HC Deb 21 June 1892 vol 5 cc1738-44

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

Surely we should have some explanation as to what is to be done in relation to this matter. I understand that a Memorandum, which has not been delivered, should have been in the hands of Members this morning.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

The Bill authorises a loan of £150,000, which is to be made to the Government of British Columbia for the purposes of a colonisation scheme, mainly with reference to the Scotch crofters. The Prime Minister of British Columbia is at present in this country, and the Government of Columbia make themselves entirely responsible for the well-being of the colonists, to whom they look to develop the fisheries and other industries quite as much, and perhaps more than the agricultural industry. In order to assure the House of the way in which the scheme will be carried out, it is thought best that an agreement should be made between the Governments, and that that agreement should be laid on the Table of the House. I trust this general statement will satisfy the hon. Member that no risk is undertaken by this country, but that the whole financial risk rests with the Government of British Columbia, who at the same time make themselves responsible for the well-being of the colonists who may go out.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

What interest will the Columbian Government pay?

*MR. GOSCHEN

Three per cent.

MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I object strongly to this Bill, the object of which, I understand, is to remove the crofters from Scotland to a far-off country at considerable expense. As regards that portion of Scotland which the Bill will affect, I believe there is plenty of land for these people if you would only let them have it. It is preserved, however, for deer and other like purposes, and the object appears to be to drive these people away from the country. As a protest against giving a guarantee to the colony of Columbia, and as a protest against driving these people from the country, I beg to move that this Bill be read this day three months.

Mr. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

signified that he seconded the Amendment.

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

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

DR. CLARK

You lend money to the County Councils for home colonisation at three and one-eighth per cent., and as you lend money to the Colonies at three per cent. the inference is that you prefer foreign colonisation. What you are now doing will be of no avail; the only solution of the crofters' question is to let the people re-take the land their forefathers had. Since the Crofters' Commission reported about half a million acres of land have been turned into deer forests. The First Lord said the other night that no crofters have been removed in order to create deer forests, and that is perfectly true. The process has been first to remove the crofters in order that the land might be turned into grazing tracks. Subsequently these tracks so diminish in value that they will not carry half the sheep they used to do, because the drains become filled up, and because bracken, heather, and rushes displace the nutritive grasses. The sheep farmers then hand them over to the landlord, and they are then transformed into deer forests. Now, all that you propose to do is to permit our country to become a hunting ground, and to send the people away to Manitoba and British Columbia for the purpose of developing the resources of those colonies. I protest, as I have done many times already, against that as a means of solving a difficulty which can alone be solved by giving the people sufficient land on which they can live and thrive. I protest against that policy, and I hope that on the appeal to the country we shall have a Government which will pursue the policy of home as against foreign colonisation.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told the House with perfect truth that this is not the first occasion on which he has spoken on the question before us; but I cannot allow, even for a second or third time, the doctrine which he has advanced to go unchallenged. Those doctrines surely are to be addressed to persons, totally unacquainted with the conditions of agriculture in the Highlands, and the conditions under which alone it is possible for pastural or agricultural industry to thrive in the districts where sheep farms have existed, and where in many cases deer forests now exist. It is impossible over the greater part of the country devoted to sheep or deer that any human being, highlander or otherwise, can live and flourish as hon. Members suggest. Conditions of nature and of agriculture have rendered such a condition of things perfectly impossible. It is, I believe, possible in certain districts for persons with large capital to carry on pastoral pursuits with some degree of success; but the idea of turning the land into small holdings to be cultivated by the spade, on which men can live and flourish, is perfectly ridiculous in reference to the Highlands. It is quite true that in Sutherlandshire and some other districts there was a population which was moved down to the coast by the proprietors, but that has not been done with a view of profit, but solely with a view of preventing those recurring epidemics of starvation by which from time to time they were assailed. If you insist upon restoring to these Highland glens the people who once lived in them, you will again enter on the same economic conditions which have produced so much harm. I do not believe that any system of agriculture or State aid can by any possible contrivance convert these Highland valleys into places where Highland populations can live with comfort. Such experience as I have in the Highlands shows me that as the standard of comfort increases it is found more and more difficult to induce the people to live in these remote corries subject to all the rigours of the climate, which is hard on the people and harder on the crops they endeavour to raise. I do not think a greater crime can be committed than for those who have influence over the crofters to induce them not to move to homes of industry where they can really live and thrive, and to hold out before their eyes a prospect of change which, however much it might injure the landlord, would inflict far more serious injury upon the population. With regard to this particular Bill, I do not understand that the hon. Member desires to oppose it; but I think the hon. Member will admit that it would be impossible to carry out any conceivable system of migration which would benefit the fishermen of Lewis. The only conceivable alternative is to find some home across the sea, whore, still under the British flag, they can find more favourable conditions for pursuing the industry by which they have endeavoured so far to obtain a living at home. If the hon. Gentleman takes that view it is not necessary for us to further pursue the controversy with regard to emigration. Let it be understood that there are portions of the population that would be benefited by migration, and if that small concession is made I think the House may agree to this stage of the measure.

MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

This policy, so far as Her Majesty's Government has a policy on the subject, is perfectly well known to the country. I think, however, we have cause to complain that a Bill of this importance should have been rushed through the House at this late and inconvenient period of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the bad climate, and of other natural drawbacks; but it is surely a strong commentary upon that argument that hon. Members are frequently in a great hurry to bring their duties to a close in order that they may go to recuperate in that climate. It is held by some that crops cannot ripen in the Highlands, and in reference to this I may point out that we have never asserted that the quality of the soil of the Highlands approaches the soil of the Lowlands. We, however, desire that such advantages as nature has given should be availed of before any other remedy is tried. I have no desire to open up old sores; but if there is one lesson that has been taught by what has happened in the Highlands it is that there is only hope in reversion to the old mode of distribution of the land. The Government have not shown the slightest indication of reverting to that policy. The Royal Commission of 1883 made special provisions for putting the people back on the soil; and does the Government mean to say that these preparations would have been made if the land had been unfit? I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any resolutions from the crofters asking to be sent to British Columbia? They have received no such resolutions. Her Majesty's Government ought, therefore, to be ashamed of themselves to come forward at the end of the Session with such a proposal. A Special Committee was appointed to inquire into the question of emigration from the United Kingdom. The question, however, has been narrowed down to that of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in the attempt to rush the Bill through at this late stage of the Session. If he does, the Members for Scotland will take every opportunity of moving Amendments in Committee. We are deeply interested in the welfare of the people of the Highlands, and have no wish to see them handed over to the tender mercies of a Board of Emigration.

*(4.33.) MR. GOSCHEN

With regard to the remark of the hon. Member, that this Bill is being rushed through the House at the end of the Session, I think it is only respectful to the House and to the hon. Member himself that I should state that the reason why the Bill has been brought forward so late is that we have been awaiting the arrival of the Prime Minister of British Columbia, who, after the Bill passed the Colonial Legislature, was deputed to come to England in order to arrive at an agreement with the Home Government. It was impossible to finally settle the details before he came. I would further remind the hon. Member and the House that the scheme was strongly recommended by the Select Committee on Colonization, and that the House has been informed of its general character for a long time past.

MR. SUTHERLAND

Have the Committee had before them the Act passed by the Colonial Legislature?

*MR. GOSCHEN

They had the general scheme of emigration to British Columbia before them, but not the Act itself. Several hon. Members for Scotland have spoken of the crofters being sent to British Columbia, as if they were to be expatriated against their will. It is nothing of the kind. The facts are, that here is a thriving Colony anxious to receive settlers, and there are crofters anxious to go as settlers. No compulsion whatever is exercised in the matter. The Government of British Columbia have made themselves responsible for the welfare of the emigrants, and there is strong reason for hoping that this experiment, if carried out as has been arranged, will be successful. All that we now ask of the House is to authorize an advance. The House will afterwards have full opportunity of criticising the way in which the scheme has been carried out.

*(4.40.) SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

Granting, for the sake of argument, that these Scotch crofters are anxious to go to British Columbia, and that the Government of the Colony are anxious to receive them, may I ask why the Colonial Government should not themselves find the money for emigrating the crofters without calling upon the Home Government in the matter? I object to this loan to British Columbia, and especially at a lower rate of interest than is charged to the County Councils. Nor do I see what claim the Government of British Columbia can have on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom when they levy heavy import duties upon all products from the Mother Country. The result will be a repetition of previous experience in similar cases. In a few years we shall be called upon, for some reason or other, to forego the interest on the loan, and again, a few years later, we shall be asked to forego the capital. I hope the hon. Member will go to a Division on the question.

MR. PHILIPPS

I wish to—

MR. SPEAKER

Order! The hon. Member took off his hat in response to the question I put whether anyone seconded the Amendment. He has, therefore, lost his right of speaking.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 22.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.