CROWN RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 15 March 1889)

§ * MR. BUCHANAN (calling attention to the Question of the rights of fishing in Scotland, and suggesting that a Seloct Committee should be appointed to inquire into the disposal by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of rights of fishing and other Crown ri
On the discussion on the Woods and Forests Vote last November, the Government, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed that the alienation of Crown rights of Fishing in Scotland should be inquired into, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it as his impression that the General Committee of Inquiry into the Administration of the Department, already promised, would not be a good instrument for this inquiry. A more special Committee, mainly consisting of Scotch Members, would be preferable. Accordingly, last week, I put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether he intended to appoint such a Committee, and the right hen. Gentleman stated in reply that— The reference to the proposed Committee would not exclude the disposal of Crown rights in Scotland from being investigated; and he further stated that— If it should appear that a Special Committee was necessary the Government would not refuse it. If the case for the appointment of such a Special Committee was strong in November, it is much stronger now; and this on Parliamentary grounds as well as on general grounds. Since 1832 two Committees have been appointed to 1907 inquire into the administration of the Woods and Forests Department—one in 1833, and another in 1849. I have examined the Reports of those Committees, and I find that the case of Scotland was entirely overlooked, the evidence having dealt almost exclusively with larger and wider questions relating to England; and if the Question is to be referred to a General and not to Special Committee of Inquiry, the Scotch Members can only anticipate a similar result. It is only in recent years that the Woods and Forest Department has proceeded to make sales of fishing rights in Scotland These sales began about the year 1872. In the year 1883–84 there were seven sales of sea salmon fishing rights in Scotland and the price realized was £15,800; in the next year, 1884–85 there were ten sales of sea salmon fishing rights in Scotland, one sale of foreshore to the bugh of Dumbarton, and one of river salmon fishing, the total price being £4,600; in 1885–86 there was one sale of sea salmon fishings, four sales of river fishings and one of foreshore for Tynabruaich pier, the price being £375; in 1886–87 there were two sales of river salmon fishings, of which the price was £45, and three of Loch Morar salmon fishing, the price being £270, namely, one to Mrs. Nicholson, for £60, one to Lord Lovat for £150, and one to Colonel Macdonald for £60; while in 1887–88 there was one sale of Loch Morar fishings to Mrs. Cambell for £150, three sales of sea salmon fishings for a total of £4,175 and one sale of land at Stirling for £310. I and my hon. Friends who took part in the discussion of this question in November last contended that it was not merely one of the sale of the rights of salmon fishing in a particular loch in Scotland but that it was also a great public question—that it was not the actual value of the rights of fishing in Loch Morar that would ensue from the concession of these salmon fishing rights to the riparian proprietors; and what we contended for has been amply justified by what has since taken place. It hat transpired that although there was trout fishing, there was no salmon fishing in Loch Morar and what ha resulted from the proceedings in the Court of Session is that by the concession of the rights of fishing in Loch 1908 Morar, the riparian proprietors have been able to shut out the public from going in boats upon the loch and from navigating freely on that water as they have been accustomed to do from time immemorial. Even before the case was brought before the Court of Quarter Sessions, the very first action the riparian proprietors took was to give notice to the inhabitants on the shores of the loch, that they must part with their boats, and that they could not be any longer allowed to use their boats in the loch. The net result of it was this—the application was made and stated by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as a cession of the right of fishing. It has been found to be a right which can be construed, and which has been construed into a deprivation of the general rights of the people in the enjoyment of moving freely to and fro upon this vast sheet of water. No doubt Loch Morar is a very long way off, and situated in a very sparsely populated part of the country. What has been done in the east of Loch Morar may be done in the case of many others of the waters of Scotland. As my hon. Friend behind me also says, there are other fishing rights on the seashore with which the Woods and Forests have to do, and there is the question of foreshores, fishing of salmon, and the fishing rights of the foreshores. These are questions which I wished to deal with had there been more time at my disposal. What I wish to urge upon the Government is this, that if our case was strong, as it was acknowledged to be strong by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury in November last, it is very much stronger now. We contended then that it was not a mere formal question of fishing, but a matter in which important public rights were involved. And that has been clearly demonstrated in the Court of Session. The question is very wide, far reaching, and important to the public, and is one which commands very great attention in Scotland; and the decision of the Government upon it is looked forward to with considerable eagerness and attention in Scotland. It is an especially Scotch question, which I think ought to be investigated by an especially Scotch Committee. It is a question, the settlement of which, the 1909 longer delayed, will, I feel perfectly convinced in my own mind, be productive of still more wide and far reaching issues, by leading to further agitation in the country, and to a stronger case being brought before this House. I do most earnestly urge upon the Government to carry out what I certainly thought was the understanding in November last, that we should have a special inquiry into this subject; and that this special inquiry will be conducted in the manner we should have expected—namely, by a Select Committee of this House, consisting mainly of Scotch Members.

§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)
There is one point on which I should like an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think upon the last occasion when this subject was discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very reasonably recognised the necessity of some inquiry into this matter. He suggested that the inquiry could be very satisfactorily conducted by a Committee representative generally of the administration of Crown rights. The situation seems to me to be one which commands some consideration. As I understand, the position is this—the Crown is trustee of certain rights for the public, that is to say, the local public, because it is nonsense to talk of the Crown being trustee of, say, the rights of foreshore up in the Northern islands, or the rights of salmon-fishing in those regions. The public generally, if they choose to go there, can go; but it seems to me that the sense in which you are trustees for the public does not for a moment bear out the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was a difficult and delicate question as to whether it might not be the duty of the Crown to dispose of those rights, and to turn them into money, and put the money into Consolidated Fund. It seemes to me that the trusteeship of the Crown is an open trusteeship. In that sense it cannot be a question or matter for the Committee at all to decide whether the Crown is to sell those rights and turn them into money, and apply them to the benefit of the Consolidated Fund. You might just as well say that, because people who live in the Northern Hebrides do not come often to St, Paul's Cathedral or Westminster 1910 Abbey therefore, you might sell those edifices and apply the money to the Consolidated Fund. These rights are of a local nature. As I understand the law it is this. Some of these rights the Crown cannot alienate at all. Others they can alienate under their direct trusteeship for local interests, but only on certain statutory conditions which are imposed upon the localities. I think in the 2nd William IV. there was an Act passed which placed all those Crown rights under the provisions of an earlier Act, 10th George IV., which was passed for their regulation in England. In that earlier Act you can only dispose of those Crown rights under certain restrictions. There must be a broader application, and, unless the purchase money is less than 100 years, there are certain other conditions which have to be observed. What we want is a Select Committee of some kind, which should not merely inquire into general matters. It should not even discuss such questions as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested, and which seem to me to be questions for this House, and not for any Committee. It should inquire not merely into the restriction which is to be imposed upon the action of the Commissioners, acting under the direction of the Treasury, for the future, but also into the validity of some transactions which have taken place within the last ten years, and which seems to me to be very doubtful. It is perfectly true there is a provision in the Statute protecting bonâ fide purchasers against irregularities; but if, as occurred in two or three transactions, the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests Commissioners was at once acting for the Crown and a private purchaser, it does seem to me that is a matter which ought to be the subject of some investigation by a special Committee. In that view, it is impossible for me to accept the suggestion that a general Committee, extending the scope of the inquiry to England, could look satisfactorily into that matter. There must be a special Committee for this purpose. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to take a most reasonable view of this matter on the last occasion, will give an expression of assent to an opinion which I am confident is the opinion of the whole of the Scotch Members.

* MR. C. FRASER MACKINTOSH (Inverness-shire)
After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year, I am rather disappointed with the course of the debate this year. If a Scottish Committee is not granted, a great deal more will be heard about this subject. One word in illustration of these Crown rights. Many years ago, the foreshore of the island of Lewis, extending to several hundred miles, was sold for £400, but when the Harbour Commissioners of Stornoway wanted a small piece of ground to extend their harbour, they were asked to pay no less than £100 a-year. These are matters worthy of consideration, and I must say that a special Committee of Inquiry will be the most advantageous.

§ MR. JACKSON
The Government cannot consent to the granting of the special Committee the hon. Member is asking for. It will be in the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the autumn of last year, agreed to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the administration of Woods and Forests and Crown Revenues. That Committee of Inquiry will shortly be appointed—as soon as I can get the names. The question which the hon. Member has brought forward is one of which I quite admit the importance to the localities interested; nevertheless it is a question which may be inquired into by such a Committee as we propose, while at the same time other questions affecting other localities could be investigated. Now the administration of Woods and Forests affects not only Scotland, but Ireland, England, and Wales, and I have no doubt that the whole subject would be thoroughly considered. I may point out that there have been very few transactions of the kind which the hon. Member complains of. Of course the pledge will be kept that no more transactions of that kind should take place until the Committee had made its inquiries, and thoroughly investigated the subject. And I should expect that the hon. Member will admit that the Government have shown their desire to meet him as far as they possibly can. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I think, in an answer to a question, expressly stated that this subject could not be excluded from the inquiry; and I hope that on 1912 the Committee we shall have Scotch Members thoroughly conversant with the details, and who will take very good care that the question is thoroughly investigated. I do not think, Sir, I can say more than that. It is not advisable to have a separate Committee to deal with this question; and if the Government do what they propose, I believe it will prove satisfactory to all parties.

§ MR. HALDANE
Are we to understand that the Committee to be appointed will have within its scope inquiry into the validity of past transactions?

§ * MR. JACKSON
I should not like to answer that question offhand. The Committee would, of course, have power to deal with all questions of administration, and would have the power to observe not only action in the past, but what action should be taken in future.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I cannot help saying that the promise of the hon. Gentleman is eminently unsatisfactory. The law respecting these public rights in Scotland is perfectly different to what the law is in England, and no general Committee can give any attention to the matter, or arrive at any decision on the subject which will commend itself to the confidence of the people of Scotland.