HC Deb 22 February 1888 vol 322 cc1195-203

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)

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

said, he understood that the Bill was not in the hands of hon. Members, and under such circumstances it was quite impossible for the Government to accede to the second reading.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

said, he had the Bill in his hands, and if the right hon. Gentleman would permit him, he would in a sentence explain what the contents of the Bill were. The Bill proposed to apply the provisions of the Crofters' Act of last year to all the crofters and cottars in Scotland. He was of opinion that the crofters in the other counties did not differ in any way from the crofters in Inverness-shire, and, therefore, he thought that the benefits of the Act of last year should be extended to the crofters of Scotland generally.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

said, he intended to support the second reading of the Bill. The condition of the crofters was explained at length the other night, and, therefore, a long discussion upon the measure was not necessary. On former occasions they had been assured that there was no rack-renting in the Western Highlands of Scotland; but the result of the operations of the Crofters' Commission was that there had been a general reduction of rents—a reduction amounting to from 20 to 50 per cent. He respectfully asked the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) if he was prepared to admit that the Crofters' Commission, in making this reduction, had acted fairly and properly? Was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—who took great interest in the question—able to say that in the rest of Scotland there had been by the voluntary system a corresponding reduction of crofters' rents? No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that the reduction of the crofters' rents throughout Scotland had been very slight indeed. There had been a much larger reduction of the rents of large farms than in the case of crofters. Because the crofters had been able out of their labour to pay rent in larger proportion than large farmers such rent had been exacted from them. It was very clear, therefore, that if the right hon. Gentleman could not say that there had been a corresponding reduction of crofters' rents throughout Scotland, it was necessary in the interest of justice and expediency that the Crofters' Act should be extended to Scotland generally. He hoped the Government would be consistent in the matter and allow the Bill to be read a second time.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

said, he did not think the second reading of the Bill should be taken when the House was utterly unprepared to take it. It was certainly never contemplated that the Bill would come on to-day. The fact was there was really no demand for the Bill in the large majority of the counties of Scotland. There was on the other hand great dread of its provisions, especially when the crofter system, as at present existing in the Highlands, was unknown, and when valuation rolls made no mention of the names of people. In an unprepared moment the Bill was sprung on the House. It was true the measure had been in the hands of hon. Members three or four days, but it was equally true that very few—if any—of hon. Members believed for one moment it could possibly come on to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) undertook that the whole of to-day's sitting should be given up to the debate upon the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He was quite aware there was certain cases of hardship in some of the counties contiguous to the crofting counties which, no doubt, ought to be taken notice of; but he was equally prepared to say that those cases were few in number, and the hardships were somewhat magnified. Under the circumstances he trusted the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anderson) would not press the Bill upon the attention of the House to-day, but consent to the adjournment of the debate, which he now moved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) were, he was sure, quite aware that the circumstances in the North of Scotland and in the county which he represented were exceedingly grave. To show the urgency of a measure of this kind, he might say that he had transmitted to the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) a Petition signed by from 600 to 700 constituents of his—chiefly heads of families—praying that they should be aided by the Government to emigrate.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is not now on the Main Question, but on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ESSLEMONT

said, he quite understood that, and in opposition to the Motion for adjournment he was pointing out that circumstances in the North of Scotland were very grave indeed. His constituents were most anxious that this Bill should be read a second time, because, in that event, they would be able, in the trying circumstances of the fishing, to raise money upon their houses, which they could not do now, inasmuch as they were merely tenants at will—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman's remarks have reference to the Main Question and not to the Motion for adjournment.

MR. ESSLEMONT

said, that if he could not point to the pressure of the present circumstances he would not attempt to do so. But he hoped that, at all events, he might urge that if this opportunity of reading the Bill a second time was not taken advantage of, the chances of the passing of the Bill would be greatly damaged. He trusted, too, it would be clearly understood by the people from whence the Motion for adjournment came. It was not correct to say that the measure had been sprung upon the House, for it had practically been before the House for 12 months. The principle of the Bill had been discussed again and again. It was discussed when the Crofters' Act was passed, and the majority of the Scotch Members showed by their votes at that time that they were extremely anxious that the benefits of the Act should be extended to all the crofters and cottars in Scotland. He had good means of judging as to the anxiety of the people that the Bill should pass.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the Motion before the House, which is for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

said, he desired to say a few words in opposition to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He thought that the Government in their own interest ought not to decline to road the Bill a second time. He was not at liberty to refer to any of the terms of the measure, but he could say that its scope was very small indeed. He was persuaded of this, that the consequence of what was said last night and of what was taking place to-day would be that the people in Scotland would feel that upon this burning question—and it was really the burning question in Scotland at the present moment he had very good reason to know—the Government were not prepared to propose legislation themselves, and were most un willing to give any countenance to any attempt, however small, a private Member might make to meet the grievances of the crofters. The subject of the Bill had been before the country for a long time, and it was absurd to imagine that the Government could not have come to some decision upon it. The suggestion that they had not had sufficient time to consider the Bill could not be assented to for a moment. As he was fully convinced that before the Session was up legislation upon the subject would be forced upon the Government by the difficulties at present occurring, he hoped the Government would not make the difficulties of the position greater by supporting the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) in doing what was neither more nor less than burking the consideration of the Bill.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said, he opposed the Motion for the adjournment of the debate and called his Scotch Colleagues to witness the change in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Mark Stewart's) attitude. The hon. Gentleman was one of those Scotch Members who taunted the Scotch Liberal Members with obstructing Public Business when they objected to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate bringing in his Bills at the end of last Session. He ventured to turn the tables on the hon. Member and to charge him with obstructing by his present proceeding the Public Business of Scotland in the House of Commons. Her Majesty's Government, by countenancing, as they were now doing, the hon. Gentleman's obstructive tactics, were laying themselves equally open to animadversion which he was sure would be passed upon them in Scotland to-morrow. This was about the first occasion since the unhappy advent of Her Majesty's present Government to power that private Members had been able to do anything for Scotland. What happened last year? Private Members did not get a chance of doing any Scotch Business at all. Even the wretched Business proposed by the Government did not come on until a Wednesday afternoon late in the month of August, and the successive stages of the Bills were resumed at some late hour, generally from 2 to 3 o'clock in the morning. Now, when by a happy chance there was an opportunity for Scotch Members to bring on their Bills the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart), who last year stood forward to denounce what he called obstruction, now came forward and himself obstructed. He (Mr. E. Robertson) hoped the Government would withdraw this dilatory plea. It would not do to say that the business had been sprung on the House. There was the Lord Advocate there. What had he to do but to attend to the Order Paper of the House? To his knowledge, there were several Scotch Members who were prepared and anxious to address to the House observations in reference to matters of interest in Scotland; but they had given way in order to allow the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to bring on his Motion at a time which would be convenient to him and to the Leaders on both sides. They had given way further in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to bring on his Motion the first thing to-morrow, and now there was an endeavour to cut them out of an opportunity which lay before them of calling attention to some of the pressing grievances of their country. Now, when this small Bill, the contents of which were known to every Member of the House who took any interest in the subject, which was the same Bill as that which was before the House last year, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate—who had nothing to do except to attend to the proposals for legislation made in the House—was going to give his support to the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright in the singular operation of turning his coat which he was now performing. He was certain that Scotch Members of the Opposition would be unanimous in resisting this disgraceful obstruction. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He maintained that it was disgraceful obstruction to stand in their way on the very first occasion on which for two years the private Members from Scotland had had the smallest opportunity of legislating for their country. If Scotch Members were not unanimous in resisting the Government on this occasion, he was convinced that the people of Scotland—or, at all events, the vast majority who professed Liberal opinions—would be unanimous.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had thrown an unnecessary amount of heat into his remarks. There was nothing so very unreasonable in the request that a Bill, admittedly of great importance, which, came up at a time when no human being could have expected a discussion, should be postponed. If hon. Gentlemen doubted that, let them think what happened a few minutes ago. The only reason this Bill was being discussed at this moment was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said he had a speech in his pocket which he could not deliver in an hour and a quarter. Could anybody have reasonably anticipated that? Though nobody could accuse his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) of having been unreasonable in moving the adjournment under those circumstances, still, considering the difficulties of private Members in bringing their Bills forward, he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, he would withdraw the Motion; but he desired to explain that his only object had been to give the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward the Bill another opportunity for a fuller discussion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, that the Crofters' Bill was very applicable to Aberdeenshire and other Northern counties, to which it did not at present apply. There were hundreds of thousands of crofters and fishermen in those counties who had themselves built substantial houses, and who yet held upon no tenure whatever, and it was a matter of urgent necessity that something should be done for them.

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

said, he thought that in the statement they had just heard from the hon. Member they had a very clear indication of the difficulties before them if they accepted the second reading of this Bill, and if the House wished to take this Division he should take good care that it was not prevented. But it was only right that he should say a few words on behalf of the Government to explain why they could not allow the second reading to pass. Everybody who knew anything about Scotland knew perfectly well that the word crofter, as applied to the West Highlands and Islands, was a word of totally different meaning from that given to it in other parts of Scotland. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] The hon. Gentleman who said "No!" represented a Scottish constituency, but he ventured to say that that hon. Member know very little about Scotland as a whole if he thought that the word crofter in the Southern parts of Scotland meant practically the same thing as it did in the Highlands. They would be landed in inextricable difficulties if they accepted a Bill of this kind, framed practically—he submitted—without any real knowledge of the state of the facts more than that the Bill was not a new Bill, and he had himself no reason to complain of its being sprung upon them. The Bill proposed to do what it was the distinct and avowed opinion of the last Liberal Government it would be wrong to do. The present Government saw no reason to alter their opinion upon it—an opinion which agreed with that of their Predecessors in Office. The Crofters' Bill was brought in to meet exceptional circumstances in a certain part of the country, and was not a Bill suitable for the rest of Scotland. The Government had seen nothing to induce them to alter that opinion, and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that an hon. Member who brought forward a Bill of such large scope as this, for the purpose of upsetting the distinct policy of the Government of 1886 and its Successors, should not have thought it necessary to support it with any more argument than a few perfunctory sentences. This Bill could be dealt with in one or other of two ways. Either the Bill should be fairly discussed, or, if not, the second reading ought to be refused.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, he was desirous of pointing out that there would be abundant opportunity to discuss this Bill further on going into Committee, and if it was found that there were exceptional circumstances in the South of Scotland—about which, he admitted, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) knew more than he did—it could be dealt with by limiting the Bill in Committee. He could assure the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, however, that in the North of Scotland, at all events, and certainly in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, they used the word crofter in precisely the same sense as it was used in the Crofters' Act and in the West of Scotland. It was true that the majority of English Members had gone against the proposal when the Bill was before the House, but a large majority of the Scottish Members were in favour of it. A large proportion of the farmers in the North of Scotland were crofters, and there was nothing more cruel and unfair than that they should be deprived of advantages of security of tenure, and especially of fair rents, which the Act gave. He hoped, therefore, the Government would abandon their attitude of hostility to the Bill, otherwise they would know in Scotland that this was a Government that paid not the slightest regard to the public opinion of Scotland, and that would not adopt any measure for the improvement of Scotland until it was too late to be of any use.

Original Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 190: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 9.)