§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ Amendments made.
§ Clause 6 (Fixed rent).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I beg to move, on page 4, at end, to add—
Provided, That, if within the term for which any rents are fixed under the provisions of this section, it shall appear to the Land Commission that, owing to excessive failure of crops and stock, great changes of value, or other causes which could not be foreseen, and which operate either generally or in particular areas, rents previously fair have become unfair and inequitable, and cannot be paid, the Land Commission may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland previously obtained, declare that rents may be revised, and abatements or suspensions may be granted, on due cause shown, either generally or in a specified area. And, after the issue of such declaration, any crofter, or any body of crofters, in any particular area, may apply to the Land Commission for revision, abatement, or suspension of rent. Upon such application, after due inquiry, and hearing the parties, the Land Commission may either revise and alter the rents or grant any abatement, for any specified term, or may suspend the whole or any portion of the rent, and direct on what dates, and in what instalments, such suspended rent is to be paid.This Amendment is a revival of a question which was raised in Committee, but was not then settled at that time. The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) suggested that the matter should be left over until Report, and I think I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give a pledge that he would prepare a clause to meet the case at this stage; but I do not see that anything of the kind appears on the Paper. I admit that the matter has been very much facilitated by the Amendment under 467 which the rent of the crofter is to be fixed every seven years, instead of every 15 years; but I do not think it altogether meets the case, and I need not go further than the Irish Land Act. In 1881 an Act was passed for Ireland, under which judicial rents were fixed, and I think we all know the failure which has taken place under it. I am inclined to think that if there had been in the Irish Land Act words of this sort introduced, the difficulties which we have since experienced might have been obviated. What I desire is to leave it open that if, in the words of the Amendment, owing to excessive failure of crops and stock, great changes of value, or other causes which could not be foreseen, and which operate generally or in particular areas, rents previously fair have become unfair and inequitable and cannot be paid, they may be revised and resettled. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to enable the Government to declare that such necessity has arisen, and that the revision may take place. It is impossible for me, of course, to press this Amendment unless the House is prepared to accept it; but I think the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate made some promise that he would consider this matter of providing that the rent may be altered in the event of these great changes happening, and my belief is that if anything of the kind is to be provided, it can only be done in the way I propose. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I hope it will receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 30, after the word "payable," to insert the words—"Provided, That, if within the term for which any rents are fixed under the provisions of this section, it shall appear to the Land Commission that, owing to excessive failure of crops and stock, great changes of value, or other causes which could not be foreseen, and which operate either generally or in particular areas, rents previously fair have become unfair and inequitable, and cannot be paid, the Land Commission may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland previously obtained, declare that rents may be revised, and abatements or suspensions may be granted, on due cause shown, either generally or in a specified area. And, after the issue of such declaration, any crofter, or any body of crofters, in any particular area, may apply to the Land Commission for revision, abatement, or suspension of rent. Upon such application, after due inquiry, and hearing the parties, the Land Com-
468
mission may either revise and alter the rents or grant any abatement, for any specified term, or may suspend the whole or any portion of the rent, and direct on what dates, and in what instalments, such suspended rent is to be paid."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,I am not going into this matter at any length; but I should like just to say that what my hon. Friend has said, as to my having promised to consider this question and prepare a clause, is entirely correct. We have considered the matter very fully; but the more we thought of it, and the more we conferred upon it, the more apparent it seemed to become that it was not practicable in regard to this class of small holdings. I took the opportunity of consulting my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk (Mr. Everett), and, after full consultation, we came to the conclusion that it is impossible to apply this system to these small crofters' holdings. Therefore, I did not put the clause which I had prepared on the Paper, and I venture to say that the almost universal sense of those who are best qualified to know is that the system would not be practicable in this case. With regard to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell), I think it is quite sufficiently met, for all practicable purposes, by the limitation of the statutory period to seven years. There would be a great deal to be said in favour of such an Amendment as this if the statutory period was 19 or 20 years; but, under the present circumstances, it is hardly possible that anything but a great calamity could make such artificial machinery as this workable. I am afraid it would not be workable, and therefore I cannot accept it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Compensation to crofter for improvements on removal).
§ On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 4, leave out "tenant," and insert "crofter."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I beg to move, at the end of the clause, to add "for valuable con- 469 sideration." This Amendment is comparatively a small one, but I think it is of some importance, and the effect of it is to put the Scotch crofter in the same position as the Irish tenant stood in the Irish Land Act. We all know that there are cases in which printed forms of agreement, containing clauses requiring the tenants to do all kinds of things, are used, and are signed by the tenant without knowing the full effect of what he is doing. Therefore, I think that a provision should be inserted similar to that contained in the Irish Land Act—namely, that the agreement should be for a valuable consideration.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 5, after the word "improvements," insert the words "for valuable consideration."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,It appears to me that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because, as the clause now stands, with the Amendment introduced into it by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), it must be "by specific agreement in writing;" and, no doubt, a tenant would not consent to sign a specific agreement in writing, unless it was for some valuable consideration of tenancy or other matter.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, to leave out "the stipulations of a lease or in virtue of."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Principle of valuation).
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to add—
And the value of any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant within the four years preceding shall also he deducted from the said compensation.In the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 there is a limitation of four years, and therefore we have adopted that period, which I think is quite long enough, having regard to the principle that if the landlord has any claims of this sort he should not be allowed to allow them 470 to stand over to an unlimited period of time. Therefore, I propose to insert the words which I have moved.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 24, add—"and the value of any deterioration committed or permitted by the tenant within the four years preceding shall also be deducted from the said compensation.—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)I think that four years is altogether too long a period. If a landlord is looking after his property as he ought to do, he should not allow deterioration to go on for four years, and therefore I propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "two" instead of "four."
§ Amendment proposed, to amend the said Amendment, by leaving out the word "four," and inserting the word "two" instead thereof. — (Mr. J. W. Barclay,)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. M'CULLOCH (Glasgow, St. Rollox)I think the period should be restricted to one year. Four years might be reasonable, if leases were not always made in the interest of the landlord; but, under those circumstances, the case is altogether different, and one year is quite long enough.
§ SIR. JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.)We do not know anything of the kind. We know that leases are more in favour of the tenant. We know, moreover, that the landlord sometimes allows deterioration to go on in bad times, in order to assist the tenant, and in the hope that when better times come he will be able to put matters all right again.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI shall be perfectly willing to accept "two years" if there is any general feeling in the House in favour of it; but, at the same time, I would point out again, that four years is the period fixed in the Agricultural Holdings Act.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I must point out that "four years" is the period contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act also. I would point out also, that if the Amendment as it appears on the Paper 471 were passed, the landlord and the tenant would be placed on exactly the same footing; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate proposes to amend that by binding the landlord to four years, and not binding the tenant in any way. I do not oppose that inequality, because it already exists in the other Act; but I should strongly object to the right hon. and learned Gentleman going further than that, and inserting "two years" as has been proposed.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYWhatever the restriction, the landlord has still his rights at Common Law.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Available land).
§ On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 30, leave out "it fulfils the following conditions, namely."
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out "fifteen," and insert "thirty." This is an Amendment which I propose because I feel bound to give the House an opportunity of reconsidering what I think is an extremely grave blot on the Bill. The benefits of the Bill are extended to existing rents of £30 per annum; but when we come to consider the question of the enlargement of holdings, we find the anomaly that the enlargement must be limited to £15 per annum. A farm of £15 a-year is something more than a croft, and at the same time, it is not "a small farm" on which a man could live without other work. I therefore move the Amendment of which I have given Notice.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "thirty,"—(Sir George Campbell,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Bill."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,My hon. Friend says this is an anomaly; that he does not see why it was introduced. Well, I can tell him that it was introduced on the recommendation of the Crofters' Commission. They recom- 472 mended £30 as the maximum, and we accepted it. £30 is certainly far above any croft; but while they took that as the maximum they recommended that no enlargement should be made beyond the limit of £15. The Commissioners thought, and I think quite fairly so, that the Court should not be compelled to enlarge the crofters' holdings up to the maximum rent which came under the Act, when it is very well known that a holding of £15 a-year is already far beyond what can properly be called a croft.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Bequest of holding).
§ On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 3, after ("f,") insert "Where the legatee shall have presented a petition to the sheriff as aforesaid, the legatee," and leave out "this section the legatee."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Area covered by Act).
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)I beg to move an Amendment, in page 9, line 33, after "Ross," to insert "and Cromarty." I do not suppose the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate can have any objection to the proposal, as the omission of Cromarty must have been an oversight.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 33, after "Ross," insert "and Cromarty."—(Mr. Eraser-Mackintosh.)
§ Question proposed, "That 'and Cromarty' be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,I assent to this Amendment. It was, as the hon. Member says, an oversight on my part. As a matter of fact, there are six or eight bits of Cromarty dotted through the county of Ross.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perth, W.)I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 33, after "Caithness," to insert "Perth." The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) moved, in Committee, that several counties, including Perth, should be added. The fact of other counties being proposed, in 473 addition to Perth, no doubt destroyed the chance of that county having the advantage of the Bill. I propose, after "Caithness," to insert "Perth."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 33, after the word "Caithness," insert the word "Perth."—(Sir Donald Currie.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Perth' be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,It is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment. The whole matter was argued and discussed and divided upon in Committee; therefore I will not detain the House with any observations upon it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)After the fate which has attended the proposal to include the county of Perth, it is probably not worth while suggesting the inclusion of Aberdeen, though the case to be made out for this county is as strong, if not stronger, than any case which can be made out for Perth. On a former occasion the opportunity of making this proposal was governed by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). But the case of Aberdeenshire is so strong that I should not be doing my duty to my constituents, who are so anxious to be included in the Bill, if I did not bring forward this Amendment. There are properties in this county which fulfil every one of the conditions named in the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 33, after the word "Caithness," insert the word "Aberdeen." — (Dr. Farquharson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Aberdeen' be there inserted."
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, after line 6, insert—
In the event of the heirs at law of the crofter being heirs portioners, the eldest of such heira portioners shall succeed to the tenancy without division.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Delegation of Commissioners' duties).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 4, to leave out the words "seventeenth and eighteenth," and insert the words "nineteenth and twentieth."— (The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'seventeenth and eighteenth' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)I would suggest that "seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth" be omitted altogether. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me, that it is not usual to refer to particular clauses in that way. There are other clauses in which I should think he intends to allow the Commissioners some discretion. There is the 23rd clause, as to expenses, for instance.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURProbably the two sections named could safely be deleted with the others.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to leave out "nineteenth and twentieth" as well?
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURYes.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ On the Motion of Mr. DONALD CRAWFORD, the following Amendments made:—In page 11, line 4, leave out "the;" and in line 5, leave out "section of."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 26 (Record of proceedings, &c.)
§
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—
In page 11, after line 31, insert,—"In any county to 'which this Act applies which is divided into districts for judicial purposes, the 'Crofters Holdings Book,' applicable to the holdings within any district in which there is a resident sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute having an office, shall be kept by the sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute resident within the district."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 31 (Loans for the purchase and equipment of fishing boats).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "counties," leave out "embraced in this Act," and insert "to which this Act applies."—(The Lord Advocate.)
475§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 33 (Definitions).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I do not know whether there is any possibility of any Amend-mend at all valuable to the crofter being accepted; but, if such a thing is possible, it will surely be with regard to the Amendment I am about to move—namely, after "resides on," in line 35, to insert "or near." The definition of crofter in this clause is "a tenant from year to year, and resides on his holding." It was pointed out that very often a crofter does not reside on his holding, but in a village close by. A good many Amendments were moved on this point in Committee, and there was a good deal of discussion about it, but no settlement was arrived at. I propose to settle the matter in the simple way I have described, so as to make the clause read that the word crofter shall mean a "tenant from year to year who resides on or near his holding."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 35, after the word "on," to insert the words "or near."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or near' be there inserted."
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment. We had a considerable amount of discussion on it when the Bill was in Committee, and I understood, when I moved an Amendment of a similar kind, that the Lord Advocate promised to give the matter favourable consideration before Report. There can be no doubt that if the words of the Bill are adhered to they will cut out a great many people on arbitrary grounds for no special reason at all. I think words could be selected which would indicate the hon. Member's idea more clearly, but I would strongly urge the Lord Advocate to accept an Amendment in the sense of the hon. Member's proposal. It is clear that some crofters may have two pieces of ground not exactly contiguous to each 476 other, and it would not be just to exclude them from the privileges of the Bill if they should not happen to reside on a certain one.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,This matter in its larger sense was very fully discussed, no doubt, and I think the general feeling of the House, as manifested by a division, was that it would not be right to prevent a person from having the benefits of the Act from the mere fact of his house being a little distance from his pasture land, if he really was a crofter; and to meet that case I have put an Amendment on the Paper three lines lower down, as follows:—to insert, after "Act," in line 17 of page 14, "including the site of his dwelling-house and any offices or other conveniences connected therewith," so that if under the same contract he holds, let us say, a house in a village and has his land a little way off, he still would be under the Bill, which probably he would not be if the Bill stands as it is at present. But the words "on or near" will take away the safeguard that the man must be a crofter. If a man having £10,000 a-year were in possession of a croft, he would, under the words proposed, be able to claim an addition to it. You would have no security that the man is a crofter at all. I think the words I propose will do what the hon. Member desires, whilst it will not disturb the safeguard to which I refer.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.) (Wick,I myself had an Amendment on this subject when the Bill was in Committee. Unless some adequate alteration is adopted, crofters who do not exactly reside on their holdings, but on land contiguous to it, will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I mentioned an in stance in which there are about 80 people who have feus and houses, and from two to three acres of land. All these people will be excluded from the Bill, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment. My Amendment would have been wider in scope than that of the hon. Member, yet I should be willing to forego what I was going to suggest this evening, and vote for the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept it. I think myself the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inclined to accept it, and I hope he will.
§ DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)I am of the same opinion as my hon. Friend on my right. I am astonished to find, in the original draft of the Bill, that the principle of this Amendment was not included. I think we may dismiss, as of no weight, the argument concerning the crofter having £10,000 a-year, and I do not see why we should wait for the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman later on. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. If it does not, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a division on the matter.
§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON (Bute)I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adhere to the clear and definite course he pointed out in Committee. As I understand the matter, hon. Gentlemen are quite wrong if they suppose that this clause would exclude the house in which a crofter resides on ground discontiguous to his agricultural or pastoral land. The site of the house in which a crofter may reside in a neighbouring village a short distance from the land he uses for grazing will be included. It would be one holding in the sense of land held under one and the same bargain with the landlord. I do not understand that hon. Members desire more than the recognition of that principle. It must be remembered that if this Amendment were carried, the result would be that still another piece of land would be brought under consideration—land which would not form part of the same holding. I understand the hon. Member only desires to carry out one definite purpose; therefore I hope he will be satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate proposes to carry out his wish.
MR. FINLAY&c.) (Inverness,I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I do not think the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has put upon the Paper would meet the case, they would only refer to a dwelling-house held under the same contract as the croft. There are many cases, however, in which crofters hold their houses under different contracts, and they should not be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I trust the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will press the Amendment.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)An hon. Member op- 478 posite supported this Amendment by the argument that there are feuars who have holdings near a village. I would remind him that feuars are not the people we are legislating for. We are legislating for tenants from year to year, and feuars have a perpetual tenure.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak again.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 69: Majority 1.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
§
On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 33, page 13, line 42, leave out "habitually;" in page 14, line 17, after "Act," insert—
Including the site of his dwelling-house and any offices or other conveniences connected therewith;
and in Schedule, page 15, after line 11, insert as a separate line—
(9.) All other improvements which, in the judgment of the Land Commission, shall add to the value of the holding to an incoming tenant.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a third time on Monday the 10th of May."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether upon Monday next the Government will be able to give the House any information with regard to the composition of the Land Commission? I asked the question on the second reading, and I was promised an answer at a later stage.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI am not in a position to say whether I can on Monday give the information desired. The Committee has not yet been formed.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time.