HC Deb 01 May 1888 vol 325 cc1048-80
DR. CLARK (Caithness)

rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the imminent danger to law and order in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in consequence of the complete breakdown of the Crofters' Act as a remedy for the Crofters' grievances, and the pressing necessity for remedial legislation.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified—

MR. SPEAKER

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

DR. CLARK

said, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, owing to the manner in which he had answered the Questions put to him earlier in the evening, in reference to the Amendment of the Crofters' Act, had compelled him (Dr. Clark) to bring the matter before the House in the present manner. Hon. Members had now before them the Report of the Crofters' Commission, and it would be seen that one of the Schedules contained in that Report had not been filled up. There had not yet been one case of a single holding having been enlarged since the Crofters' Act came into operation. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had asked the Lord Advocate to inquire of the Crofters' Commission, whether this most important alteration of the provisions of the Crofters' Act had not been carried into effect. The Report of the Crofters Commission was laid before Parliament last week, and it would appear that although there had been some 300 or 400 applications for enlargements of holdings, there had not been an increase in a single case. The Commissioners said that, under the provisions of the Act, it was quite impossible for them to increase the holdings. He (Dr. Clark) maintained that that was a very serious matter, because the clause in reference to the increase of holdings was one of the clauses which was limited in its operation to a period of five years. Two years had already elapsed, and there had not been a single case of an increase of holding. That was the primary grievance of the Crofters; but there was a second grievance—namely, that of rack-renting. He thought the evidence given before the Commission established beyond the possibility of doubt that there was rack-renting in Scotland as well as in Ireland; but under the provisions of the Scotch Crofters' Act, crofters, no matter how rack-rented, who held holdings of less than £20 or £30 a-year under leases, were excluded from the benefits of the Act, although the Irish Land Act gave to all Irish leaseholders the benefits of that Act, and even if they held 99 years' leases. It was obvious that small crofters living in the crofter parishes most required this protection. The leaseholders were of two classes—first, those who were compelled to accept leases under a threat of eviction; and, secondly, those who were glad to accept leases in order to be protected in their holdings; but the class which required most protection was left altogether unprotected. Upon a large estate in his own county, 116 crofters had had a reduction of rent made by the Commission amounting to more than 50 per cent, and about 70 per cent had been taken off their arrears, and yet he found, from the newspapers of Friday last, that by the decision which had just been given by the Commission in the case of a large estate where the reduction of rent averaged 77 per cent, and the reduction of arrears about 83 per cent, the very class of men who required this protection were actually left entirely unprotected. In some cases, the rent had been reduced 50, 60, and even 80 per cent; whereas their neighbours who held under leases, although their holdings were in the same locality, were compelled to pay rack-rents, and were unable to obtain the benefits of the Act. That, however, although a great grievance, was not of so much importance as the question of the increased holdings. He frankly admitted that in the case of nine-tenths of the crofters, if they were to get their present holdings free, and owned the freehold of them, their condition would not be much improved. The one difficulty and the real pressing question in the Highlands was the increase of holdings, and he would refer the House to the facts of the case as established by the Royal Commission. It must be remembered that that Commission was composed of six Gentlemen, four of whom were landlords, the fifth the son of a landlord, and the sixth, a Professor of Gaelic, so that a Commission so constituted could not be supposed to have any especial leaning towards the grievances of the Highland crofters. The Report of the Commission was a most satisfactory one in every respect, and if the Government would only carry out the recommendations which the Commissioners had made, the Crofters would be satisfied and law and order would be observed. The Commissioners said— The principal matter of dissatisfaction urged upon our notice in almost every instance was the restriction of the area of the holding. The fact was notorious, and was a matter of common observation. The Commissioners went on to give certain statistics, and he wished to call the attention, both of the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, to the condition of affairs as portrayed in the Report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners took four parishes which they said were fair samples of the rest in the Highlands. In the first place, they took a characteristic estate in Sutherland, the rental of which was £10,300 a-year. On that estate there were 10 shooting tenants who paid £3,800 a-year, and seven graziers who paid £5,810 a-year, or nearly £10,000 between them, leaving more than 300 crofters to pay £600 a-year, or about £2 each. Sir Arnold Kimball, the Chamberlain of the Duke of Sutherland, gave evidence before the Commissioners, from which it appeared that on the Duke of Sutherland's estates in Sutherland matters were even worse. On the whole of the estate there were 2,560 crofters; 592 paid a rent of £2 a-year and under; 254 paid £3 a-year; 399 £1 a-year; and 254 paid £5 a-year. Altogether, 2,300 out of the 2,560 paid a rental of £5 and under. In the year 1886 the Duke of Sutherland made a reduction of rent; but out of the 2,560 crofters on his estate there were only 4 who paid a rental of between £30 and £40 a-year. Therefore, so far as the County of Sutherland was concerned, the Crofters' Act was practically useless and would continue so, unless it was modified. There had been two or three disturbances in the Highlands, and he wished to say a word or two in regard to the condition of affairs in the disturbed districts, seeing that Her Majesty's Gunboats and Marines seemed to be the only remedy right hon. Gentlemen, who represented Scotland and were responsible for its government, could think of. It was not necessary to speak of emigration as a remedy, because the Government would not give the people the money that was necessary to emigrate with. There were already many men in prison, and several women, and unless something were done speedily they would have many more there. Nine-tenths of the people had been driven away from the more fertile portions of the country to the bleakest and most sterile land on the sea-shore, where, without adequate means, they were trying to make a living. The land was becoming poorer and poorer every year, and every year the people were becoming poorer and poorer also. There could be no wonder, therefore, that they had the pauperism which the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke about the other day, when he informed the House that the poor rate in the Island of Lewis amounted to 11s. 6d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman added that if the crofters obtained what they desired, the poor rate, instead of being 11s. 6d., would be 26s. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the reason why the poor rates were high was because the crofters had been cleared off the land, and that large deer forests and grazing tracts had been made. Only let them go back to the land, with proper means of tilling it, and there would no longer be paupers, but they would be able to make a decent living, and the poor rate, instead of being 26s. in the pound, would not be 6d. There was another and a very important point. They had cleared the crofters off the land, and had converted the land itself into deer forests and grazing tracts. What was the condition of these grazing tracts? Why, that where 20 years ago the land would carry 6,000 or 8,000 sheep, it would not now carry 3,000. Why was that? It was because that which had been made valuable in the past by the labour of the crofters had now been replaced by heather, brackens, and rushes. They, therefore, had two conditions established—that the land had been converted into a waste, and that the people were in a state of misery and starvation. In the Island of Lewis there were 150 square miles of land, of which about one-fourth was occupied by crofters, and the average rent only amounted to about £3 a-year. One of the medical officers reported to the Crofters' Commission, that the people were in such a state of destitution that they could not obtain sufficient meal to enable them to make poultices when the Island was visited by a terrible epidemic of measles. The state of Lewis was dealt with by the Commission, who stated in their Report certain facts relating to the parish of Uig, where there certainly had been the great increase of population which the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland complained of. The population in 1831 was 3,040, and in 1881 it had only increased to 3,480. The gross rental was £5,000 a-year, of which the shooting and fishing tenants paid £1,200, the deer forests £1,120, and six graziers £1,000, leaving the 420 crofters, who were on the Valuation Roll, to pay about £1,500 a-year. The Commissioners gave this parish as a typical case, and according to their Report, that was the condition of things all over the Islands and Highlands. In four parishes, there were 3,200 families, including about 16,000 individuals; the rental of the four parishes was £30,000, and the crofters, 2,090 in number, paid of that sum about £7,000 a-year. That, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, was the condition of things all over the Islands. The Commissioners also gave certain facts in reference to Tiree, where there had been disturbances. The gross rental, according to the Valuation Roll, was £5,359 a-year; the factor and his brother, together with a third person, paid 35½ per cent of the entire rental, a dozen other men paid about 52 per cent, and the rest was paid by 222 crofters. There were 324 cotters or crofters who had been driven away from their crofts, who paid no rent at all and had no land. That was the condition of things in Tiree. The two principles for which he (Dr. Clark) contended were to increase the holdings, and to give proper protection for those who were at present rack-rented. What then ought to be done? As it seemed to him, the only thing to be done was to carry out the Report of the Royal Commission, and to give the Commissioners the power which they recommended should be given to the Sheriff—namely, the power of compulsorily increasing the holdings. At present the Act was unworkable. The crofters had been reduced to such a state of poverty by rack-renting, and by the imposing of restrictions upon their holdings, that they had no money, and the first condition for increasing their holdings was to see that they had a sufficient amount of money to enable them to stock them. Practically, they had knocked the poor crofter down, and then kicked him for falling. The principle of the Act was to increase the holdings, but the 13th clause prevented it. They were keeping the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope. The clause was put into the Act for the purpose of increasing holdings, and now, after the Act had been in force for two years, the Commissioners reported that they had been unable to do that, and would not be able to do it on account of the limitations and restrictions the Act contained. Therefore, what Parliament had to do was to amend the Act, so as to take in all the crofters; and, in the second place, to make the clause regarding the increase of holdings a reality and not a sham. He begged to move the Adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Clark.)

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

said, he wished to say a word or two in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The whole case, as he understood it, might be presented in a very few words indeed. He was afraid that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate must admit that he brought this matter upon himself. He might have prevented it from being moved, if he had given a less curt reply to the Questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland). What had been the history of this question during the last Session of Parliament? When the House met at the beginning of the year, an Amendment was moved to the Address with regard to the disturbances in Lewis. A discussion took place in the House upon that Amendment, and speeches were made both by the Lord Advocate and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow also said, that the powers of the Crofters' Commission as they at present existed were quite inadequate to deal with the great troubles that existed in Lewis. The difficulty in Lewis had reference to the grievance felt there in regard to the restricted area occupied by crofter holdings. The Chief Secretary for Ireland laid great stress on the question of over-population, and he said that the whole difficulty arose from the increase of population. The right hon. Gentleman did not, however, take into consideration that, so far as the population of Lewis was concerned, the crofters had not only increased, but they had had to live and subsist on a much smaller area of land than the population had to subsist on 30 or 40 years ago. The general conclusion come to by the House, after the discussion on the Amendment to the Address, was that, apart from the question of emigration and any powers that might be given to the Commission, such powers as that Body now possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the difficulty which had arisen in Lewis. Very naturally a question was asked as to what had become of the powers given to the Commissioners under the Crofters' Act for the extension of holdings. That subject was raised then, and also on a subsequent occasion. Eventually, a Question was put by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), as to whether the Government would agree to consult the Crofter Commission, and get a Report from them in regard to the causes which had rendered the provision for the extension of holdings comparatively inoperative. The Government assented to that request, and called on the Crofters' Commission to make a Report. They had done so, and it was issued to the House on Friday last. It was, therefore, only to be expected that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, representing as they did large Crofter constituencies, should put to-day the questions which appeared on the Paper in their names. He must say that those Questions had met with a very scant reply from the Lord Advocate, who said in very curt language, that the Government had no intention whatever of legislating on the crofter question during the present Session. That was all he said. He (Mr. Buchanan) did not wish to say a word that would wound the feelings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he was bound to say, that on recent occasions Members from Scotland had had some cause to complain of the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the habit of treating the Questions which his Colleagues in Scotland brought under his consideration in that House. He trusted that what had taken place that night would have some slight effect upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that in future he would adopt something more of the suaviter in modo in the replies he gave to the Questions addressed to him. But, altogether apart from that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman might say at the present moment, it was almost impossible that the Government could go on through the present Session without proposing some kind of extension of the powers of the Commission under the Act. The Crofters' Commission would very shortly have to be sent to Lewis, and it was admitted on both sides, that the powers they possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the state of things that existed there. Therefore, if they were sent there, it was quite impossible for them to give any satisfaction to the people who were now in a state of discontent. Was it impossible to give to the Crofters' Commission—an important public authority —some extended powers which would enable them to do away, to a certain extent, with some of the discontent? They had been told to-night that in a particular district where the greatest disturbance had arisen, and where the greatest distress prevailed—namely, the district of Park, within comparatively recent times, 30 or 40 years ago, there were crofter settlements all over the district, and when it was turned into a deer forest, the crofters were lifted out of their own district and put down on other parts of the island near the sea margin or elsewhere further north. Surely what had been done in recent times by private individuals in lifting crofter settlements from one part of the island and putting them down on another might be done by a public authority. Was it not possible for the Government to devise some means to give the Crofter Commission authority to do what had been done in the past by private individuals—namely, to lift up the crofter settlement from the wretched places in which they were now situated, and put them down on other parts of the Island of Lewis, where they might, under a system of fair rents be able to earn a decent livelihood and maintain themselves in something like comfort. He must earnestly impress upon the Government the extreme gravity and importance of the question. If the Government persisted in turning a deaf ear to all the representations that were made to them by those who represented the Highlands in connection with the specific defects of the Act, it would be a most shortsighted policy, and it would be impossible to look forward to another winter in the Highland districts without the risk of very serious disturbances arising. He would earnestly impress upon the Government the necessity of turning their serious attention to the matter in order to see whether, by some means or other, it was not possible to give to the Crofters' Commission extended powers for giving more land to the crofters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it will only be courteous that I should intervene at this early stage of the debate—a debate of which I do not complain, although I must inform the House that, having had no intimation whatever that any such debate was to take place, I am not in a position to give an elaborate answer to all that has been said. However, having discussed this matter very fully, and having stated my views upon it at an earlier part of the Session, and seeing no reason to depart from those views, I shall confine myself to making a few observations to show the position which the Government take up on this matter. As to the remark that I have brought this debate upon myself, I must say that I was not aware that I had been thought discourteous, and that it is extremely undesirable when one has a distinct answer to give to a Question to do otherwise than give it in distinct terms. I hope that giving a distinct negative to a Question will not be considered an act of discourtesy.

DR. CLARK

said, the complaint was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered several Questions together in the briefest manner, and not noticed the various points raised in them.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

I quite understand that; but the Questions to which the hon. Gentleman refers consisted of references to certain facts which were perfectly well known—namely, statements made by a past Commissioner, and evidence given recently, and the pith and marrow of the Questions were, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to take any action in the way of bringing in a measure to amend the Crofters' Act, this year. I answered that directly with no intention whatever of slurring over the Question. I assumed that the matters mentioned' in the Questions were correct, because they were simply reproductions of what had already been placed before hon. Members of this House. If, however, I have appeared in any way to be discourteous, it was certainly not my intention, and I hope the hon. Member who has complained will kindly look at it, as he himself said towards the end of his speech, as showing that the exception proves the rule. Her Majesty's Government have had the matter now under their consideration time after time, and the views of hon. Members as regards the probability or hope of a particular measure doing any good in the Island of Lewis have also been considered. As an illustration of the suggestions that we have to consider seriously from time to time, I will take the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for the West Division of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) in the latter part of his speech to-day, when he asked why, as in former days, private individuals had succeeded in removing people from certain places in which they were living, to other places where they now live, could not Her Majesty's Government do the same thing now, for the purpose of transferring some of the people of Lewis to places in the Island where they would be better off? Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider that question with the greatest possible earnestness, if the evidence before them and before the House did not prove as conclusively as any evidence could, that no such scheme, whether carried out by the Government or by private individuals, could possibly have the effect which my hon. and learned Friend expects to derive from it. How can it have such an effect, when we know perfectly well that the population of Lewis has increased so enormously during the last 50 years, and has quadrupled within the last century, and when the population is several times as large as it was when those who lived in Lewis, and loved Lewis, and the people there more than 100 years ago declared that the Island could not possibly support the people upon it? We have always maintained—and we have not been met by hon. Members opposite on the matter—that the conclusion which Sir John M'Neill gives in his Report 30 or 40 years ago, was a true conclusion—namely, that the crofters were not to be expected to make their livelihood and support themselves and their families out of the product of their labours as agricultural subjects. That statement has been persistently evaded by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in all the discussions which have taken place on this question; and what we complain of, and with reason, is this, that parts of the Report are brought up again and again, and quoted against our views, while no notice is taken of this statement, which is apparently set aside for the empirical and hopeless remedies which are frequently proposed in this House. A Motion has now been made for the purpose of inducing this House to enter upon an alteration of the legislation which was passed in 1886—only two years ago—on behalf of the crofters in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. I leave my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who had charge of that Bill after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) ceased to be connected with the Government of that year, to say whether the grounds upon which he then was satisfied that what was done in the Bill, was all that could and ought to be done, were sufficient and good grounds or not, and to say what are the grounds upon which he has changed his opinion, if he has done so. When he and those who acted with him have done so, it will be time for us to deal with the reasons they may give. If, on the other hand, they can give no such reasons—and I believe they cannot give any substantial or real reasons—then we shall not require to meet anybody on that matter. There is a much more important matter which was fully discussed in 1886, and which is really the crux of this question. It is quite true that there have been very few applications indeed for the enlargement of holdings upon the part of the crofters, and it is also true that of the small number of applications which have been made there have been many which have not been competent under the Act of Parliament, because those who made them were unable to get the required number of five to concur with them in the application. More than one application has been made to obtain land in an Island at a distance of seven miles by sea from the Island in which the crofter making the application lived. But the most remarkable fact of all—and specially remarkable in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—is that there has not been one single application for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest, although that is the easiest application to make, for it is an application which cannot possibly be refused on the ground of rental or on the ground of there being a tenant, but which can only be refused if the land would be taken under such circumstances as would destroy the deer forest as a letting property. We were told all along, and certainly in 1886, that it was most important that the deer forests should be included, because if only the crofters could get a considerable tract of the country, it would be most valuable to them, and add to their means of subsistence. Upon that statement it is a most remarkable commentary, which will require a great amount of ingenuity to explain, that there has not been a single application made by the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest. We said in 1886, and we were laughed at by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—no doubt in a good humoured way—that the land of the deer forests was unsuitable for the purpose, and would be of no benefit, and that land which could only support one sheep on four and a half acres was not the land out of which people without substantial means and unable to take large tracts could get any advantage to themselves. But only a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Caithness said, "Let the crofters of Lewis go back to the Park"—which is a deer forest—"and till it." Not one single application has been made for any such purpose. I am quite aware that the Park has been used as a means of agitation, but I am not aware that the crofters considered or suggested for one moment that by taking such parts of the Park as they could occupy profitably to themselves they would benefit themselves or their neighbours in any way whatever. My answer to my hon. Friend is this—let some crofters put an application before the Commission in Lewis for the purpose of getting part of the Park so as to cultivate it, and then it will be seen whether there is any ground for complaint at all. It is a most remarkable fact that while a great deal was said about including the deer forests so as to give the crofters an opportunity of taking slices out of them for the purposes of obtaining a livelihood, with the aid of their existing crofts, not one single application has been made for this purpose. But it is not there the difficulty lies. The difficulty is, as it was pointed out in 1886, that if people are to be supported out of land by the extension of holdings, giving them a larger quantity of land to cultivate and to carry pasture upon, then these people must be in a position to stock and to use the land. What occurred in 1886? I remember that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow referred in glowing terms to the great advantages which the Swiss peasantry had compared with the peasantry in the Island of Lewis. I took exception to what he then said, having myself had some experience of Switzerland as a young man. My opinion was that the Swiss peasantry had not so comfortable a life, that they made but little money, and that they did not even make a good subsistence. I then called attention to the question of additional land and to additional pasture, and what I then said I hold to now, knowing no reason to withdraw one word. I therefore cannot do better than road it. I said— This Bill suggested nothing whatever to make it sure that when they had given this additional pasture land, those who took it would be able to make a beneficial use of it, and give a reasonable return to the person to whom it belonged."—(3 Hansard, [303] 144.) I gave my hon. Friends below the Gangway and the crofters the credit then for believing that they had no desire to take any land for which they were not to give a reasonable return to the proprietor. I also said— In short, it made landlords take land from tenants with capital to give it to tenants who had no capital—land which was absolutely worthless to any man who did not possess capital."—(Ibid. 144.) I have never yet heard any answer to that—how a man without any capital who, upon your own showing, is upon the verge of starvation, is to be able to take additional land, and to stock and use it so as to be a profit to himself, and to enable him to give a reasonable return to the person who now has it let to people who have capital, and who are able to give that return. I continued— That was to say, it was proposed by an Act of the Legislature to force upon the landlords of the Highlands an experiment which, unless capital were forthcoming for the working of it, must be an absolute failure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) any help whatever towards carrying out the objects of the Bill. The landlords had been willing to try the thing that was now proposed on the consideration that the land should be stocked, or that there should be the means of stocking it. This was the difficulty which had led to failure wherever the experiment had been tried. The Commissioners' Report in regard to Lady Gordon Cathcart's property brought out the fact that large farms, consisting of thousands of acres of land, in the best parts of the High- lands and Islands, had been given over to crofters—in some cases to agricultural crofters, and in others to fishing crofters—and the result from beginning to end had been a total and absolute failure. There had been inadequate stocking, the arrears of rent were very great—in some cases no rent had been paid at all; and, in spite of all stipulations, the old system of destructive sub-division had gone on. One of the Members of the Royal Commission had stated very distinctly these two things—first, that these common grazings formed the real obstacle to improvement; and, second, that capital was indispensable in pastoral farming, if a profit was to be made out of it at all. Although everything had been done that this Bill contemplated, the result was that arrears, which in 1883 amounted to £1,000, in 1884 were £2,000, and in 1885 had increased to £2,800; and during that period Lady Gordon Cathcart had given £1,128 for seed, of which not one-half had been repaid. This was a distinct and clear question which must be dealt with if they would come to a rational conclusion upon it. Either these people were withholding rents which they were able to pay, or, if they were not doing so, this Bill could not do any possible good. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) was on the horns of that dilemma."—(Ibid. 144–5.) I then proceeded to give another example. Now, those statements which I made in 1886 stand uncontradicted to this day. I have always asked, and asked in vain, how it is proposed that people who have got no means of using land are to be made bettor in their position by obtaining that land. I believe I shall still wait for an answer. It surely is not harshness towards this people—it is surely not injustice, and not dealing with them in an improper way, to say to them—"You cannot do what your neighbours have failed to do. If by any means you could raise money by which you shall be enabled to stock additional land, there is no doubt whatever that success might follow, if the land was productive." But to set people on land which cannot be made productive without a large outlay of capital, and which, even if made productive with that large outlay, can never be so productive, from the nature of the climate, as land would be in other parts of the country, at a time when the value of all agricultural produce is admittedly so low, and when all unquestionably have suffered from the climatic changes during the last few years, when the depression has been felt in every department of commerce, when as a result the annual value of land has been reduced 30 and 40 per cent as compared with two years ago, and when the re- ductions two years ago are larger than would have been made at the time the Commission was first proposed—to set people without means on land at such a time would not improve their position at all. The hon. Member for Caithness told us to-night what I have often said in this House before, and what was then received by hon. Members with expressions of incredulity, that in nine-tenths of the cases of the crofters in Lewis, if they were given their crofts absolutely free from any rent, their position would not be practically improved.

DR. CLARK

And throughout the Highlands and Islands generally.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

My hon. Friend adds "Throughout the Highlands and Islands generally." It is interesting and instructive to get this statement from my hon. Friend now. We have maintained all along that these people are sunk in poverty, that their position does not enable them—from whatever cause you may choose to attribute it to, you must deal with facts as they are—to do more than they are doing now, and that the crofts which they hold are insufficient if they paid no rent at all for them, and got the land in perpetuity, for them to live on in comfort. But the proposal is that they should receive additional land in order that they may cultivate it. I think that a very great deal indeed might be said for that proposition if it could be carried out with any reasonable regard to the rights of other people. But how can a man who is at present so absolutely sunk in poverty be placed in a position of success, unless, indeed, some kind friend would come forward and provide the means? Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway believe this can be successful, and that it can be made to pay. In the case of any speculation which is known and believed to pay, you will find plenty of money in the market to carry it on. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) the other day that he was able to borrow money at £1 12s. 6d. per annum on six months' Exchequer Bills. That is a state of things which is comparatively new in this country. If money is in that position—if these speculations can be made to pay—I am perfectly certain that if my hon. Friends went into the City and offered 2½ per cent for money to be advanced for such a pur- pose they would get the money tomorrow. But I am afraid when these gentlemen to whom they went made their inquiries and read the report of Sir John M'Neill, issued the other day, they would find that in dealing with such a country and climate and population, they never could make any such speculation a success. Is the matter to be dealt with upon every principle of common sense which rules men in their own affairs? Is Her Majesty's Government reasonable in coming to the distinct and definite conclusion that by endeavouring to maintain an excessive population in many parts of the Highlands and Islands you are bolstering up a tottering fabric, which must ultimately and inevitably fall? That is our opinion, and I hope hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for holding that opinion after careful and earnest consideration, and holding it with the deepest possible regret. Our view has always been—and we have not hesitated to state it in this House, and to state it in the face of much obloquy and misrepresentation of our motives—that without a considerable removal of the congested population of the Highlands to some other country where there would be an outcome for their industry, and where they would have some chance of success, there is no hope of relieving the state of things which exists in those congested parts of the Highlands. It is no doubt, true that many people in that part of the country have the greatest aversion to do that which many of us have to submit to in our own families. Many of us have to sacrifice our love of home, and leave our own shores, and seek our fortunes elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, who brought forward this Motion, has never had reason to regret that he went abroad a good deal, and there are other hon. Members below the Gangway who, no doubt, have done the same with great success. No doubt, these poor people are attached to their glens, and cling to them with a love which it is very difficult for us to appreciate. I admire them for it. It is one of the best features in their character, but it is one of those features which, if it is allowed to take an exaggerated position in a man's mind and affections, does an injury, not only to his own personal interests, but to the community in which he lives. Surely we are not doing a cruel thing in taking such measures as we can to give these people in the Highlands an inducement to throw aside their dread and horror at leaving their native country and establishing themselves elsewhere—in places where they can form happy and prosperous communities. This has been done in other countries, and wherever it has been done efficiently and under good management, it has led to a feeling among the people that it is a wise and sensible thing to do. I can tell my hon. Friends that at the present moment there are a good number of families in the Islands of Scotland who are prepared to go and establish themselves elsewhere the moment a scheme has been devised which will enable them to do so with some reasonable chance of success, and with the prospect of obtaining a comfort which they were not able to secure at home. I begin to feel that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are leaning more and more towards this view of the case. The feeling of agitation is over. As long as there was really a feeling of agitation in the Highlands, any word uttered by hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of emigration would have brought them into great disfavour among those whom they represented. But that feeling is subsiding; and as to the danger to peace and order in the Highlands, I can assure this House that the views of the hon. Member for Caithness on that matter are absolutely groundless. Unless the agitator gets among them again—the agitator whose business it is to keep up excitement and endeavour to create breaches of the law—I am certain from the reports the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has received, that there is no reason to fear any breach of the law at present. But will hon. Members go among these people and encourage them to take the course which we suggest they ought to take? This is an experiment which the Government are determined to carry out with the utmost rapidity. We hope to be able in the course of a year to remove some families who are willing to go, and to set them up in a distant country where they will meet people of their own blood and people of their own particular sentiments and associations. These people, I am certain, if once we can get them settled, will send home news which will induce hundreds and hundreds of others to follow their example. The moment you have a reasonable number of people leaving these crofts, you at once have land available for the purpose of aiding the others who remain behind. It is one of the wise provisions of the Act passed in 1886, that, in the event of any crofters moving from their crofts, these crofts are not to be appropriated into the general estate, but are to be used for the purpose of increasing the area of the existing holdings. I am certain that you cannot, by the schemes which have been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, really produce that which every honest man desires to produce—namely, a permanent and efficient relief to the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from the difficulties in which they are at present involved. A mere empirical remedy will do no present good; a mere heroic Act, though it may give temporary relief, will not do any ultimate good. We believe still in the principles we have enunciated over and over again in this House, and we are glad to think that some of these principles are now gaining some sort of acceptance from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. We augur well from that, and if they will join us in that which we are prepared to do, great good may be effected, and the greatest possible blessing to the Highlands and Islands may be accomplished.

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

said, he entirely agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). At the same time, he thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been more satisfactory if he had been a little more distinct in stating the proposals which the Government had in their mind for the relief of the population in the Highlands.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, his hon. and learned Friend was probably not in the House when, at an earlier period of the evening, it was announced that a full statement would be laid before the House in the form of an estimate on another day. He would have been perfectly ready to have entered more fully into the matter had the plan been properly digested.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. He was glad that the Government intended to have the whole subject sifted. The sending of gunboats and marines might be necessary under some circumstances, but he thought they must look to other means for the settlement of the difficulty which existed in the Highlands. It would have been much more satisfactory if the hon. Member who moved (Dr. Clark) and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Buchanan) who seconded the Motion for Adjournment of the House, had done a little more to show how a remedy could be found for the present condition of things by amending the Crofters' Act. They had not shown how any alteration of the Act could get rid of the difficulty pointed out by the Commission as the reason why the Crofters' Act had been inoperative. The hon. Member who made this Motion for adjournment had not suggested any remedy for the difficulty arising from inability to stock farms.

DR. CLARK

said, he had pointed out that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would have remedied that.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, that no one would say that the Report did not lay the greatest stress on emigration.

DR. CLARK

said, there were two recommendations made by the Royal Commission. One was to give holdings compulsorily, and he had said if that power was given it would be all they asked for.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, he was pointing out that the House and the Government had not followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the most important was that of emigration, and it had not been acted upon. The reasons pointed out by the Commissioners made it very difficult, to his mind, to amend the Crofters' Act in the direction indicated, and he considered that the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were not enough to enable the House to get out of those difficulties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a very strong statement as to the Government taking means to assist emigration, and hon. Members would look forward with interest to the plan that he would propose, in the hope that it would be found to put an end to the difficulties experienced during the last three months.

DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)

said, the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had pointed out that the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Motion before the House, had given no explanation of the way in which the Act could be amended. They wanted more land for the crofters, which the Government would not give to the extent of an inch. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate bad given them many unanswerable arguments, and one of them was that there had been no application for any land; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he could give a single instance of a crofter getting an inch of land from a deer forest?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he had always assumed that when hon. Gentlemen in 1866 pressed that land for the deer forests should not be taken from the crofts, that in pressing this they had some practical end in view.

DR. R. MACDONALD

said, they certainly had a practical end in view. They wanted the migration of crofters from the congested districts into other parts; but the Act said that the land of the crofters was to be contiguous to and conterminous with the deer forests. But the owners took care to drive away not only crofters, but publicans. They would not have an hotel within five miles, and hon. Members knew that one had not long ago been shut up on that account. The moral of this was to allow the crofters to get more land wherever they could find it. The Commissioners recommended that from the congested districts the crofters should be migrated to places where there was room for them. The last Government did not give that power, however, and they were not allowed to remove any men from those districts. It was left for the present Government to break leases in Ireland; and, if that were so, why should not the large farms in the Highlands be broken down to afford more land for the crofters? The Royal Commissioners also recommended that harbours should be built, but that had not been done. Then there was the question of the school rates in the Highlands, which amounted to 6s. 8d. in the pound; and he asked if the Government could not have done something to relieve the people in that respect? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there were very few applications for the increase of holdings. But there had been 310 applications, and he might tell the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the reason there were not more was that the crofters knew it was a hopeless case. They had, over and over again, pointed out that this was not a question of rent, but that it was a question of the want of land; and the Land Commissioners had told them that the principal point urged in almost every district was the restriction of the area of the holdings. The Commissioners said— That in most cases a considerable degree of indulgence, almost amounting to benevolence, might be discovered in the case of small holdings; they believed that the grievance of increased rents had been urged in many instances, but with much less force and earnestness than that of the restriction of areas. The average reduction of rent made by the Commissioners was 31 per cent; and, after that, would anyone say that the Highlanders, who had not grumbled for so many years, were not a long-suffering people? Were they not deserving of having their grievance with regard to area redressed? The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said that hon. Members on those Benches would not help the Government in a scheme of emigration. Certainly they would; there was no fear about emigration, but the crofters asked why they should be called upon to leave their country when the greater portion of it remained uninhabited? Why not give the people at least one-half or two-thirds of the Islands? He should be pleased to help the Government in every way to ameliorate the condition of the people. But there were now 2,000,000 acres of deer forests in the Highlands; and he asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to clear the whole population out of the country, and leave it for deer forests? And if emigration took place, would not those who remained be just as poor as before under the present circumstances? Would the Government give assistance to these people for stocking their farms? There need not be any fear that the money would not be repaid, and that might be seen in the Commissioners' Report. They had been given money for boats, and he could not understand why they should not be assisted with money for the purpose of stock. They had all along been contending that the holdings of the crofters should be increased; and if a man had a small holding by the cultivation of which he could not live, the only cure was to give him a larger holding. He was very sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position he had with regard to this question, and he was very much afraid that his optimistic views—although no one would be more glad than he if they became true—would not be realized. It was well known that the people were very nearly starving; he himself had been the means, with the assistance of some Members of the House, of sending a lot of seed potatoes to them, and he was told that the people were on the point of starvation. When people were in that condition, and when it was no disgrace, as in Ireland, to go to prison for breaking the Land Law, he said it was a very bad thing for law and order. He regretted that the Government were not going to do anything for these people, and that their last word was that they must clear out of the country.

DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

said, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, by adopting a different course, might have saved much of the discussion which had taken place. He was quite certain that he did not mean to maintain that nothing should be done in order to make beneficial the Act which that House had taken so much trouble to pass for the benefit of the crofters. He did not think they could go behind that Act. The House of Commons intended that the crofters' holdings should be extended, and the Commission was expressly appointed to carry out that intention. But as it very frequently happened, Bills, however carefully drafted, sometimes when in operation failed to carry out the intention of their framers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had told them that the portion of the Act which related to the enlargement of the crofters' holdings was the one to which he attached the greatest importance, but he said there was not a single instance of an enlargement of a holding having taken place. The Crofters' Commission had issued a Re- port in which they referred to the reason for the failure of the Act as a perfectly obvious one—namely, that the Act required that the land from which the enlargement was sought must be "contiguous to the holding." That was a matter which he thought could be got over without difficulty. The second difficulty to which they called attention was the poverty of the crofters, which prevented them stocking their holdings. That might be a difficulty if the Government were in power which passed the Act, because they had declared their intention to give no money from the public funds for the purpose of carrying out the Act. He remembered, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was in Opposition, how sarcastic he was upon the Government for taking up that line of policy, and how remorselessly he chaffed them for not putting their hands in their pockets to do something practical in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Crofter Commission. The present Government did not look at the matter now in the same light; but they were giving bonuses for fishing boats and emigration purposes. And what did all that result in? He had risen particularly to call attention to one small matter regarding which there could be no diversity of opinion, and which, if the law were amended, would greatly facilitate the operation of the Crofters' Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked through the Report, he would see that in a great number of cases the Crofter Commission had not been able to overtake the work—that such and such applications had not been attended to, "because the district had not been visited by the Commission;" and that in another the Commissioners "had been obliged to leave the district before they had attended to the applications;" and so on. Why should not the Government do what he had over and over again suggested—namely, to strengthen the Commission, which would enable them to get through their work without delay? The cost of two additional Commissioners would be very little, and if these were appointed he believed the country would be able to get out of the Act what good there was in it. That was a point on which he was certain the Government might legislate with assist- ance and support of every section of the House.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, he should not have ventured to intervene in the debate were it not for the fact that about 12 months ago he had visited, on the invitation of the representatives of the crofters themselves, the districts affected, and spent some time in the Islands of Lewis and Skye, as well as the adjacent mainland. During that visit he had made inquiries of the people themselves as to what their grievances were, and as to the remedies which they thought the Legislature ought to provide for them. He had seen them in little knots on the road side, at meetings in schoolrooms and out-of-the-way places; and altogether he must have spoken with many hundreds of them before he finished his tour, and in every case the account which they gave of their condition and wants was almost precisely the same. It was quite true that the great difficulty in regard to the crofter population was the insufficiency of the land which they cultivated. The question of rent was altogether of minor importance, and no doubt any grievance with regard to that had been adequately met by the legislation passed three years ago. But with regard to the desire for more land—he might say the necessity for more land, if these people were to subsist in their present situation—there could, in his opinion, be no doubt whatever. In many cases the occupants of the holdings, or their predecessors, had taken them in the hope and expectation of gaining an extraneous subsistence, either from the getting of kelp, or from other kinds of labour. But those other kinds of labour had entirely failed them, and they found it absolutely impossible to get a living out of the land. In many cases the difficulty had no doubt been caused by the improvidence of the people themselves, who had, when they got the land, allowed cottars to settle on it, and had allowed their holdings to be sub-divided, so that the land which was originally sufficient for one occupant had ceased to be sufficient for its present population. To these facts, which could not possibly be disputed, must be added the sentiment of the people that they were suffering a grievous injustice on the ground that the land had in past times belonged in some sort to themselves, and that they had been removed from it against their will to make way for large farms and deer forests. They accordingly claimed that they should be restored to what they said their ancestors possessed. He had also on his visit seen many landlords, whose story, of course, put a different face on the statement received from the crofters. The landowners generally disputed the historical accuracy of this sentimental grievance, and maintained that the land was never the property of the crofters, or of their predecessors; and that the transfer of the population which had undoubtedly taken place was as much in the interest of the crofters themselves as of the landlords. They maintained that at the time the crofters were thereby offered a better chance of livelihood by the seaside than they could possibly have obtained in the inland parts to which they now desired to return. But whatever might be the absolute historical truth of the matter, it was perfectly certain that this sentimental grievance on the part of the crofters very much strengthened their feeling that it was unfair to propose to them any other alternative until the alternative of migration had been exhausted, and he was convinced that no scheme of emigration would have a fair chance until the crofters were satisfied that the Legislature had done all that could be reasonably expected from it in affording them the opportunity of obtaining a larger portion of land in their own country. But even if the Legislature were to do all that hon. Members from Scotland were now asking, it must not be supposed that any very large and material amelioration of the condition of the crofters would result. There were two difficulties in the way, to which allusion had been made by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. In the first place, there was not enough land to provide for all the population. At the present time in Lewis, if the whole of the land were given to the crofters, it could not possibly provide for more than one-half of the population. But in answer to this the crofters said—"Give us what there is, and when that has been exhausted we will talk about emigration. Let those who can be provided for be provided for at home." Then there was the second difficulty, which was still more important and hard to overcome—namely, the impossibility of the crofters stocking the land, or doing anything satisfactory with it if they obtained it. He was told, a short time ago, that the celebrated Ben Lee pasture land, which was the original cause of the disturbances in Skye, and which, by the act of the Commission, was handed over to the crofters, remained without a single head of cattle upon it, the crofters being unable to stock it. That, at any rate, was the case 12 months ago. It was all very well to say that the Government could find the money to stock the farms. He protested against that; and when he was with the crofters he told them that he would never support such a proposal, and that he believed that the House of Commons would not undertake so risky an operation as that of lending money on stock to these small tenants. It was a doubtful policy to lend money on boats and nets, which could, at all events, be insured, and on land which could not be removed, but those things offered a better security than cattle and sheep; and if ever money were to be lent in the manner suggested, he felt quite sure that the greater portion of it would be lost. He had pointed out to the crofters that they had no right to call on the people of England, Scotland and Wales, who were, many of them, quite as poor as themselves, to guarantee this assistance. The conclusion at which he had arrived, and which he was most anxious to impress on the crofters, who were most worthy of sympathy and assistance, was that a great portion of them must seek their remedy in emigration. By their own admission there was no room for them all at home. Some of them must go; and at the present moment the point was how those who went could be best provided for. He did not hesitate to say that this operation must be carried out with the assistance of the Government, and that course, in his opinion, need not involve any serious risk. The plan would be materially assisted if the Government would consider, before bringing forward their proposals, whether they might not at the same time offer some facilities for migration. He did not think those facilities would be availed of to a large extent, but he believed that the sentiment of the people would be met if they were told that in future, at all events, those who could stock additional land would be provided with it, so far as such land existed. He believed that the whole difficulty of extending the holdings lay in the words of the Act, "contiguous holding." He could not for the life of him see why those words should remain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had recommended his Act to the House very much on the ground of the enormous abuse created by the deer forests of Mr. Winans. Everybody in the House admitted the abuse, and would be glad to see it remedied; but those words had made it impossible to take one inch of his lands. That was certainly a scandal, and he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) could not conceive why some portion of the enormous deer forest of Mr. Winans on the mainland, which was admirably suited to the purposes of the crofters, should not be taken for the benefit of the crofters, even though they lived on the Islands of Lewis and Skye, which were not contiguous to his property. He had risen for the purpose of urging upon the Government that this matter should, at all events, be taken into consideration, although he entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the cardinal and real remedy was to be found in a generous and carefully devised scheme of emigration.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

said, he did not wish to intervene in the debate for the purpose of complaining of the remarks of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but simply to say a few words because of the urgency of this question. The crofters had stated before the Commission and by their Representatives in that House that they could not get the quantity of land which they desired to cultivate. In February of this year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had pointed out the reason why the Crofters Act was a failure, and hon. Gentlemen had now got the evidence of the Crofters' Commission, over whom agitation could have no control whatever, and that evidence fully corroborated all that hon. Members on those Benches had said upon the subject. Now, the answer which they got from the Government was unmistakable—namely, that they would provide for the emigration of the people who wanted land to cultivate to the extent of £10,000. With all due deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, he would like some further confirmation of his statement that the people desired emigration. Then, with regard to Lewis, did the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate mean to say that it was typical of the whole of the Highlands?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, that was not the case either in regard to population or distress.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND

said, he was glad of that admission, because in that case the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Lewis did not apply to any part of the Highlands. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD: They apply in degree.] He (Mr. A. Sutherland) was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had approached this question in a tone and spirit quite different from that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had gone to the Highlands, and conversed with the people themselves, and he thought if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were to do the same he would considerably modify the statement he had made. The contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there had been no application for land in the case of deer forests, had been amply disposed of by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. Macdonald). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there was power in the Act to extend holdings, but the clause providing for this was limited by no less than 20 conditions, and it was a mere mockery to tell the people, under the circumstances, that there was power to enlarge holdings. He was glad that the Government of the day which passed the Act had no responsibility for that clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that they should first exhaust the resources at home before emigration was tried; but the people distinctly refused to emigrate until they had seen what could be done by the enlargement of holdings from these extensive deer forests and sheep farms. He said it was nothing less than a calamity to receive the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made to the question put to him; and he hoped he would be better advised, and see his way to withdraw the opinion he had given. But if the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was the last word of the Government, hon. Members would know exactly where they stood.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, that the Members for Scotland on those Benches were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) for his sympathy with the people in the Highlands. The cause of the failure of the Act was a radical fault in the measure itself as respects the enlargement of holdings. It had been pointed out from the first that it would be inoperative, and the result had proved the truth of that statement. He (Sir George Campbell) thought that if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would try to get over the difficulty by amending the Act, instead of quoting long speeches from Hansard to show that he always was utterly opposed to the whole system of the enlargement of holdings, the Government might find a way out of this difficulty.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he had never stated anything of the kind. He had said most distinctly that if the scheme of the Government were accepted, the removal of the people from the congested districts would set free land for the enlargement of the holdings of those who remained.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he quite understood that; but as regarded any other enlarging of holdings, he repeated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done nothing but use all his forensic eloquence to prove that it ought not to be done. The difficulty in the case of Lewis arose, no doubt, from the increase which had taken place of the inhabitants; but in the Highlands at large there were lands which had once been cultivated, and might be cultivated again, and he thought, notwithstanding that the difficulties were very great, something might be done. With regard to the advance of money, he pointed out, although he admitted the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that the crofters were not large in number as compared with the whole popula- tion of the Kingdom, and that this rich country, which could spend £70,000 on a picture, and many millions in miserable wars, might very well do something, if only a little, to aid them in stocking the land. The remedy of the Government was emigration. But he could not admit that this was a simple and easy remedy, and one which would get rid of the whole difficulty. It would cost at least as much to settle a crofter in America as in Scotland, and, looking to climate and habits, they would not always succeed. The Government had done a good deal for Ireland; they had amended the Irish Land Act, and he was at a loss to understand why they should not also amend the Crofters' Act.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)

said, he had the honour of sitting on the Commission of 1883, and he must say that the question of enlarged holdings was a remedy pressed upon the Commission most strongly. He was very much disappointed with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would not allow the debate to close without saying something more than they had heard from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. If they had heard the last word of the Government, he feared the effect would be very disastrous for the people of the Highlands.

MR. HANBURY-TRACY (Montgomery, &c.)

said, he wished to make an observation with regard to one question that had been raised in the course of the discussion—namely, as to repayment by the crofters of money advanced on the security of crops and cattle. Under a former Government, Lord Cross had three years ago introduced into the House of Lords a Bill for the purpose of enabling a body of rich men, capitalists and philanthropists, to advance money in that way. The noble Lord had studied the question very deeply, and Lord Salisbury took upon himself the introduction of the measure referred to; but owing to the drafting, and the fact that the Bill was brought in at a moment's notice, and perhaps from the fact that the noble Lord had not fully appreciated all the circumstances, the then Government, which was a Liberal Government, objected that the Bill would confine the lending powers to a certain body of men and would not make the provisions general. He would take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they would in the present case give facilities to persons of capital for advancing money to the crofters for the purpose of stocking their holdings?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

Sir, I rise to say a few words in response to two questions put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, first, I may be allowed to say that I cannot help thinking we are acting somewhat harshly towards the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) by taking away from him the time he has reason to expect will be conceded to him. I may also point out that the observations of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) illustrate the inconvenience of such Motions as that which is now before us, the subject he has raised being one of which no Notice has been given. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) has asked me to supplement the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). Well, Sir, the answer of my right hon. and learned Friend is, I am sorry to say, the answer of the Government. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will himself perceive that it would not be wise for us to hold out to the crofter population, for whom everyone in this House has sympathy—expectations which in the nature of things cannot be fulfilled. It is not a difficult matter for persons to make promises, but it is incumbent upon those who do so to be quite certain that their promises are fairly capable of being realized. One of the difficulties we have to face is that there is no adjacent land which can be added to many of the existing crofts, and I know of no means by which land can be created for the purpose. This, Sir, is one of the inherent difficulties of the case which has to be confronted when dealing with this question. Another inherent difficulty is that of the absence of capital and the absolute poverty of the crofters themselves; and in the course of this and the previous discussions which have taken place on the subject, no hon. Gentleman has pointed out how land can be cultivated unless the owner has capital to enable him to do so, nor has any hon. Gentleman shown how capital can be advanced in the present case with proper security for repayment. The hon. Member for Montgomery has asked if the Government will give facilities to enable persons of capital to advance money upon land; but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of fact, such facilities already exist. There can be no doubt whatever that the difficulties which have been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) are real difficulties, and such as the Government would not be justified in minimizing or ignoring; and I may add that we should be unworthy of the position which we occupy if we were to seek to deceive the House of Commons, or the unfortunate crofter population, by holding out expectations or promises which would prove utterly fallacious and could not possibly be realized. Therefore, Sir, if the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) thinks it right to press his Motion to a Division, the Government will be bound in duty to oppose it; but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that some hon. Gentlemen might vote for the Motion, simply to avoid a night's debate upon a subject which those who sympathized with the object of the hon. Member for Northampton wished to discuss.

DR. CLARK

said, in deference to the sense of the House, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 205: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 87.)