HC Deb 17 April 1888 vol 324 cc1590-603

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

begged to second the proposal of his hon. Friend, and in doing so said he would state to the House in a few words what was the purport of the Bill. It was, in fact, to bring under the operation of the Crofters' Act all leaseholders in Highland counties under £30. As the House knew when the Crofters' Bill was passed, no leaseholders were put under it. But since then, there had been made a precedent for this Bill, because Irish leaseholders—large and small—had been enabled to apply to the Irish Land Courts. In this Bill they were only asking that the privilege should be extended to small leaseholders under £30 a-year. They should remember that since the Act was passed rents in the crofting counties had been reduced quite 40 per cent, and he hoped the House would now see its way to granting this little concession to the small leaseholders, for it could do no harm.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright) ,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, from what he had gathered from the speech just delivered, the only reason for bringing in the Bill was that it was desirable to make Scotland like Ireland, to place Scotch leaseholders in the same position as the Irish. But it seemed to him that the great wish of hon. Members opposite was to place the whole of Scotland under the Crofters' Act. Well, that point was thoroughly discussed in 1886, when the Bill was before the House. The Bill was introduced in a speech of great length in 1886 by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and it was now hardly fair to ask the House to reverse a decision come to after great deliberation and consideration. In the first place, no grievance had been proved, and if there was a grievance it had not been mentioned in the House that night, and surely it was not a fair proposal at that hour to alter the system of land tenure in Scotland for the purpose of satisfying one particular class, without attempting to show any cause whatever for the alteration. He had nothing to do with crofters—nor did he wish to have anything to do with them—in his part of the country; but he would point out that although leaseholders had no access to the Crofter Commission, yet very many of them bad obtained reductions of rent; therefore they had not suffered in the way the House was led to believe. This question having been discussed and decided in 1886 the House ought not now to be asked to reverse its decision.

MR. SALT (Stafford)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

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

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

said, that on such a Bill they had a right to expect a statement of their views from the Government. The reasons which existed for the passing of the Crofters' Act in 1886 were equally urgent now in support of the proposal before the House. In 1886, the argument was advanced that there was no precedent for the proposals in this Bill. But a precedent had since been established by the existing Government in the Act of last Session for the revision of rents under leases in Ireland, and surely they ought to be as liberal with Highlanders as they had been with the people of Ireland. To say that there was no grievance was untenable, for everybody knew that the leaseholders in the Highlands were paying excessive rents. It was quite true that, in many cases, landlords had made reductions to leaseholders, and that fact proved their case; it seemed indeed an additional argument why the Bill should be passed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he was totally unable to understand the argument of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart). It was not proposed to extend the Crofters' Act to all parts of Scotland; it was only asked that certain leaseholders should participate in its benefits. It was not even proposed to extend it to the large leaseholders, it was only to extend it to small leaseholders in crofting parishes, to those who had real bonâ fide crofts and were under terms which they had accepted years ago. In Ireland a concession such as this had been made to large as well as to small leaseholders. He did not want to go so far as that, but he held that a crofter who had accepted terms which were too high, should have the power to apply to the Court. He trusted that the Government would not resist that very moderate concession; it would be illogical, unfair, and unreasonable for them to do so, and he hoped that this small act of justice would be done to a small class of tenants.

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

said, that after what they had seen of land legislation in connection with Scotland and with Ireland, there was no reason in the world why the Government should be in the least alarmed at the prospect presented by the hon. Member for Kirk- caldy (Sir George Campbell) of doing something which he said was illogical. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had a few minutes earlier declared that the House was entitled to the views of the Government, but it appeared to him that the usual course on the introduction of a Bill in that House was that the promoters should on the second reading give their views in the first place, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of judging whether the Motion was one that ought to be opposed or not. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) in moving the second reading absolutely abstained from taking that course, as had also been done in the case of other Bills before the House that evening. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion (Dr. R. Macdonald) seemed rather ashamed of that, and he thought it better to say something. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had told them that it was not proposed to extend the Bill to the whole of Scotland. But they knew very well that the hon. and learned Member for Nairnshire (Mr. Anderson) intended, if he could, to extend not only the provisions of this Bill, but of the Crofters' Act also to all leaseholders and tenants throughout Scotland, and no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that a very reasonable and fair thing to do. Therefore, the Government, remembering as they did how they had been told upon every successive move made both on the Irish chess-board and on the Scotch, in reference to the move that land was made for entirely exceptional reasons, and when they found that the result of making an exceptional move was an immediate request to take another step, and still another stop, until the whole country was absorbed—were not prepared to adopt the course which had been suggested. From beginning to end of the history of land legislation, no proposal had been made by hon. Members opposite which had not been advanced on exceptional grounds, which it was said could not possibly affect the rest of the country, and yet from time to time those statements had proved absolutely fallacious. Remembering that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept this proposal at the instance of the hon. Members for Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, surely it was more important to ask the opinions of Her Majesty's late Government, for the opinions of the present Government on this question had always been the seine.

Mr. J. W. BARCLAY

The late Government, I believe, have changed their opinion.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, that although he could not suppose that a private Member representing a constituency North of the Tweed would be able to express the views of the Government, yet he should not be surprised if what he said turned out to be correct.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I know it is so.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, that though he would not be surprised if it were correct, yet he would not believe it till he heard it from a responsible member of the late Government. His right hon. Friend, who was responsible for the Crofters' Act of 1886, distinctly intimated, in the course of the debate, that he would not accept an Amendment that would do the very thing which was now proposed. His opinion might have altered since then, but certainly the circumstances of Scotland had not altered in one single repent. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite might cry "Oh!" but if they had such a triumphant case, why did they not state it for the information of the House. If the circumstances of Scotland had changed, they ought to have some statement on the subject. The reasons which his right hon. Friend gave in 1886 were reasons which could not change. Let them go back for a moment to the question of Ireland. They were told that because a certain thing was done in Ireland, it ought also to be done in the Highlands of Scotland. But the fundamental basis of all that had been done in Ireland, rightly or wrongly, was that in Ireland there had always been what was practically a dual ownership of the soil, and it was the general wish of the House and the intention of the Government, as soon as it could give effect to it by reasonable means, to put an end, if possible, to that dual ownership. What was done last year in the case of Ireland was a temporary expedient in view of tiding over the difficulty during the time which might be necessary for completing the abolition of the dual ownership. ["Oh, oh!"] Again hon. Members cried "Oh!" but he had looked at the report of last year's debates, and he had found distinct evi- dence of that fact. He himself heard it stated last year—and he had now seen it in print—that the whole purport and object of the procedure in Ireland during the last few years had been with a view of tiding over the difficulty till dual ownership was abolished and practically single ownership established in Ireland. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in 1886 in reference to the Crofters' Bill? It was that there was no analogy between the two cases, that there was no right whatever on the part of the crofters in the land, and that their position was one of having had, for some historical reason never very clearly defined, but still accepted by the House, some right to stay on the land; but that the crofter was in any sense a dual owner of the land was most distinctly and emphatically repudiated over and over again in the debate. Now, if any discoveries had been made which had led to the change of opinion suggested to have taken place on the part of the late Government, he should very much like to hear them explained. The Government still held to their views in the matter. The matter was thoroughly threshed out by a noble Duke who had large possessions in the West Highlands, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and surely no very fresh light had been thrown on it during the last two years. If such light had been cast on it, it could not be said he was unreasonable in asking for an explanation. He ventured to say there was not a single hon. Member on the other side of the House who, 20 years ago, would not have considered that persons who had leases were in a much better position than those who had not. And why? Because they had certainty of tenure for a given time, and in a period of prosperity they could reap the full benefit of it. Of course, they would have to take their chance of adverse seasons; but then they could depend on the sympathy of the landlords, who in the Highlands, as well as in other parts of Scotland and England, had been found most willing to give the tenant due consideration in hard times. It was in vain to suggest for one moment the idea that leases were unfavourable to a person who was a tenant of the soil. No doubt, it was an idea which necessarily arose in the minds of tenants, when there was a long period of depression, of bad seasons, of bad harvests, and of bad markets, which prevented the sale of the produce. Then, of course, it occurred to every man that he would be better off without a lease; but it was only within the last year or two that the idea had arisen that the granting of a lease for a term of years to a tenant was not an act on the part of the landlord done practically at the request of the tenant and in his interest and not in the interests of the landlord. He knew that from his own experience. It was perfectly natural that a farmer in hard times should wish to get off his bargain, but it should not be forgotten that in times of prosperity he reaped all the benefit. But to suggest that it was a hardship on the tenant to have a lease, instead of being at the mercy of his landlord from year to year, was a suggestion no man would make who knew the facts of the case. But what was the position of the crofter who had no lease, compared with the crofter who had one? The former was the very man his right hon. Friend wished to help, for the simple reason that he was exposed to the immediate risk of eviction if he did not pay the stipulated rent for a single year. On the other hand, the tenant who occupied under a lease was always presumed to be a man in better circumstances than the one who had no lease. He ventured to say that it was not possible for hon. Members opposite to refer to a single case in the Highlands in which, in consequence of inability to pay rent on the part of the leaseholder—of a small leaseholder under £30—he had been evicted. Even if they should quote cases in which notices of eviction had been served, there would be something to say. They might be told that certain things would happen, but still they were left in this position, that the whole argument in this case was not based on anything proved to have occurred, or likely to happen, but entirely on the analogy with Ireland. The question was, should there be an alteration in the law of 1886, a law passed after much discussion, and after the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given earnest attention to the details of it. It had worked satisfactorily, yet the very first House of Commons elected after the passing of the Franchise Bill was asked to disturb it without any facts being stated in justification of the disturbance. He would recall what took place last year. His right hon. Friend having spoken against the Amendment—and spoken emphatically and distinctly—if he remembered rightly very distinct opposition came from the Liberal side of the House, from Gentlemen who could not be suspected of sympathy with Her Majesty's present Government. He remembered that the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) spoke distinctly and clearly as to the great dangers which would result from any attempt to deal thus with contracts in writing. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) was also most emphatic on the same subject. Had they now changed their opinions? Did crossing from one side of the House to the other affect the opinions of hon. Members? Let them remember, too, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) spoke not merely for himself, but with the responsibility of the whole Front Bench? Was there now any alteration in his views? There had been no suggestion of any facts by hon. Members' opposition which called for a change in the law, and the Government were not prepared to accept this Bill, because they believed that the reason for which the proposal was rejected in 1886 still held good, and nothing had since occurred to justify a change.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

said, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had challenged the late Government to express their views on the question before the House, and, in particular, to state whether they had changed the opinions which they held in 1886 upon that subject. As he had the duty of carrying the Crofters' Act through the House, it was proper that he should respond to the challenge; but he was bound to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a late Government was not exactly like the present Government. The late Government was no longer a corporate entity, the Members who had composed it were not required to meet for the purpose of considering such Bills as this; and in anything he now said he merely expressed his own opinion, and would bind nobody but himself, He would tell his right hon. and learned Friend what were the views he entertained in regard to this Bill. In the first place, he would ask the House to notice precisely what the Bill did, and what it did not do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed great terror as to the future. He had attempted to show, he ventured to say unsuccessfully, that taking one step necessarily led to taking another. He seemed to think that by assenting to the Bill they would agree to extend the principle of the Crofters' Act all over Scotland. But if any question of that kind were raised, it would be considered and discussed upon its merits at the proper time, and he was sure that Parliament would not hesitate to take any step it might think right. Stated shortly, the effect of the Bill as he read it was simply to strike out of the Crofters' Act the words "from year to year." The definition of a crofter would remain the same in all other respects, but the benefits of that Act would be extended to persons who held upon a tenure of more than one year. What he would ask the House to notice was that the very ingredients which entered into the definition of crofter, and to which they attached so much importance, would still be preserved by this Bill. A crofter meant a tenant who resided on his holding, the value of the holding not to exceed £30; the holding to be situated in a crofting parish; and if not actually a crofter himself, he must have to be the successor of the crofter—his heir or legatee. Even if the Bill were assented to, it would not extend the area or scope of the Crofters' Act, the operation of which would still be confined to crofting parishes. He thought the House would see there was no very large question involved; it was simply whether the word crofter should not include leaseholders. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said that when the Bill of 1886 was before the House, the proposal wag resisted, and resisted on the ground—not quoting the actual words—that leaseholders were in a totally different position from tenants from year to year, that they had always been so regarded, and that even in the Irish Land Act of 1881 there had never been any interference with persons who were holders under contract. But a great deal had happened since then. In last Session the present Government extended to Irish leaseholders the benefits of the Act of 1881, which previously the House of Commons had declined to do. His right hon. and learned Friend said that the dual ownership formed a distinguishing feature in Ireland, as compared with the tenure in England and Scotland. No doubt it did; but this did not affect the question now under consideration. Though he did not profess to know much about Irish leases, he assumed in Ireland, as elsewhere, when a man held land on lease, that lease would be the measure and definition of his rights in the land let. That must be so, for what would be the use of a lease if it were not the measure and the definition of his rights? Well, then, when the present Government and House of Commons said that leaseholders in Ireland were to have the benefit of getting what proved to be oppressive rents reduced, he failed to see any reason why the same Government and the same House of Commons should decline to extend to a much more limited class of tenants in Scotland the like benefit already conceded to yearly tenants. It was perfectly true that the Crofters' Act was confined to customary holders; but it was matter of common knowledge that very many of those who had been customary holders had got leases, not because they desired them, but because they were obliged to take them. It was now felt to be a great hardship and misfortune that persons who possessed the same claim to relief in all other respects, except that they had made a contract or lease, should be cut off from the benefit of the Act. Having regard to what had been done by the present Parliament and the present Government in reference to Irish leaseholders, he, for one, was unable to see that there was any serious or valid objection to extending to the very limited class affected by the Bill the same benefit which had already been given to holders from year to year when they could show that they were heavily over-rented. In the older law of Scotland there was relief to those who suffered severe loss plus quam tolerabile. It was very hard that where two persons had holdings side by side, and were in all respects in the same position except that one of them had accepted a lease while the other had not a lease, the leaseholder found his neighbour getting his rent reduced by a third or a half by the Crofter Commission, while he was cut off from the chance of anything of the kind, and must go on paying an exorbitant rent. He would be sorry to make any suggestion or statement not supported by fact, and therefore he would merely say he had heard it asserted that many crofters were pressed or induced to take leases just about the time that proposals for legislation came into the air—for they had a Crofter Bill in 1885 as well as in 1886. Now, if that were the case, it would be a very bitter hardship for a man who had been so pressed or persuaded into taking a lease. The House would be but following out logically the action it took in making the extension to Irish leaseholders, if it extended the Crofters' Act to small leaseholders under There were many reasons why Parliament should pause before interfering in contracts entered into upon equal terms, or contracts that did not come within the crofter class; but there was every reason why a Government that extended the Act of 1881 to Irish leaseholders should have less hesitation in extending the Crofters' Act to a much smaller class under the limit of £30, a limit rarely touched, most of the holdings being only a few pounds. Larger holdings would not be affected. All the considerations that prevented the introduction of this provision in 1886 had disappeared; it would then have been an entirely new principle, Parliament would not have accepted it, and it could not have been consistently introduced. But a material change had come about by the legislation of last year, and the claim for the extension of the same relief to a small class of leaseholders in the North and West of Scotland could not reasonably be denied.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

rose to speak, when—

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

, rising, claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

MR. SPEAKER

withheld his assent. He said the debate had not been conducted for such a length of time that it was desirable to take the opinion of the House while still an interval of time was left for discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would not delay the decision for any length of time, but the grace with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had gone through the rather severe operation of eating his own words required a few words of comment. The last part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a happy illustration of the fallacies in the first part; for in the first part he told the House that the mere fact of Parliament passing a Bill in regard to one class of tenants never would be urged, or was likely to be urged, to influence Parliament in passing a Bill for a class of tenants in another part of the country, and immediately afterwards he went on to argue that the passing of an Act for Ireland last year was ample reason for applying this Bill to leaseholders in Scotland. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be reminded that there was a fundamental difference between the cases of Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland, leaseholders were the exception to an universal national system, and it was felt by Parliament that, under existing circumstances, it was absolutely impossible to maintain the exception. But leases in the Highlands of Scotland were not the exception, but the rule.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Crofter leases?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw a distinction between small farmers under £30 in Inverness-shire and Perthshire?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that among the class of persons to whose case this Bill is directed leases are by no means common. There is a great difference between the body of leaseholders, throughout Scotland and the small customary holders in small crofter counties who have been got to accept leases.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Got to accept leases?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR

Have accepted leases.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

continued. Got to accept leases was the allegation of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there was no class of tenants in Scotland who had got to accept leases; as a class they desired to get leases. [Cries of "No!"] Unquestionably that was the fact. No distinction, historically or practically, could be drawn between the leaseholders in Inverness-shire and Ross-shire; they were similar to those in Perthshire, Aberdeen, and elsewhere, not crofter counties. The right hon. Gentleman forgot when he said there was a certain hardship in the circumstances of a man who had a lease of his holding as compared with his neighbour who had no lease; that in all exceptional legislation there must be a border land, and a hedge might be the division, on one side of which were one set of conditions, on the other side another; and it was an illustration of the extent to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument might be carried that the privilege you give to one side you must ultimately give to the other; what you give to Inverness you cannot refuse to Banff, to Fife, or to Aberdeen; and why not extend it to the whole of the United Kingdom? That, no doubt, would meet with the approval of the supporters of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. He would point out, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say a word in his remarks as to the ground on which the Crofters' Act was introduced by his Government. It was introduced on a definite historical basis, and applied to holders from year to year, not to the great mass of small leaseholders; it excepted leases on the definite undertaking to improve the holding—it excepted what were called improvement leases. If this Bill were accepted, that historical basis would be abandoned, which was the sole ground for limiting the Act to crofter tenants from year to year in crofter counties, and the only distinction between these and other leases would be swept away. This was a question of extreme gravity in view of the tendencies prevailing at this time. The House might have been right or wrong in applying to Ireland exceptional principles of land tenure; but let it not be forgotten that the ideal tenure was free contract between man and man. That might be an impossible idea in Ireland, but it was not impossible in England and Scotland, and it was something worthy of being retained. He asked the House to unequivocally reject the proposal, which would abandon all the historical bases upon which the Crofters' Act was justified, leaving the House face to face with principles capable of infinite extension, and the greatest injury to leaseholders throughout the whole Kingdom.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 126: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 74.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Bill put off for six months.