael Bass) is not in his place to move the Amendment standing in his name. He is fitted by experience to speak on the question, and he would have spoken with a complete knowledge of the subject that would have been very useful to the Committee. Now, this clause as it stands provides that additional grazing land for the purposes of the crofters may be taken by the Land Commission from any existing forest to the extent of two-thirds of the holding, subject to four conditions, with which I shall deal in the course of a few moments. This provision applies mainly to deer forests, because, although the words "grouse moors and for other sporting purpose" are contained in the section, yet the Committee must be aware that, as a general rule, grouse moors and lands used for other sporting purposes are leased as sheep farms. Well, no reasons whatever, so far as I have been able to gather, have been given by Her Majesty's Government for making the distinction between existing leases for sheep farms on the one hand, and existing leases for deer forests on the other. I may observe, in passing, that the food argument, as it is called, will not hold water for a moment. It has been shown over and over again that the diminution of the food supply in the Highlands, owing to the utilization of land in deer forests, is so small as not to be worthy of consideration. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), speaking on this 972 subject, quoted a quantity of evidence from the Report of the Commission to show that during the past few years a great deal of land has been taken to make deer forests. I admit that a great deal of evidence to that effect may have been given before the Commission; but evidently it was not valuable evidence or worthy of attention, because in their Report the Commissioners state most distinctly that only one reliable case came under their notice, that in that one case only 18 crofters were moved, some to places in the vicinity, some to America, and that the case happened as long as 30 years ago. I think that is an answer to the evidence read out by the hon. Member just now. To justify the distinction between these two kinds of leases, it should have been shown by the Government that deer forests are either, generally speaking, injurious, or, at all events, less beneficial than sheep farms; but this, so far as I have information or experience on the subject, is the reverse of the fact. Even the Lord Advocate himself last night spoke on one occasion at some length to prove that in some parts of the Highlands deer forests are most advantageous, and give a most beneficial use to large tracts of country which could be advantageously put to no other purpose. It is true that this clause is guarded by four limitations; but what is the value of these limitations? I would ask the Committee to examine them for a moment with me. In the first place, the deer forests are to be situated in what is called a crofting parish. What are crofting parishes in the Highlands? They are of the widest possible extent. I know some of them that are as much as 40 miles long, and I believe you will hardly ever find a forest in any of the counties named in the Bill which is not situated, or partly situated, in some crofting parish or another; therefore, the obligation that the deer forest must be within a crofting parish is no safeguard and no practical limitation whatsoever. Then, secondly, the forest must be taken as contiguous or near to land which is in the occupation of crofters, and a great deal depends on the interpretation which is placed upon this limitation. That is a point I desire to see cleared up by Her Majesty's Government before this discussion is closed. Everything, I repeat, depends upon the interpretation which 973 is placed on the words "near to." "Contiguous," of course, is perfectly plain; but distance in the Highlands is a thing regarded in a very different light to what it is in the South. Thai which would be regarded as a very long walk here would be regarded as a mere step in the Highlands; and I think it extremely probable that grazing land "near to" land occupied already by crofters may, and possibly will, be treated as land that is practically several miles off. If that is so, what I say is that every forest in the Highlands will probably come within the operation of this Bill—that is to say, every forest in that part of the Highlands which is contained within the four corners of this Bill. I am not anxious to unnecessarily delay the passing of the measure, and I do not want, if I can possibly avoid it, to talk out this clause to-night; but I am afraid there is a good deal still to be said on the subject, because there appears to be a wide misapprehension on the part of many Members of the House and on the part of the general public, to the effect that deer forests in the Highlands are an unmitigated evil and mischief at the present time. We are told that there is a great demand for additional grazing land. Assuming that that is the case, and that the new powers conferred by this Bill are freely used—which I suppose they will be—what is going to be the effect? The result will be that wherever a lease—the sporting lease—of a deer forest is interfered with, the landlord will be unable to fulfil the contract which he has entered into with the tenant, and the lease will, of course, be liable to be broken. Supposing that that is the case, and that that happens in many instances throughout the Highlands, all the shootings taken under these terms would be liable to be given up; and if that were done let the Committee consider how serious it would be in the interests of the landlords, and the whole of the population of that part of the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) pointed out something that the Committee would do well to remember, and it was that the real harvest of the crofting population was to be found in the fishing. In a great measure the hon. Member was right; but I would add this—that instead of one harvest 974 they have two harvests from which they reap, or ought to reap, great profit every year. One is the fishing I admit; but the other is the autumn visits of sporting tenants to the Highlands. [A laugh.] An hon. Member laughs; but does he mean to tell me that this does not confer a great benefit upon the population of the Highlands? Think for a moment of the employment that is given; think of the amount of money that is circulated; think of the wages—the increased wages—that many of the people receive in these two or three months in the year, and look forward to during the remaining nine months. It is not, allow me to observe, that whilst the sporting tenants are in the Highlands for the three months that so much benefit accrues to the crofters; but it is undoubtedly the fact—and I challenge denial—that an enormous amount of employment is given throughout the greater portion of the year in consequence of the establishment of shooting lodges all over the Highlands. How many men are employed either in the making or repair of roads, or of paths, or in various other matters of that kind in the forests? And when I ask that question I am dealing with a subject of which I have practical experience of my own; and I do not hesitate to say that if this House thinks fit to adopt legislation by which you will seriously interfere with the shootings of the Highlands, and banish the tenants to a great extent from that part of the country, you will be inflicting on those districts the greatest injury it is in your power to inflict. There is another point of view from which this must be regarded. Think of the loss of revenue that might be suffered by the landlords. I know one county in the Highlands, at this moment, in which the revenue is very large, and of which the sporting tenancies and the shootings provide at least half of the whole. Are you going to deprive the landlords of this great source of revenue without compensation, or without, at all events, that full consideration which this House ought to give to the matter? You must remember that, at the same time that you deprive the landlord of this source of revenue, to a large extent you will be doing a great injustice to the people, especially in those districts of Scotland where the greatest part of the revenue derived by the proprietors is spent on 975 them. The Committee must remember this—that though the sporting tenants may be replaced, by the crofters if the Land Commission thinks fit, so far as revenue is concerned, you would not receive from them sufficient to replace one-tenth of the loss which would be suffered by the proprietors. I am aware that there is a good deal of misapprehension on this subject, and still more prejudice, and that anything like an attempt at vindication of the deer forests in Scotland is unpopular in the highest degree. But I do believe this—that it is not so much the use as the abuse of the system which has brought the forests into such bad repute; and, so far as I am aware, the abuse of the system is limited to one notorious case. I do not like to say too much on that point, because all one knows about it is what one sometimes reads in the newspapers, and I have lived long enough to know that probably nine-tenths of what you read in the newspapers on matters of this kind is without foundation in fact. The objections commonly raised to the deer forests have been disposed of by the Royal Commission. First of all, the objection was that the forests were created by evictions. That has been disproved. The second was that the cleared land should be made available for the tenants. Well, I am not sure that that is a plan which would be most favourable to the crofters. On the other hand, although I disapprove of the Amendment intended to bring about the ejection of the sheep farmers in the interest of the crofters, I believe, as a general rule, it will be found that the sheep farms are more valuable.
§ It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.
§ Committee to sit again upon Friday.
-
c918
- FOURTH NIGHT. 12 words