§ Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the cottars of South Shawbost, Island of Lewis, who recently occupied a small portion of the farm at Dalbeg, were driven to take this course owing to the crofters on whose lands they were formerly located being unwilling to -continue any longer to bear such' additional burden on their holdings; and, seeing that these cottars are anxious to secure new holdings at fair rentals, will the Congested Districts Board communicate with Major Matheson, the proprietor of the island, on the subject, with a view to ascertain whether it is possible to break up some of the farms for crofter settlements?
§ Mr. URETwo schemes of settlement in the Island of Lewis, viz., Aignish and Battery Point have already been carried out with the co-operation of the proprietor, another scheme is under consideration, and he is perfectly aware that the Congested Districts Board are willing to consider any similar proposals which he may think fit to lay before them. No further communications are, therefore, necessary.
§ Mr. WEIRWith a view of preventing these poor unfortunate landless cottars being turned out on the moor as they have been, will arrangements be made speedily with the proprietor to bring about a settlement, and not to allow this state of things to go on for two or three years?
§ Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that John Maclean, aged 72, a cottar under the Act, to suit the convenience of his landlord, Earl Lovelace, has been evicted from his house at Annat, Torridon, Ross-shire, built by his father 90 years ago, and is entitled to compensation under Clauses 9 and 10 of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, will he state what steps the Crofters Commission propose to take to secure to Maclean his rights under the Act, seeing that Earl Lovelace demolished the house at the time the eviction took place, and so deprived the Commission of the power to determine the compensation due to Maclean, as set forth in Clause 10 of the Act?
§ Mr. UREThe Crofters' Commission are not precluded from entertaining an application from Maclean for compensation under the sections referred to by my hon. Friend, if otherwise competent, because of 216 the demolition of the house. I am assured, however, on behalf of the landlord, that he has always been willing to compensate Maclean, to whom he made an offer on 14th June.
§ Mr WEIRDoes he approve of this system of allowing Highland landlords to clear people out of their houses on to the roadside before compensation is arranged in accordance with the Act of Parliament, or, in other words, does he approve of the law of the land being overridden in this fashion by the landlord?
§ Mr. UREI gave the facts to my hon. Friend a few days ago, and according to the facts, as I know them, there has been no overriding of the law of the land.
§ Mr. WEIRDoes he not override the law of the land when he allows Lord Lovelace to turn this man out on the road without the compensation contribution having been arranged for the house, which this man should get in accordance with the Act of Parliament?
§ Mr. UREIf the hon. Member will recall the facts as I stated them, he will see that no injustice has been done or want of consideration shown.
§ Mr. WATTIf this man had been turned out without a proper arrangement of compensation, and there had been demolition, is that demolition not overriding the statute?