§ This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:
- (a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and fisheries, "arbiter" shall be substituted for "arbitrator," "the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908," shall be substituted for "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," "easements" mean servitudes, and "small holding" means a small holding as defined in Section thirty-three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911:
- (b) Paragraph (b) of Section four and Sections six and eight of this Act shall not apply:
- (c) Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acre's.
§ Mr. ACLANDI beg to move, in paragraph (a) after "1908" ["the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908"], to insert the words "the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund 1467 shall be substituted for the Small Holdings Account."
This is formal. The Clause applies the Act to Scotland subject to certain modifications. The Amendment I move works in with the financial Clause which I hope to have the pleasure of moving in a few-moments. It simply provides, in its right place on what fund the expenses of the Bill shall fall in connection with Scotland.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. MORTONI beg to move, in paragraph (c) to omit the word "two" ["as if two thousand acres"], and insert instead the word "twenty."
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member's Amendment really goes too far beyond what the House understood on Second Reading. Perhaps he would be willing to propose some smaller figure than twenty for the purpose of his argument, and bring it within the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. MORTONMy difficulty is this. I tried to deal with this question on an Amendment to Clause 2,I think, and I was told then I should be out of order, but that I should be in order in discussing it on Clause 10.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not ruling the hon. Member out of order if he moves a smaller number, but it seems to me that it goes too far beyond the intention of the House on Second Reading to substitute "twenty" for "two." I think the hon. Member had better take another figure—either five, seven or eight.
§ Mr. MORTONI will move to insert the word "seven." It appears a very small thing to offer the whole of Scotland—only 2,000 acres to be dealt with in this way. The other evening the Committee decided that Wales should have 2,000 acres, and, so far as I know, that stands good. I do not object to giving 2,000 acres or more to Wales, but if Wales is entitled to 2,000 acres, surely Scotland is entitled to more. In the minds of most of us the proposal in the Bill is so small that it will do little good, but we are trying to make it better by increasing the number of acres to be dealt with. It would not necessarily follow that the Government should deal with as many acres as are put in the Bill, but it would have power to go to that number if necessary. I am afraid that in any case the Bill will not do much good. It does not propose enough to deal with the ques- 1468 tions that have to be met when the soldiers return from the battlefield. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree to allow Scotland to have a little more than 2,000 acres. The Scottish people are most anxious to see this question settled in the interest of the people, and to give an opportunity to some of those who have fought for us, and fortunately been able to return, an opportunity of getting a living.
§ Mr. ACLANDI am afraid that the only possible reply I can make is that after again referring this matter to the Government, and having it discussed in the Cabinet after the views expressed by hon. Members and others on the Second Reading, they came to the conclusion that it was not possible to extend the scope of the Bill or the area of land to be taken beyond what was then included in the Bill. The Committee decided to leave the number of acres in England and Wales at a total of 6,000, and I am afraid the same position would apply to the acreage obtained in Scotland. I am not authorised to accept any Amendments increasing the acreage to be acquired, and therefore the expense of acquisition. This money is to be provided during the War, and we are hoping very soon to acquire land and to set people upon it in England. I have no doubt Scotland is as anxious to do its best as England, but it has been decided that the limitation of the money provided for this purpose must be as it was settled when the Bill was introduced. In my opinion the more the number of nourishing colonies of this kind that could be established the better I should be pleased, but we must have some regard to the use of the national purse for this purpose during the continuation of the War.
§ Mr. MORTONWhat about Wales?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am not certain whether in Committee any alteration has been made with regard to the total number of acres. I do not think there has been any such alteration, and, if that is so, may I call attention to Clause 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), which provides that:
"The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Section shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres."
Now if the Committee have already agreed that, the total shall not exceed 6,000 acres, how can we now, in dealing 1469 only with Scotland, move an Amendment providing 7,000 acres for Scotland when the Committee has already agreed that not more than 6,000 acres shall be provided
§ Captain C. BATHURSTMay I explain to the right hon. Baronet that the 6,000 acres only applies to England and Wales, and it has no reference to the aggregate number?
§ The CHAIRMANThis is a point which has caused a little difficulty. Clause 1 says, "The total area shall not exceed six thousand acres."
§ The CHAIRMANClause 10, which applies the Bill to Scotland, provides in paragraph (c) that
"Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres."
I would like to know if those 2,000 acres are in addition to the 6,000?
§ Mr. ACLANDThis question was fully discussed when the Bill was being drafted. The idea was that if Clause 10 were to be left out, the Bill would only apply to England and Wales. Then comes Clause 10, which applies the Bill to Scotland, and when you come to the question of the area which is to apply to Scotland, instead of taking 6,000 acres, as you do in the case of England and Wales, you take the 2,000 acres, which was considered the right area in proportion. Therefore, the 2,000 acres for Scotland is additional to the 6,000 for England and Wales.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI think we ought to have more than 2,000 acres for Scotland, because the conditions are so very much different to what they are in England. In Scotland very much more land is necessary for economic cultivation, because you must have associated with every holding a certain amount of pasture, and you must have also a certain amount of rough grazing land. If you are going to include this rough ground in the 2,000 acres, the proportion suggested for Scotland would only provide for about ten people, and certainly not more than twenty people. The average acreage in Scotland is 188 per holding, and, consequently, 2,000 acres will be a very inadequate amount to make any experiment at all. The Departmental Committee, whose Report is the basis of this Bill, pointed out that when they suggested the acreage for a colony for mixed 1470 farming they did not intend to include any rough grazing pasture. If we now put in a limit of 2,000 acres as a limit for Scotland that will have to include pasture and rough grazing, and if that is so it would not provide one experiment of any value whatever in Scotland. I shall be very glad to support my hon. Friend's Amendment, leaving out "two" and inserting "seven," because that would give us a chance of having two colonies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will explain this point to those who are fixing this hard and fast line against any extension of this measure If he can say that this 2,000 acres will mean arable hind and not pasture, plus common grazing land, then it might be more acceptable.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIt seems to me rather extraordinary that while Wales is going to get 2,000 acres, Scotland is only going to get a similar amount, because Scotland has done far more than any other country in the United Kingdom in support of the War. The number of small-holding communities of late years has been enormously increased, and when we are asked in a Bill of this sort, which obviously is intended to give some means of subsistence upon the land for trained men after the War, to accept this miserable 2,000 acres it seems quite impossible. I can quite realise that my right hon. Friend is compelled to limit the amount to 2,000 acres, but I would ask him to promise to reconsider this Amendment. I think a very good point has been made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno), when he said that in Scotland the land is quite different from the fertile land of England, and if this 2,000 acres is to include, as I understand it must, all sorts of pasture, barren land, and moorland, the amount becomes quite insignificant. I would press my right hon. Friend to reconsider this proposal and see whether we cannot get our fair proportion of this State land in view of the fact that we have made far more sacrifices than Wales in the present time of crisis.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYI do not wish to take up a strong line as to whether Scotland should have more than 2,000 acres or not, but I wish to ask a question about the drafting of this measure. This Amendment raises the question as to whether the 2,000 acres for Scotland is or is not in addition to the beggarly 4,000 acres suggested for England and Wales. Clearly 1471 Clause 1 must apply to Scotland. If you look at the end of the Bill, you see the last Clause provides:
"This Act shall not extend to Ireland."
When you come to Clause 10, instead of proceeding in the usual way by saying that in the application of this Act to Scotland there shall be 2,000 acres appropriated for Scotland, the Clause says:
"This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications,"
and one of those modifications is
"Section one shall be read and construed as if 2,000 acres were substituted for 6,000 acres."
I should like to know if the 2,000 acres are really additional to the 6,000 acres. If it is not, then the deduction only leaves 4,000 acres.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe right hon. Gentleman could not have been present just now when I made that point perfectly clear. If there is any doubt about this point it must be put right. I have already stated that it was intended that 6,000 acres should be set apart for England and Wales and 2,000 acres for Scotland, making 8,000 acres altogether.
§ Captain BATHURSTI think this matter can be made perfectly clear by putting emphasis on the word "Board" in Clause 1. The Board referred to is clearly the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the total amount of land which may be acquired for the time being by that Board is 6,000 acres. Clause 10 relates to a different authority altogether, namely, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Clause states as regards that authority the area of 2,000 acres shall be substituted for 6,000 acres. I think that explains the whole matter.
§ Commander WEDGWOODIt seems to me that hon. Members are always ready to support every sectional attempt from Ireland or Wales or Scotland, and no one ever represents the English taxpayer, except perhaps myself and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Everybody who has spoken about this Bill remarks what a little Bill it is. It is only 6,000 acres for England, Scotland, and Wales, and now there are 2,000 extra for Scotland. It is not the acreage that is of the slightest importance to us. What is of importance 1472 to us is how much it is going xo cost, and how much is coming out of our pockets for Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) says that he wants more than 2,000 acres, and that it is not fair that you should decide between England, Scotland, and Wales, on an acreage basis. The question is, what proportion of the money to be voted by Parliament should be allotted to the three countries? From that point of view, I sympathise to a certain extent with Scottish Members, but at the same time unless we English Members take up a firm attitude and say that the English taxpayers are not going to be robbed indefinitely—
§ Mr. MOLTENOYou are not being robbed!
§ Commander WEDGWOODYes we are, because this is for the benefit of the landowners!
§ Mr. MOLTENOYou will probably get it for nothing!
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps hon. Members will be good eonugh to address me.
§ Commander WEDGWOODIf this land in Scotland is being given for nothing, then these 2,000 acres are additional, and that is all the more reason why this Amendment should not be pressed; or, if it is pressed, why it should be resisted. There were 12,000 acres given the other day by the Duke of Sutherland. That is probably in addition to these 7,000 acres. Yet the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton), not content with these 12,000 acres, is asking for 7,000 acres more at the expense of the English taxpayer. I resent this grasping spirit on the part of Scottish Members. I am perfectly acquainted with the case that they make, but it is always possible to put up an extra case why one's own particular district should have more than another district. In this case, I hope the Board of Agriculture will stand firm, and resist this pressure for the wasteful expenditure of public money.
§ Mr. AINSWORTHI would like to remind the Committee that in these international matters Scottish and Irish questions, as a rule, are better understood by Scotsmen and Irishmen, and if hon. Members can master that fact perhaps they will wait before suggesting that a small Bill of this kind is to be used as a means of getting money out of the English taxpayer. We do not want to do that in any way whatever. We only want to give my right 1473 hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture every facility for dealing with these demands in a fair and reasonable way. I would like to impress upon my hon. Friend (Commander Wedgwood) that the Scotsmen who are fighting for us are doing extraordinarily well, and to ask him if he is really going to deny them the opportunity of settling on the land when the War is over. Knowing the hon. Member as I do, I am quite certain that we shall not hear that argument from him again. Knowing the value of the Scottish soldier, and especially of the Highland soldier, does he mean to say that it would not be a good thing if we could have more of them The only way to have more of them is to have a larger population on the land than we have to-day. The hon. Member sympathises with me as much as anybody else. This is a very small thing, and for goodness sake let us be allowed to try the experiment of making it easier for men to settle on the land and so increase the production of the land and the population on the land, and maintain the British Empire.
The amount of land which it is proposed to take for Scotland is 2,000 acres, the size of an ordinary farm. Practically, every Scottish farm includes a large proportion of hill land which is used for grazing. You must deal with the grazing land at the same time as you deal with the arable land, and, if my right hon. Friend does not know how to deal with the grazing land, I will tell him. We are told that we are short of timber to-day, and shall be shorter next week, and it is a great question whether we shall be able in the future to rely upon the same supplies from other countries as we are getting to-day. Afforestation is one of the great questions which he has got to consider. If he is going to take over an ordinary farm in Scotland it very frequently includes a quantity of hill land, and he will have to decide whit to do with it. The smallholders will be able to use a portion of it for mountain grazing, but the rest of it will have to be planted, and I warn my right hon. Friend that he is on the threshold of a great question. Of course, I quite understand it is alleged that this may be made use of by landowners to get rid of unsaleable property, but that is not the case at all. We have had this gift from one of the largest landowners in Scotland. Everybody hopes it will result in a successful experiment on a much larger scale than the Government are now proposing, and I would suggest 1474 that it would be a good thing if the Board of Agriculture in Scotland were empowered to send out a circular to every landowner in Scotland, ascertaining what land they can offer to the Government for the purposes of this experiment, and, if the experiment is successful, for the purpose of dealing with the subject on a wholesale scale. I would like to say why the present Small Holdings Act has proved a failure. Unfortunately, this principle has been accepted by all concerned. Assuming the creation of small holdings is a damage to the rest of the property, that is a claim on behalf of the present proprietors against the Government.
§ The CHAIRMANThat really does not arise on this Amendment, and we cannot have a general discussion on the land question.
§ Commander WEDGWOODIs it not in order to discuss the operation of the present Small Holdings Act in Scotland in order to show that this proposal would be valueless in Scotland?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is certainly not in order to enter upon a general discussion of the previous Act of Parliament. The question here is whether 2,000 or 7,000 acres are to be allotted to Scotland.
§ Mr. AINSWORTHI shall certainly bow to your ruling, but I venture most respectfully to point out that the difficulty in the way of the present Act is one which will stand in the way of all legislation of the same kind. I can only say that I think all landowners at the present moment would be quite willing to act on the same lines as the duke and to make the experiment which the Government proposes as easy as possible. I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way not only to increase the amount of land, but to increase the powers of the Board of Agriculture to turn whatever land they may secure to the best possible advantage.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am afraid that I do not quite understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I understood him to say that the present Small Holdings Act in Scotland was not going to work, and that unless something was done which was not proposed to be done by the Government the same objection would apply to the present Bill. Under those circumstances, it is evident it is no use extending the 2,000 acres, and what ought to be done is to omit the 1475 Clause altogether. Apparently, according to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great authority on Scottish matters, this sort of thing is not successful in Scotland. I hope that the Government are going to stand firm by their original proposal. The whole thing is an experiment, and I think it will be disastrous. I do not think we ought to increase the amount of land until we have found out whether the experiment is going to be successful or not. It would be perfectly easy, after the Bill had been tried, to bring in an amending Bill increasing the amount of land to be given to Scotland. It has been stated that land in Scotland is different from land in England. It is in parts of Scotland, but not in all parts of Scotland. The lowlands are pretty much the same. In some places it is rather better land; the soil is better, and it yields better crops. According to the present proposal, Wales is to get 2,000 acres, England 4,000, and Scotland 7,000. Why on earth is Scotland to get more than England?
§ Commander WEDGWOODBecause their landowners are more grasping.
§ Mr. MOLTENOIt is necessary for the success of the experiment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYPersonally, I do not think you are going to have any successful experiment in the deer forests near Athol. These things can only be possible in, shall I say, a more habitable climate. But in any case this is an experiment, and I really cannot see why the whole size of the experiment should be altered, by giving to Scotland a larger amount than, nearly double, that given to England. An hon. and gallant Member opposite ventured to say something about economy. I really think that sometimes we ought to think about economy. The Chancellor told us a short time ago that the National Debt would amount to £3,440,000,000 at the end of next March. I really think that in those circumstances we ought to go on a little more quietly, and not be so anxious to spend money. I can understand the attitude of Scottish Members, because the bulk of this comes to England, but at the present time a very large sum of money has to be found in England, and I hope the Government will go a little easy for the moment, and will not accede to the Amendment.
§ Mr. RAFFANI should like to ask the Lord Advocate to explain to the Com- 1476 mittee what the plans of the Government are with regard to Scotland under this Bill. I think everything depends upon that. A number of my Friends view all experiments of this kind with a good deal of misgiving, not because we do not desire, like the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth), to find occupation on the land for returned soldiers who desire it, but because we do not think this is the best method of approaching that question. We have, to some extent, been reconciled to allowing this experiment in England to go on without opposition because we have been informed that no land is to be purchased, that the land is to be hired, and that landowners in England have come forward and have offered land on extremely favourable terms. I believe that in some cases they have given it, but in any case it has been offered on extremely favourable terms. But the Government have in mind the places and counties in England where these colonies are to be set up, and it is because the experiment is a restricted and definite experiment that we are not opposing it strongly. I should like to be informed whether the Government have similar plans with regard to Scotland, and, if so, where are they? Unless that question is answered it is utterly impossible for the Committee to divide on this question. The remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) are extremely pertinent to this matter. If it is intended to set up only one colony in Scotland, and I presume it is to be only one, I should like information as to that.
I know my hon. Friend desires to have as many acres as the Government will give him, but no one knows better than he does that it depends entirely upon the part of Scotland in which this colony is to be set up as to whether 2,000 or 7,000 acres is the appropriate acreage available. If you are to have the fertile lands in the Lowlands you want a scheme comparable to the experiment in England, and if that experiment is to be restricted no doubt it would be fair to say that 2,000 acres in the Lowlands would be comparable to 2,000 acres in the area which the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Bathurst) is going to endeavour to supervise in England. If you are going to have your colony, and it is to be an experiment that will be at all useful, in the proximity of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, or Aberdeen, with intensive culture with the object of ascertaining what can be done in the 1477 direction of market gardening, then I imagine it would not be said that 2,000 acres are not insufficient in comparison with England. If you are to go to Sutherland, to experiment in the Highlands, and if you are going to try there to take in land now used for deer, and to endeavour to make it useful for sheep, of course that is impossible. I do, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Government to be frank with the House. Let them tell us whether they have considered this question at all. Have they made plans with regard to Scotland; if so, what are those plans? Are there to be one, two, or three colonies, and have they to be set up in the Lowlands or in the Highlands? If we receive answers to these questions, we shall be able to vote with intelligence, but, if not, it will be utterly impossible for the Committee to realise when they go into the Division Lobby what is really the question upon which the Division takes place.
§ Colonel GREIGThe hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has touched the spot, while an hon. Gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago protested against the number of acres allotted to Scotland being more than 2,000. I presume the amount of 6,000 allotted to England and Wales is really based on some estimate of cost. That estimate of cost naturally in England or in Wales would probably amount to a considerable sum. If we are to come to questions of cost, surely in Scotland we are entitled not to be judged by the number of acres, but by the estimate of the cost. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicated, if you acquire land in the Highlands, where very largely these colonies may be of use, the amount of money necessary to buy, or to acquire by lease or otherwise, the 6,000 acres in England and Wales would acquire at least 7,000 acres in Scotland—[An HON. MF.MHER: "Twenty thousand!"]—and probably 20,000 acres. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) says that this is a small Bill, but that it contains a germ of much future legislation, if it is allowed to go on. With his usual attitude against all legislation, or any new ideas whatever, he wants to limit it. Let me tell him that we do not regard this as a very fertile experiment, but that we do regard it as a germ, and if it is going to have any considerable consequences in Scotland—whether it wall have the same in England we do not know—but in Scotland I am perfectly certain 1478 I am speaking for the bulk, if not for the whole, of Scottish Members when I say that we are determined that the returning soldiers and sailors from the front shall have their share of the land in Scotland in the future; and, that secondly, we will not confine it to them alone. There are many working at home to-day who have been doing their share in the War, and we want to see an agricultural population planted on the land in Scotland again. That is what we are out for. We do not support this Bill because we think it will ameliorate conditions as we would wish it to do, but because we see a gleam of hope for the future, some avenue by which we may add to the Act, which I do not think has been a failure, because it has established security of tenure at a fair rent—I refer to the Small Landholders Act, the only defect regarding which seems to some of us to be the amount of compensation, which is paid unfairly and inadequately. I ask the Government to reconsider this from the point of view of cost, and to see that in Scotland we shall have the 7,000 acres asked for in this Amendment, as against the 6,000 in England and Wales.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)I hope I shall never be found lacking in support of my Scottish colleagues whenever they put forward any reasonable demand that can be conceded, but I am afraid that the answer to be made to this Amendment is to be found in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) said when he told the Committee that his hands are tied. So are mine. It is quite impossible, therefore, I am afraid, to accept the Amendment which has been moved. We have certain consolation, however, even if that Amendment is not accepted. In the first place, I think it is relevant to remember that this Bill, as has been pointed out, is in the nature of an experiment. If it succeeds, then the demand for widening the area which is to be the subject of experiment can be much more effectively, urgently, and cogently made after it has been demonstrated that the experiment is successful. Apart from that, honestly I do not think we fare so very badly compared with our English friends on this side of the Border. The share of England is 4,000 acres, as I understand the present situation. We get 2,000 acres in Scotland. I do not at all forget the question of cost, but so far as the extent or area is concerned, we get half the area they 1479 get on this side of the Border, and that for a population which, if I remember aright, is something like one-seventh. That is, primâ facie, not a very bad bargain so far as this experimental Bill is concerned, and when we further remember that we have the very great advantage of having recently secured the most munificent gift in Scotland made by the Duke of Sutherland for purposes germane to the purposes of this Bill, I think we shall agree that the situation after this Bill has become law will not be at all a bad situation as compared with that in England.
With regard to the locality of the land, and the persons who are to be placed on it, I apprehend that these matters will be decided by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and I rather think that that Board would be very much better able to select the proper area and the proper persons to place on the land than anyone else, because their familiarity with the surroundings and the conditions will no doubt be useful when dealing with what, after all, is a purely administrative matter. While I should be very happy, therefore, if the area allotted were larger, nevertheless in the circumstances in which the Committee find themselves I am afraid the Government will have no option but to refuse to accept the Amendment which has been moved.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. WILKIEI simply desire in a word to support my hon. Friend's Amendment. I have more than once pointed out to the House that by Nature's Law designed Scotland is the northern part of this island. We have suffered in the past, and we suffer now, and if we adopt the policy of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) we are killing the experiment before it starts, by its insufficiency. It becomes a complete farce at the start, to make, especially in Scotland, such a proposal on such a small number of acres. The Committee ought to remember that Scotland has suffered bitterly in the past through its land laws, and the sooner they are altered, either by this or any other means, the better it will be for the Island as a whole. As other speakers have said, we have sent from Scotland, in proportion to our population, more men to defend the Empire than any other part of it. I think, as has been said to-day, that if they are fit to fight they are fit to vote. If they are fit to fight for their land they are en- 1480 titled to have their share of it. It ought to be seen to that they get a fairer chance in the future than ever they have had in the past. I am neither a landlord nor an expert on these questions like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Raffan). I hope that some of his questions will be answered. Notwithstanding the poor consolation we received from the Lord Advocate, we know he is really with us, but that he is tied up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I would urge the: Government even yet to reconsider the matter in the best interests of the whole country.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEI am much impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). I think he struck the right note. We have got land in Scotland of varying productivity. The question of acreage is not nearly so important as the question of the quality of the land. I agree with what has been said about this Bill being a farce. It seems to me to be a sorry farce and worse, because it is mocking at the interests of gallant men. We are told that this is an experiment. If that is so, we ought to have a definite principle of action and should not in an important matter like this-go forward by a process of fumbling experimentation from one blunder to another. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig) said that he saw a gleam of hope for Scotland in this Bill. If there is a gleam, I cannot sec more than a distant shadow of it. As regards previous Scottish legislation, about which he said the one defect had been that we were burdened by excessive compensation for matters where no compensation should have been given, I agree that that is a defect, but not the only defect of past Scottish legislation. The defects have been much wider. If you go back over the various Land Acts you find the same defects that you find in this Bill. What we have been doing in Scotland is this: We have been wondering where we could find land for the people who have been unjustly kept from the land. What did we do? Instead of trying, to get the best land, which is now being improperly used, and forcing it into use, we go and buy the very worst land. We go to the remote deer forests and purchase land in unfertile little places and settle men where they are just able to live. That has been the principle of the settlement of the people on the land in Scotland. We have been trying to plant 1481 them on land so unfertile and in such remote places that they could not possibly yield a decent return under modern conditions. Not only that, but in order to do it we first let it at a rent. I know you may say that the rent is small, but you must consider the quality of the land. If you consider the rent that is taken as compared with the rental at which it was rated before it was taken, you find that the price is far too high. In order to start the man on the land you need to embark capital here and there, to build houses, to put up fences, and to bring various things into order. All that means great expenditure of public money. If you look at it from the point of view of a business transaction—mind you, that is the true basis of action—you cannot say that these settlements of the people on the land have failed. I do not believe that there is a single private capitalist in this House or elsewhere who would put his money out on that basis. I want the Committee to see the result in Scotland of the development of this sort of thing. The Lord Advocate has said that if this is a success it will be extended. I should like to know what is the test of success.
§ Commander WEDGWOODThe price paid for the land.
Mr. WHITEIs the test to be that the men settled on the land can develop it, or is it to be that the thing is really a commercial success? If it is not a commercial success, the more you extend on that system the more you will have taken from the taxpayers, the more you will have given to the landlord, and the more you will have given to maintain agriculture which ought to maintain the people. What you ought to do in Scotland is to pursue a very different path. You ought to see what is the best land which is not being used and which ought to be used. You should have your eye on that land, and to see that it is not being held up against you, and you ought to bring economic pressure to bear on those who are holding up good land in Scotland without using it in order to make that land available for our soldiers and sailors. If you do that on fair terms, the experiment will prove a success. I can speak with regard to some of the larger towns in Scotland, and particularly with regard to Glasgow, a Division of which I have the honour to represent. Round about Glasgow you have hundreds 1482 of acres of land. They call it agricultural land, but it is far from producing anything. If that were land used for small holdings it would be producing three or four times as much as it is producing now. That land is simply being held up in order that the owners may secure a greater price for building purposes. That is the sort of land you ought to bring in. You ought to set your minds not upon the-poorer land but upon the better land. I support any proposal which will make more land available for our soldiers and sailors; and not only for them, but for our people as a whole, for they are bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. This whole experiment is in real danger of being wrecked on the same rock that has wrecked our previous experiments—namely, that we go to the worst land to which we can go and which we can offer people, instead of maintaining the fundamental rights of the people to the land and trying to settle them upon it and obtaining the best land that can be bought.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI very largely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White), but at the same time I am not quite sure from his speech whether he is in favour of the Amendment or of the Government proposal in the Bill.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI hope, however, to have the mystery solved when a Division is taken. I am very glad that we have two distinguished Scottish Members on the Front Bench besides the Lord Advocate. We have the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) and the Prime Minister, whose attention has been temporarily diverted to Ireland. I hope, with such a representation of Scotland, that the Government will be able to give some better reply to the arguments that have been adduced in the course of the Debate than the Lord Advocate up to the present has been able to vouchsafe to the Committee. I rather think the Lord Advocate has misinterpreted the effect of this paragraph. His argument was based throughout on the assumption that, if this proposal is passed, for every 6,000 acres which are acquired in England and Wales there must be 7,000 acres acquired in Scotland.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThen the great bulk of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground, because all the argument based on the relative proportions which should go to the two countries is quite irrelevant. If there is no question of the relative proportions to be acquired at any one time in the two countries, then the greater part of the Lord Advocate's argument goes. However, the main point made by hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate is that when we are dealing with the question of land as between the two countries it is not the question of the extent, but the question of the value which must be taken into consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division that if we are to have these small-holdings experiments in Scotland they will be made with far greater chances of success on good land and near the great markets which are offered by the larger cities. Up to the present Scotland has very largely suffered from the failure of the authorities to make any real experiments under such favourable conditions. We have not heard from the Lord Advocate any statement of the policy by the Board of Agriculture. The only guidance we have had up to the present in regard to agricultural policy in Scotland was contained in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture last Wednesday. On that occasion he referred to various experiments which were in contemplation. There was one experiment in Sutherlandshire, another in Ross-shire, and a third in Aberdeen shire. In every one of those cases a larger area was involved than the limit which is contained in this Bill, to which the Government now adhere. There was no reference whatever to any attempt to settle colonies of small holders in the better land in the South. Unless the Lord Advocate is prepared to give us an assurance that in carrying out the proposals of this Bill the Board of Agriculture contemplate colonies being settled in the South, where this limit can be only fairly applicable—the Lord Advocate has stated he is not in a position to give any such undertaking—
§ Mr. MUNRONo one knows better than my hon. Friend that I do not represent the Board of Agriculture in this House, and that I cannot bind it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIn these circumstances we are not conducting this Debate under such conditions as to enable the Committee to come to a rational decision. The Lord Advocate tells us that he does not represent the Board of Agriculture in this House, and consequently cannot speak for it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy terminology may be somewhat inexact. I leave it to the Lord Advocate's greater accuracy. If the Lord Advocate comes to represent the Board of Agriculture in this Debate, he ought to be able to speak on behalf of it and to bind it. If he cannot; do that he is useless from the point of view of the decision of the Committee. We must insist upon having this question thrashed out and decided by the Committee in the presence of the Secretary for Scotland, who alone can bind the Board of Agriculture. In his absence and having regard to the speech made by the Lord Advocate, I must beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe hon. Member knows perfectly well that this is, after all, a very small matter, and, so far as I can see, the undertakings we have had on the subject from the Board of Agriculture and from those representing Scotland are ample for the purpose. I do not know what the Secretary for Scotland would say if he were here any more than that they have arranged that the 3,000 acres shall be given, and it is impossible now to ask that there should be any alteration in the extent of the experiment. It is very unnecessary to ask the House to report Progress, and I hope the Motion will not be pressed.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe Board of Agriculture for England has naturally been in communication from time to time with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on this matter, and, as far as I know, this is the position: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland has held—and it will be for Scottish Members to say whether they were right or wrong—that until they get the authorisation of Parliament by this Bill it was not for them to lay down schemes or plans, or to make up their minds as to exactly what kind of land they should get and so on. They thought it better to get the Parliamentary sanction first and to take action afterwards. But, of course, 1485 their desire to have Scotland included in the Bill indicates that they were in agreement with the policy on which the Bill was based, which was that the land to be obtained should under every and all circumstances be good land. That is the thing which is brought out over and over again in the Report of the Committee. Nothing but land of the very best quality gives the small holder a real chance.
§ The CHAIRMANWe must not go back to the discussion of the Amendment till we have disposed of the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. ACLANDI thought the Motion to report Progress was rather because it was not possible for any Minister to say what was the policy of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which has to administer this Bill. I was doing my best to say what I knew of the policy of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland as one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill.
§ Mr. AINSWORTHI am exceedingly pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he proposes that in Scotland only good land shall be acquired.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the point that is out of order. We are not now on the Amendment, but on the Question to report Progress.
§ Mr. AINSWORTHWill my right hon. Friend say, supposing the Bill is passed as an experimental Bill, that the Government and the Board of Agriculture, and so forth, will immediately proceed to put it into practice?
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 159.
1487| Division No. 52.] | AYES. | [6.19 p.m. |
| Anderson, W. C. | Jowett, Frederick William | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Keating, Matthew | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Bryce, John Annan | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Snowden, Philip |
| Dalziel. Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lundon, Thomas | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Field, William | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Malley, William | Mr. Pringle and Mr. Raffan |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Outhwaite, R. L. | |
| NOES | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Cowan, William Henry | Hendry, Denis S. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crew) | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Craik, Sir Henry | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hewart, Gordon |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hill, James (Bradford, C.) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Hodge, John |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Dickinson, Rt. Hen. Willoughby H. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fell, Arthur | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Hunt, Major Rowland |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Finlay. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Flannery, Sir J, Fortescue | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Fletcher, John Samuel | Jones, Lief (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Bird, Alfred | Fester, Philip Staveley | Jones, William: S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Bliss, Joseph | Galbraith, Samuel | King, Joseph |
| Bowerman, Rt. Non. C. W. | Glanville, Harold James | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford |
| Boyton, James | Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Butcher, John George | Greig, Colonel James William | Lewis, Rt. Hen. John Herbert |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Gretton, John | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Campion, W. ft. | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M (Falk. B'ghs) |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Chambers, James | Hardy, Rt. Hen. Lawrence | Manfiefd, Harry |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Ceates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth |
| Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Callings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Haslam, Lewis | Morgan, George Hay |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Robinson, Sidney | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Rowlands, James | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| O'Grady, James | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Wardle, G. J. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Weston, John W. |
| Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Stanier, Captain Beville | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Stewart, Gershom | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Swift, Rigby | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thomas-Stanford, Charles | Yate, Colonel C. B. |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Younger, Sir George |
| Radford, Sir George Heynes | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Tickler, T. G. | |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Touche, George Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H. | Toulmin, Sir George | Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Valentia. Viscount | |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI am quite in the dark as to what is the intent of this Clause as regards Scotland. We have been told that the Bill is entirely experimental and that we are going to conduct through its machinery an experiment. What is this particular experiment that they are going to conduct in Scotland? Do they intend to show that Scotsmen can earn a living from their native soil? Surely it requires no Bill to determine that. We know they can do it if they have an opportunity of getting the soil. We know these men can go to Canada and Australia, and to the uttermost ends of the earth and make a living from the land under the most difficult conditions. Then for what particular purpose are these thousands of acres to be provided in Scotland. We have not really had one word on that subject. I think that the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Chief Secretary for Scotland, who is not here to reply for the Board of Agriculture, have taken the right line, and regard this Bill with absolute contempt, so far as Scotland is concerned. I am sure it will be regarded in that way in Scotland and by Scotsmen. Surely it is about time we should come to an end of these humbugging methods of dealing with Scotland and the Scottish land question. We have heard to-day the hon. Baronet the Member for Argyllshire speaking in support of this measure, and saying that when the Scottish soldier returned he was going to have a share in his native heath, and so on. But we have heard that for many a day. Only yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who has been travelling through Argyllshire. He said what particularly struck him was that though he could see it 1488 was a splendid grazing country, that there was plenty of grass, and fine farmsteads, the land had been turned over into a deer forest, and was held by a South African millionaire. The homesteads were empty, and that was the condition over tens of thousands of acres in that part of Argyllshire. What an absurd and grotesque thing it is to suggest dealing with the land question and settling the Scottish soldier on the soil of Scotland by this, ridiculous measure of some two or seven thousand acres. As the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow said, the true solution of the Scottish land question is such a setting up of economic forces as would drive out from the country-side the men who are holding vast territories for the raising of deer, and unlocking the land round about the cities which, to my mind, is the land on which colonies should be placed. I think this Clause, with the application of this ridiculous measure to Scotland, may well be regarded with contempt. I think the smaller the area dealt with the better. Scotland is to be congratulated on only having 2,000 acres, because, as has been said in various quarters of the House, the thing is a farce, and the more you limit it the better for the country to which you apply it. Consequently I shall not support the Amendment for increasing the area, because I do not desire to be any party to the humbugging of the people of Scotland that this is any solution of the problem, and least of all to trying to delude the Scotsmen who are fighting for their country at the present time into believing that this is a measure by which, when they return, they will have some share in the country for which they have fought. I think this is a reform which should be held over until the Scotsmen do return from the front, because then they will 1489 settle it. The soldiers will solve the problem in Scotland, in England, and in Wales, and in a very different way than is adumbrated in this measure.
§ Captain BATHURSTSome of our Scottish friends have altogether failed to realise the real scope and intention of this Bill. It only deals with a very small and, as I hope, an almost infinitesimal portion of the scheme for land settlement of ex-Service men framed by the Departmental Committee who sat to consider this subject last year. The hon. Member who has just spoken asked what was the meaning of the term "experiment" as applied to this Bill. The experiment that is being tried in connection with this Bill is that of associating these small holders in colonies which will enable them to settle much more closely than they otherwise would do, both for economic and for social purposes, and to put to the best possible advantage the system of co-operation in all departments of agricultural industry. For my part, I am rather jealous of Scotland, because she stands to-day in an infinitely better position than any part of the United Kingdom in this respect. A generous landowner—and I should have thought perhaps it was rather unfortunate that Scottish Members should have indulged in diatribes against landlordism just at this particular moment—a generous Scottish landowner has provided in one gift no less than 14,000 acres.
§ Commander WEDGWOODWhat is it worth?
§ Captain BATHURSTThis Bill is going to give Scotland 2,000 acres, as compared with the English 4,000 all told. Scotland thus starts with 16,000 acres, which is not a bad beginning; and I hope and believe that the excellent example of the Duke of Sutherland will be followed by many other landlords, not only in Scotland but in England. Now I come to what is really the scheme itself, and not merely this small portion of it. The scheme is not going to be carried out by this Bill, which is merely intended as an experiment in colonies, but, as the Duke of Sutherland has very properly interpreted it, by means of gifts on the part of landowners; and also by means of small holdings set up by the county councils in England and Wales, and by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, which corresponds in this respect to the county councils in this country. But I look to these public authorities to provide the greater part of the land which 1490 will be required, as I hope, for the settlement upon British soil of those men who have fought so gallantly for us. This is a very small and almost insignificant experiment. Do give this little experiment a chance. I should have thought if hon. Gentlemen wanted to report Progress, owing to the absence of any particular Minister, it ought to have been in regard to the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have any complaint to make it is in regard to his absence—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The hon. and gallant Member is going away from the Amendment. The Amendment is not on the merits of the. Bill.
§ Captain BATHURSTI will explain how relevant my remark was. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been present, it might have been pointed out, and with some force, that 2,000 acres in Scotland is not necessarily equivalent to 2,000 acres in England, and the proper way to arrive at that equivalent would have been to have added a proviso, as has been added in the case of a certain Small Holdings Bill, to the effect that the equivalent in value of these 2,000 acres should be taken by Scotland either in area or in money. But what is contemplated by this Bill is a close settlement, a close community which will enjoy all those economic and social conditions which close settlement involves. Therefore, it is desirable that good land should be found. That good land is more likely to be found in the Lowlands of Scotland than in that somewhat poverty-stricken area in which some of my hon. Friends seem to hope to see the ex-Service men put, and I hope, to the extent of 2,000 acres, it will be found in the Lowlands of Scotland, where really good land is to be obtained, and where there is a chance of making a real living. I hope hon. Gentlemen from Scotland will not press their Amendment and so stand the chance of wrecking what would be a really very good experiment.
§ Commander WEDGWOODI was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, and I cannot think why it was not delivered from the Front Bench here. The Secretary for Scotland was here, and it would have been more to the point if a declaration of importance as to the land question in Scotland had been made by a responsible person from the Front Bench. But I do resent one of the basic arguments 1491 which the hon. and gallant Member brings forward. In the first place, while every one of us is deeply grateful for the patriotism and generosity of the Duke of Sutherland in presenting this land to the country, there is another side to the matter. If you were developing a seaside resort you would give a public park. If you were developing an estate in Scotland you would give a piece of land in order that the Government might carry out experiments which are beneficial to the whole area. It is not altogether true that there is only altruism in these gifts. I am not in any way deprecating the patriotism of the Duke of Sutherland in making this gift, but there is also the other side. The second thing we have to resent is this, that those who are opposed to this Bill as a futile waste of public money are said to be wronging and betraying and depriving the men in the trenches. I have seen a good deal of the men in the trenches—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to the Second or Third Reading of this Bill. This is a matter of the area of land.
§ Commander WEDGWOODWith all respect, Sir, I would point out that this argument has been used again and again, namely, that we have been trying to prevent the men in the trenches getting back to the land in Scotland. If I cannot reply to that argument here, I shall consider that it has gone by the board. I shall do my best to show that so far from being unpatriotic, we are desirous of helping them. Reference has been made to the Verney Report—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is now referring to the Verney Report. It is not relevant to this Amendment.
§ Commander WEDGWOODI am in rather a difficulty if I am not to be allowed to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Wiltshire. He claimed this Committee as a basis for this Bill. He said that in the Verney Committee's Report colonies with small holdings were suggested.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have called the hon. and gallant Member to order.
§ Commander WEDGWOODNot on that question.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI called him generally to order.
§ Commander WEDGWOODI will not, deal with this question any further except to state that the Verney Committee contained a great deal that the hon. and gallant Member did not mention, and it is because of those parts which he did not mention, which are embodied in this Bill— I will deal with them later on—that I object to the Bill. It is all very well for people supporting the Bill to say it is to save the soldiers. As a matter of fact, what they want is not to save the soldier, but to train him up as an agricultural labourer, at 18s. a week. I apologise for my discursion; it was solely called forth by the hon. and gallant Member's speech. The question is whether we are to have 2,000 or 7,000 acres in Scotland. We have already had offered 2,000 acres, and we are told they want 7,000 more. We are told that the Duke of Sutherland is ready to give more. To say that Scotland is to have 20,000 acres and England only 4,000 acres is, to my mind, an injustice to England. The Scottish Members say that the Scottish soldiers are the finest. Everyone who knows the English troops knows that they are the best in the Army, and if it is a question of rewarding fighting men, we do deserve to have the same treatment as Scotland. Therefore, all the arguments brought forward in this Debate for the increase from 2,000 to 7,000 acres fall to the ground. If 2,000 acres is bad, 7,000 is worse, and, if not, there is no reason why Scotland should be treated more generously than England.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am greatly surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should think that Scotland is treated generously. We have had no evidence of the generous treatment to which he refers. We Scotsmen are, after all, whatever the hon. Member for Wiltshire may think, most interested in what is going to be done in Scotland with Scottish land for Scottish soldiers. It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that the Duke of Sutherland has given from 12,000 to 14,000 acres. Whichever figure it is it is a generous gift, and we have been told by the Secretary for Scotland what is going to be done with it. The land is to be divided into small holdings, and the soldiers on those holdings are to engage in working the small holdings plus the work of afforestation which is to be carried on also on that estate. That would be a very valuable experience, not only 1493 for the people of Scotland but far others in Britain who are interested in experiments of that kind. What we desire to know, before coming to a decision on this point, is what the Government propose to do with these 2,000 acres of land. Obviously 2,000 acres of land can only be divided into a matter of from seventy-five to 100 small holdings. If it is devoted to small holdings alone, that is the extent of the experiment. The question has been asked—and it is a legitimate question which we Scotsmen are entitled to have answered—are these seventy-five or 100 holdings to be adjacent to our large towns or away from them, because obviously that will determine the question what is to be done upon those holdings? If they are near a central market, adjacent to large towns, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paisley, and Dundec, the acreage required will be very much smaller for each individual soldier employed. Therefore the number of men who can be settled in this way will be largely determined by the situation of the land. Members of the House who have opposed us have really done so under a misapprehension. What we want is some assurance on the point from some responsible member of the Government. The Scottish Secretary has been standing within the last quarter of an hour behind the Speaker's Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat question has been disposed of.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe question whether we are entitled to the information has not been disposed of. We must have the actual scheme. I am not going back on the question which has been already before you, but we are determined, whether it is 2,000 or 7,000 acres, to get to know what the Government are going to do. I understand that the Government do not propose to accede to the proposal to have 7,000 acres, but if not we want to know why the Government are resisting the proposal? Scotland, after all, offers facilities for wider varieties of experiments than any of the other countries in the United Kingdom. Even the hon. Member for Wiltshire will agree that Scotland will give more varied experiences than any other part of the Kingdom, because of the nature of the land, and unless we get some definite information upon this, we are entitled to say that we are being treated shabbily. The Lord Advocate cannot say what the Government are going to do in this matter 1494 because it is not within his Department, but I do say that we are entitled to know from the Secretary for Scotland what is going to be done with this land. Unless the information is given there will be great dissatisfaction in Scotland. We are sent here to find out what the Government are doing for our own country. We put a perfectly modest simple question which they refuse to answer. I think that that is discourteous to the general body of the Scottish Members who so faithfully support their representatives in the Cabinet on every occasion on questions of policy regarding the whole of the country; and on this occasion, when a perfectly domestic matter arises, which does not concern anybody else, and on which we are entitled to an answer, there is nobody on the Front Bench more intimately connected with Scotland than the Lord Advocate, whose habitat is in the High Street of Edinburgh, in offices from which I am perfectly certain he can see no land which would be fit for small holdings in any circumstances.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe hon. Member opposite shows a very strange lack of confidence in the ability of the Scottish Board of Agriculture to suggest, when the proper time comes, what special experiments they propose to make with 2,000 acres of land.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe point is that the English Board of Agriculture have disclosed their plans. Why do not the Scottish Board of Agriculture disclose their plans? My hon. Friend is usually very inquisitive. Does he not want to know what they are going to do?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am not aware that I am very inquisitive. I have never been very inquisitive about the Board of Agriculture, or very critical of them. I am certainly prepared to trust them in this matter, more particularly as under this Bill they have a power which was denied them, by hon. Members opposite—the power to buy the land—and they can plant settlers on the land as owners of that land. That is opposed by hon. Members opposite, and I think that the great merit of the Bill is that it abolishes entirely the opposition to that proposal. When we come to consider, as I hope we may do later on, some reasonable way of settling the Scottish land question, we-shall not have objection to purchasing owners on the land. For that reason I welcome this Bill very much as a new departure.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs a general discussion of this sort in order?
§ Mr. MORTONWe did not introduce this Bill, but we found on seeing it that it was proposed to treat Scotland in the same shabby manner in which it is generally treated. The promotion of this Bill has been managed in the most mysterious manner. The hon. Gentleman in charge of it—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe are not discussing the merits of the Bill, but a particular Amendment.
§ Mr. MORTONI am confining my arguments to the Bill.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine his remarks to this Amendment. This is the second time that I have called the hon. Member to order.
§ Mr. MORTONAll the other Members have been talking about these points. In reference to the increase of the acreage, I have a right to complain, and I do complain, that there is no Minister of the Cabinet to tell us anything about it. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has told us that he is against it, and that he could not do anything. The Lord Advocate to-day has practically told us the same thing, and I know that he is in favour of dealing with the land question in a liberal manner generally. But he told us dis-
§ tinctly that he cannot speak for the Scottish Board of Agriculture. Therefore this is a most extraordinary system, with somebody behind pulling the strings and managing the things, while we cannot get any reply. Two thousand acres is no good to us. It is merely playing with the question. Therefore we want to give the Board of Agriculture power, by giving them 7,000 acres, to do some more good than could possibly have been done with 2,000 acres. Wales was treated fairly the other night on a Division. We have been told by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that England would have to pay the money for managing this. If he knew anything about the accounts of the two countries he would know better than this, because Scotland pays, if anything, more than her fair share to the finances of the country. This is because Scottish affairs, in Scotland, are managed so much more economically than those in England. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others will take an opportunity of going into the accounts, and they will find that they have made a mistake in accusing Scotland of desiring an unfair division of the money. I hope that this Committee will treat us as fairly in the matter of accounts as the other evening they treated gallant little Wales.
§ Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 44.
1497| Division No. 53.] | AYES. | [7.0 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hewart, Gordon |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Hill, James |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Hodge, John |
| Ainsworth. John Stirling | Craik, Sir Henry | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hope, Harry (Bute) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Denniss, E. R. B. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.J | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Faner, George Denison (Clapham) | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Fell, Arthur | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Jones, L[...]if (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Beckett, Hon, Gervase | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney) |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | King, Joseph |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Fletcher, John Samuel | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Bird, Alfred | Foster, Philip Staveley | Layland-Barrett, Sir F. |
| Bliss, Joseph | Galbraith, Samuel | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brace, William | Clanville, Harold James | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Butcher, John George | Gretton, John | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Macnamara, Rt. Non. Dr. T. J. |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester. S.) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Manfield, Harry |
| Chambers, James | Haslam, Lewis | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Henry, Sir Charles | Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Hendry, Denis S. | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Robinson, Sidney | Wardle, George J. |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Rowlands, James | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wedgwood, Joslah C. |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Weston, John W. |
| Nield, Herbert | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) | Spear, Sir John Ward | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Starkey, John Ralph | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Stewart, Gershom | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Peto, Basil Edward | Swift, Rigby | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John | Younger, Sir George |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Thomas-Stanford, Charles | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Radford, Sir George Heynes | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel | Tickler, T. G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Toulmin, Sir George | Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Gulland |
| Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir G. H. | Valentia, Viscount | |
| Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln) | Walker, Colonel William Hall | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anderson, W. C. | Hunt, Major Rowland | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Bentinck, Lord H, Cavendish. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Jowett, Frederick William | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Keating, Matthew | Snowden, Philip |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Stanier, Capt. Beville |
| Cowan, W. H. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lundon, Thomas | Touche, George Alexander |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester). | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Field, William | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Goldstone, Frank | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Hazleton, Richard | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hogge, James Myles | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Mr. Morton and Mr. Macpherson |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Pringle, William M. R. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words "Provided that two thousand acres so acquired shall to the extent of three-fourths thereof consist of arable land."
This Amendment is entirely due to a suggestion which was thrown out in the course of the preceding Debate by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst), who suggested that we might have a proviso inserted, and that which I am now seeking to insert is not exactly in the terms which the hon. Member suggested, so that it cannot altogether be put down to his inspiration. It will be remembered that in the course of the last Debate the argument was, I think, accepted by the Government that if you have 2,000 acres as the limit, then the experiment must be confined to cultivated lands rather than to the Highland areas. That condition would secure that if you do make 2,000 acres the maximum, then you will require land of that character to enable a colony of fair dimensions to be settled upon it. If a smaller proportion of the 2,000 acres was arable land, then your experiment would be practically valueless, and you could only settle very few men upon it, and it would be an abuse of the word to describe it as a -colony at all. By the insertion of this proviso a definite instruction will be 1498 given to those who undertake the experiment to look to those areas where you cart get a fair quantity of arable land, and consequently you will secure that there will be some chance of the experiment being attended with success.
§ Mr. ACLANDI do not know Scotland, and I do not pretend to know it, but I think there is a good deal of land in England which is not at present used as arable land but is land under grass, and which, may be capable of being used profitably and with advantage as arable land. It may be, possibly, that land may be found in Scotland which would be quite suitable to be cultivated as arable land. I do not want to do anything that would tie the hands of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, but if the hon. Member would leave out the words "arable land," and accept the words' "land suitable to be cultivated as arable land," it might meet his point. I might first see whether this was not in accordance with the opinion of the Board of Agriculture of Scotland, though I do not anticipate any difficulty. The hon. Member might move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment now.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed 1499 Amendment, to leave out the words "arable land," and to insert instead thereof the words 'suitable to be cultivated as arable land.'"
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided that two thousand acres so acquired shall to the extent of three-fourths thereof consist of land suitable to be cultivated as arable land,' be there inserted."
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should be very careful about giving any definite pledge with regard to the acceptance of this Amendment. The policy has been accepted of 2,000 acres in the Highlands, and the right hon. Gentleman himself says that he does not know the conditions in the Highlands of Scotland. I would impress upon him that he should not come to any definite conclusion here and now, but that the view of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland should be ascertained.
§ Mr. WATSONI think it is clearly obvious that the most satisfactory place for settling, or taking, 2,000 acres would be somewhere in the Lowlands, and to do that the only remunerative way, in order to get a settlement, will be on land which may be arable. I do not mind very much whether that is secured by an absolutely hard and fast Amendment of this Bill or whether it is to be treated and accepted as a general indication of the views of the House to the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I should have thought it was pretty clear from the evidence, and from the practical point of view, that that is the only way in which this experiment can be really usefully made. It seems obvious, apart from the question of price with which we are not concerned, that arable land ought to be a reasonable distance from some town, preferably a big town, otherwise you will not get a real test of what we are anxious to get, namely, how to secure profitable colonies in groups on large areas of land. Therefore, while I heartily support the intent and purpose of this Amendment, I am not sure that it is really necessary to secure the end desired.
§ Sir J. SPEARI cordially support the Amendment. It appears to me to be most desirable that these small holders should have part arable and part grass. If the crops fail on the arable land they 1500 I have something to fall back upon in the dairy, which is maintained by grass. Hence it is of great importance that these small holdings should be of a mixed character, so that there may be a reasonable prospect of having a mixed system of husbandry in small holdings with some degree of success. The Amendment, I think, is exceedingly wise, and I suggest that each small holding should have part grass and part arable, thus giving the mixed system and providing the only chance of success for the small holder, which would be available in each case.
Mr. D. WHITEI am glad my hon. Friend has proposed this Amendment, which seems to me to be very desirable. If there were not some words such as my hon. Friend proposes you might have the whole 2,000 acres in a more or less hilly country where it would only yield very poor grazing, and under those circumstances 2,000 acres in Scotland would be absolutely futile and useless. I desire to express my complete concurrence with this Amendment.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am very glad my right hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment. He has also pointed out that he will consider it on Report, or at least reserves the right to himself to reopen it on Report. I am strongly in favour of the Amendment with regard 1o these 2,000 acres, but I am disappointed that, owing to the previous discussion, the acceptance of this, which I think is perfectly proper in the circumstances, rules out a very large part of Scotland, the Highlands part of Scotland, which ought to be dealt with. I am surprised, after the protest that we Scottish Members have been making, that the Scottish Secretary does not turn up.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The discussion on the question of the absence of the Secretary for Scotland plainly settled that question, and I cannot have it reopened now.
§ Mr. HOGGEI take it that the Motion to report Progress was to determine whether the discussion should close or not. Seeing that the Secretary for Scotland has now come in, I will not dispute with the Chair, though I will not use the word "dispute," but say I will not enter into the merits of the decision. I was pointing out when the Secretary came in that the Parliamentary Secretary for 1501 Agriculture had accepted an Amendment that of the 2,000 acres three-fourths should be capable of cultivation as arable land. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, with his intimate and detailed knowledge of his own country, will know that that means that that experiment must be largely limited either to the Midlands or the Lowlands of Scotland, and that the Highlands, therefore, will be cut out. Incidentally, it is fair to remember that in the Highlands certain experiments are at present in operation, and another has been made possible by the Ducal gift. The Highlands form the larger area of Scotland, and they are the place where it is essential that men should be kept and reared on the land. I am perfectly certain the Secretary for Scotland has a very good reason why be has not been able to come before this. What we have been discussing as Scotsmen, in the absence of information, is what we could do best for our own countrymen, and we wanted to know what will be done with these 2,000 acres, and if we could have some information on the subject in the same way as our English and Welsh colleagues have had. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having accepted the Amendment, and now that the Secretary for Scotland is here I can assure him that his colleagues who have been waiting anxiously and longing for his arrival will be very glad to hear his views on this subject and the views of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. After all, we are an agricultural country, and the Board of Agriculture is the most important to a great number of people in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that the Secretary for Scotland will be glad that we have given him the occasion to make an official pronouncement on a subject which is so close to the whole welfare of Scotland, which he represents.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMANAny remarks which the right hon. Gentleman may desire to make will have to be confined to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAnd that Amendment provides that three-fourths of this land to be acquired shall consist of land suitable for cultivation as arable land.
§ Mr. HARRY HOPEI think it is a great mistake to lay down from this Committee 1502 what proportion of arable and of grass land should be taken for these small holdings. I have considerable confidence in the wisdom and discretion of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and now when we have got a Scotsman as Secretary for Scotland I think we may be perfectly sure that our Board of Agriculture will be maintained in accordance with Scottish ideas and Scottish requirements.
§ Mr. HOPEI think we are going to have an improvement in that respect. I think that this Amendment may tie the hands of the Board. As to the counties in Scotland in which this experiment should be practised, we must be guided to a large extent as to where we see a demand for small holdings arise. If you look over the number of applicants for small holdings in Scotland, you find that it is from the Highland counties that the vast majority of applicants come We had an experiment in small holdings in East Lothian two years ago, when the large farm of Balancrieff was taken. It consisted of 600 acres. There were thirteen farm workers, ploughmen, who were displaced, and thirteen small holdings created in their place. What was the result? Instead of thirteen small holders of a genuine kind, although they were advertised for, nobody of the kind came forward, and the result was that those small holdings were given to butchers and other tradesmen.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Is not the object of this Bill to place on the land disabled soldiers who have never been on the land before?
§ Mr. HOPEMy point is, that there must be discretion left to the Board of Agriculture as to where this Bill ought to be put into effect. The experience of the past two years has shown us that it is in the Highlands we have small holders in the largest numbers. I think that if the Secretary for Scotland gets the land in the Highlands, that if Scotland gets the percentage of two to six, he may be able to get not the 2,000 acres, but perhaps the 7,000 acres which many Scottish Members want. I think we ought not to tie the hands of the Board. The Bill is experimental, and I think we might leave it in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to deal with those gallant soldiers and sailors from Scotland.
§ Commander WEDGWOODI agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken in thinking that we ought to leave the Scottish Board of Agriculture a free hand in this matter. I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the criticism of my right lion. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. After all, nobody expected this Bill to come on so soon, and the moving of the Motion to report Progress was rather to give the right hon. Gentleman time to come, than with any desire to criticise. If you do not expect a Bill to come on you do not expect people to be here all the time. I repeat that you should not tie the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. We have had mention of a scheme for the Lowlands as opposed to a scheme for the Highlands, but I think it would be advisable that there should be experiments in the Highlands as well as in the Lowlands. We, who are not specialists in Scottish agriculture, will I think agree that the matter had much better be left to the Scottish Board of Agriculture to decide the line the experiment shall take, rather than to lay down any hard and fast rule. Particularly is that desirable when you consider that land is being given and will be offered to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and before we decide what sort of land they should acquire it is much better that they should know the amount of land that will be voluntarily offered to them. The Parliamentary Secretary has partially accepted this Amendment, but I hope that it will be put right on the Report stage, and that the Scottish Board of Agriculture may be given the freest possible hand, so that they may not be able to attribute any failure to any action which this Committee might have taken.
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant)I welcome the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend in this Debate on agriculture in the country which is my special charge. He, like myself, has beaten his sword into a ploughshare. This is a very interesting experimental Bill, and I am very glad to hear that Scotland is to have a considerable proportion of the land, 2,000 acres, which I think is a very reasonable and proper quantity for an experiment of this kind. Undoubtedly the Amendment is a limiting one, and hon. Members are right in thinking that it will restrict our hands. I would like to bring the Committee back a stage to the Debate we had only a week ago, when I made some observations about the small-holding experiment, announced the 1504 Duke of Sutherland's very munificent gift, and intimated certain other proposals that we were going to make in connection with experimental holdings for soldiers and sailors. The criticism then was that "all these holdings announced by the Secretary for Scotland are in the Highlands; may we not have something in the Lowlands?" That being so, here is an opportunity. We are going to have 2,000 acres, I do not say necessarily in Berwickshire—much as I think it would have been an advantage, considering the fine, rich, agricultural soil there—or in the Lothians, or in the Kingdom of Fife, or in any part of the centre of Scotland, and I think it will be very valuable indeed. I am prepared to leave it entirely in the hands of the House to say whether it is desirable that as great a proportion as three-fourths of the land should consist of land suitable for arable. If they so decide I shall certainly accept it, as far as I am concerned. But if the House would prefer, what would probably be the wiser plan, to leave the proportion of land suitable for agricultural development to the Board of Agriculture, then I am entirely in the hands of the House. But I am not at all afraid of accepting 2,000 acres, three-quarters of which is suitable for arable.
§ Mr. MORTONI have no objection to leaving this matter to the Board of Agriculture, but I would say that, if you are going to make it a condition that three-quarters of the land is to be suitable for arable, that shuts out the crofting Highland counties altogether, and I do not think it will be any use for us in any shape or form in that part of Scotland. I have no objection, however, to putting this in the Bill as it stands, with the understanding that we want something better for the Highlands by and by. But as the whole affair is such a small business I do not think we shall lose much.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEThe question whether we should limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture raises a rather interesting point, because, after all, this is an experiment, and it is going to be conducted, I understand, by the Board of Agriculture. These superior people are going to show Scotsmen how they can cultivate their land under certain conditions more successfully. I believe that is the whole object of the Bill. And yet we are going to show such little respect for the ability of the Board which is to conduct the experiment that we are going to limit 1505 them as regards the land they are to acquire. We are going to say to them, "You are so foolish and so inexperienced, we cannot trust you to conduct this experiment properly, and therefore we are going to limit you." It seems to me a condemnation of the whole Bill if you take up that position. My view is that if we put this limitation on the Board of Agriculture it will have the effect of restricting the application of this experiment to the Lowlands. That, of course, would be largely determined, but what really is the benefit that is likely to accrue from this gift made by the Duke of Sutherland? If the nature of the gift is such that it will enable the experiment to be carried out in the Highlands, there would not be so much objection to limiting the Board of Agriculture in respect of land in this Bill. I should have liked to have heard more about the nature of the land from the Secretary of Scotland. I understand that some 14,000 acres are to be gifted, and of that area about 7,000 acres are to be afforested—that 7,000 acres you can wipe out as worthless land unfit for any experiment of this kind—and I should like to know whether there is any value at all in the remaining 6,000 or 7,000 acres, as shown by the rating roll. I have been over a considerable part of that country, and I remember writing articles in the "Daily News" as regards land in the Highlands, and at that time the Duke of Sutherland and other landowners came forward and said, "It is ridiculous to put men on this land at all." But now the Duke of Sutherland comes forward with a gift of a portion of this land and he is regarded as patriotic. I should like to know with regard to this gift of land which the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest is so generous, whether it carries with it any particular obligation as regards, for instance, the construction of a railway.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANGeneral reference to the subject would be in order, but the details the hon. Member is going into are not in order.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI thought perhaps that this land would be so burdened by obligations that it would be impossible to conduct experiments there, and that therefore we should have to acquire other land. I do not know whether I should be in order in asking for information as to any obligations there may be in connection with the gift?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo, that would be out of order.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI venture to think that this land may not be suitable for experiment if a railway has to be constructed.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have intimated to the hon. Member that he is out of order, and I must ask him not to pursue that.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIf this gift is not such as to satisfy the demand for land in the Highlands and to enable this experiment to be conducted, then I think we have no right to limit the power of the Board of Agriculture, but that they should be allowed to conduct experiments where they like.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe hon. Member who has just sat down is not a Scottish Member, and I think I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues when I say that I do not think he represents the view of my Scottish colleagues with regard to the gift which the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to make to the nation. I was rather disappointed at the remark which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has made. I was hoping that he would take the view that a matter of this sort should be left to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. What has happened is this: The hon. Member for Lanarkshire at a quarter past seven gave in a written Amendment, and I should have thought, as the Amendment was accepted almost willingly by my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture, that, if it had been a good Amendment, it would have been in the Bill beforehand. It might very well have been in the Bill. Now we find that the Front Bench are prepared to accept this. I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) on this point. The Board of Agriculture was established by statute in 1911 to look after the best interests of agriculture in Scotland and here is a Bill which gives us a miserable quantity of land, 2,000 acres, for the purpose of experiment. Now, the Board of Agriculture has as one of its chief objects the encouragement of agriculture by means of organisation, loans of money, and everything else. This matter before the Committee is a business which ought to be the Board's, and we have the Secretary for Scotland saying that he is prepared to accept this Amendment and to include it in the Bill which is not a 1507 Scottish Bill. I made representations to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture earlier in the evening not to accept anything definitely just now but to wait until the Report stage, and, having meanwhile considered this not only with his own colleagues in England but with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, deal with it on Report. I am still of that view and I know my colleagues in the Highlands are also of that view, and consequently I would press upon my right hon. Friend not to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI wish to offer a few observations in view of the rather unaccustomed position which has arisen. It is a very simple Amendment I have proposed. It has commended itself as reasonable to Members in all parts of the House. I can understand the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) is distressed at any aspersions on the Duke of Sutherland in view of the fact that he himself is such a great authority on Highland clearances. He says that if this had been a good Amendment it would have been in the Bill originally. If that reasoning is to apply, why should we move any Amendments in this House at all? Why did the hon. Member himself move an Amendment at an earlier stage in connection with which some of us gave him some assistance? Why did he deviate into independence? As regards this Amendment, after the discussion, I hope the Government will adhere to it. All the experiments which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland announced last week are experiments in the North of Scotland, in areas where it will be difficult for this cultivation to be run on economic lines. Obviously, if the limitation of 2,000 acres is to stand in this Bill, we should take the utmost care that the 2,000 acres should be selected in an area where they could be run successfully both in respect of the nature of the land acquired and its proximity to the markets where the produce can be sold. I know the crofters have got 14,000 acres in the county which my hon. Friend represents, for which gift he is no doubt grateful, like his colleague the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. I have visited the county which my hon. Friend represents with such distinction and success in this House. I have some knowledge of the nature of the land in that constituency, 1508 and if I were looking for a small holding, about the last place I should look for it would be in Sutherlandshire. That observation also applies to the greater part of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, although in Eastern Ross there is a good deal of land which would come within the purview of this Amendment. That land in Eastern Ross is almost the only area which would be available for colonisation purposes. I think that in the circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty does represent an area containing some arable land, he might have shown some more consideration for the very reasonable proposal which I have made.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI think a Member for an English constituency is occasionally entitled to speak even upon Scottish questions. The reason why I now do so is because I think that the Scottish Board of Agriculture have done very well indeed in varying the terms of the Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire. It seems to me to be peculiarly adapted to the conditions which we shall have to meet at the conclusion of the War. After all, the Lowlands of Scotland, and particularly the industrial areas, have sent an immense proportion of people to the War. I take it that the object of the Bill is to settle as many men as can reasonably be done upon holdings which will offer them a prospect. The Government may very well have been right in limiting the experiment to 2,000 acres. I voted against that. I think it would be a very good thing to have 7,000 acres. If you are really going into experiments of this kind you ought to take a fair modicum of land, so as to enable all kinds of experiments to be made within reasonable compass. But surely, if you do limit the amount of land to 2,000 acres, you must pay some regard to the large body of people who are returning from the War, and give them reasonable proximity to their homes. There should also be reasonable chances of success on the land with which these men will deal. If you are going to place disabled men upon the land, and you are going to give them any hope at all, surely this House has a right to say, "We will make the conditions at the beginning as hopeful as possible; we shall, at least, see that the land upon which you are placed shall be such as to give you 1509 hope from the very first." That, I take it, was the object of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. If we say that the land shall be, as to three-quarters of it, suitable as arable land, we really are not carrying the thing too far. I honestly hope that this experiment will be watched with very great interest. There is not the slightest doubt about it that, if it is successful, it will be the harbinger of a great many more efforts of a similar character.
§ Sir F. CAWLEYI do not represent a Scottish constituency, but I have followed this Debate very carefully. Why on earth you should say, when the demand for small holdings is greater in the Highlands than in the Lowlands, that 75 per cent. of the land should be in the Lowlands seems to me an absurd proposition. Why we should tie the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture I cannot see. I am very sorry my lion. Friend has accepted the Amendment.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI just want to say a word or two in reply to the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty in his attack upon myself. He suggested, in the first place, that I had no right to speak in a matter dealing with Scotland, and, furthermore, that I had no right to speak, more particularly as I misrepresented the feelings of the people in Scotland in daring to criticise the Duke of Sutherland.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONOn a point of Order. I never said a word about the Duke of Sutherland. What I pointed out was that the hon. Member was not expressing the views of the people in Scotland.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEExactly. The hon. Member suggested that I was not expressing the views of the Highlands when I criticised the gift of the Duke of Sutherland. I think probably I represented the Highland views and sentiment in this matter more than the hon. Member himself, because I have not yet met a Highlander who was a toady. The hon. Member suggested that I should refrain from any criticism of that gift. I only rose to enter my protest, and to suggest that the question is a national one.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. D. WHITEhad given notice of the following Amendment: At the end of the Clause to add "Sub-section (6) of Section thirty-one of the Small Landholders 1510 (Scotland) Act, 1911 (which relates to the valuation of for rating purposes of small holdings within the meaning of that Act), shall apply to any small holding constituted under this Act as if the holder of such small holding were a landholder within the meaning of that Act."
The Sub-section of the Act to which I refer in my Amendment has worked out to the very great advantage of the small landholders in Scotland. I should like to see it applied to all classes of agriculturists in Scotland. In putting down my Amendment I wanted to make sure that all the small holders under this present Bill would have the same advantages that the others have. However, a Friend has brought it to my notice that if a small holder under this Bill had the small landholder's tenure, or if he had the land on a lease for not more than twenty-one years, the result would be that he would have these advantages automatically. On the other hand, if he held land under what is called the more general terms of tenure, he would be in the same position as those who hold land under the same general terms of tenure. Under these circumstances, as a very considerable portion of the result will be secured automatically, and as those who are not small landholders may perhaps, before long, be in the same position, I do not propose to press this Amendment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member does not move?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThen the hon. Member should not have made a speech.
Mr. WHITEI thought it was only courteous to the Committee to explain the reasons which had led me to put down the Amendment, which, had it not been for the considerations I have mentioned, I should have moved.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe rule is against an hon. Member making a speech and then not moving his Amendment.
§ Mr. TENNANTFor the reasons already given by my hon. Friend he will not, of course, expect me to accept his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1511§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Commander WEDGWOODI beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do so because Scotland has already got in operation a Small Landholders Act which, with all its imperfections, is working far better than the English Small Holdings Act. The former has the enormous advantage, in the first place, that it is not in the hands of the county councils. It has the second advantage that it is in the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. They have, in spite of Radical criticism of the Act, done far more than has been done in England. They have even now in operation schemes in Aberdeen and elsewhere, and doing exactly what this Bill proposes to do. The Board of Agriculture of Scotland is now doing what is proposed under this Bill. The addition of Clause 10 to this Bill merely means that a certain sum of money raised and passed by Parliament for this purpose shall go to Scotland. With that I am heartily in agreement, but it can be done perfectly simply without this Act at all by giving an increased supply of cash to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. If that were all, one would not criticise the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill. Obviously, when the Bill was first drawn Scotland was not thought of. But for the very reasons I have said that the thing can be done at present by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, it has this disadvantage: directly you take the new holdings that would be made under this Bill in Scotland you find the people occupying those holdings no longer have the advantages which the present landholders of Scotland enjoy.
At present in Scotland the rates are fixed by the Board, which treats the landholder with far greater generosity than we have learned to expect in England. As I think, the terms are extremely generous altogether. In addition to that, you have in Scotland at the present time the exemption of improvements from rates. Buildings put up in possession of small holders are not affected by the rates. The rating assessment is not increased by reason of the expenditure of public money. If you turn to this Bill you find that all the improvements put upon the small holdings come under the general law of the land, and thereby afford ground for increase in the rating assessment—a thing which certainly ought to be avoided. Under this 1512 Bill small holdings which are arranged in England have to pay rates on improvements, and under the same Act, if you include Scotland, small holdings which come under this Act will have to pay rates in Scotland in exactly the same way. You cannot have under the same Act a different system in England and in Scotland. You will require to make your legislation independent. If this Bill goes through, in spite of what my right hon. Friends to the right and left of me have said, the new Scottish holdings will be rated upon their improvements, and be penalised not only for excess of rent, but they also may have an increase in the rates. Therefore, seeing that the whole purpose of the Bill can be obtained quite advantageously by increasing the Grant to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and incidentally saving the appointment of a fresh Commissioner at a salary of something like £800 a year, while you can better benefit the returned soldier by working under the old Scottish Landholders Act than by putting him under this Bill, I beg to move.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BARNESThere is no hon. Member in this House whom I would follow more readily than my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, but I think in this particular instance he is rather off the mark. I do not think this Bill is worth much, but if we are to have a Bill of this sort I do not see why Scotland should not have it, and I am perfectly sure my hon. and gallant Friend has given no reasons why Scotland should be cut out. He says the same object could be achieved by the Board of Agriculture getting additional money whereby to acquire, as I take it, additional land for small holdings. I do not think there is any scarcity of money for this purpose at this moment. There is a large sum of money in hand that has not been spent. That my hon. and gallant Friend should be in love with the Small Landholders Act, in view of the experience of the last two or three years, passes my comprehension. As a simple matter of fact, that Act has been killed by the lawyers and the land laws. As a result of a decision well known in Scotland—I am surprised my hon. and gallant Friend has not heard of it—the Lindean case, under which a landlord has sustained a claim not only for the value of his land, but the depreciated value of a portion of his land by the fact of small holdings being created, the old Small Holders Act has practically become a dead letter.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Act in general terms.
§ Mr. BARNESI bow to your ruling, Mr. Maclean, but I quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that there was no need for this Bill, because there is already an Act.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI was listening to the hon. and gallant Member very closely, and he was directing his argument—perfectly relevantly—to the distinction between small holdings, particularly with regard to rating.
§ Mr. BARNESI will content myself by saying I shall certainly vote for the retention of Clause 10 in the Bill, because if there is any benefit to be got out of this Scotland should share in it. Moreover, so far as I can understand the position, all the advantages that my hon. Friend desires for the small holder are also acquired under this measure.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI support for general reasons the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend. I take rather as the line of argument the particular point that, as regards rating, this measure is a retrograde step. If, as he has argued, as we set up these small holdings, the assessor comes round and values the amount of improvements and levies rates upon them, whereas in the present Small Holdings Act of Scotland you can improve your small holdings without anything like an increase of rates, then I say this is undoubtedly a retrograde measure. It is worse than what we have had before, and that was bad enough. Therefore I suggest that we are in order in protesting against the future expenditure of public money on a measure which is less beneficent and less likely to be operative than one already in existence. More particularly I base my support of my hon. Friend on the fact that I do think it is a cruel thing to suggest to the soldiers that you are doing something which will enable their desires to come to fruition. The right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) said he did not think this Bill was worth anything, but that if it was going to be, then Scotland might as well have its share of what was going. That is all very well, but if you go to the Scottish soldier and say-to him, "This is a measure to enable you to get a foothold on your native soil," and all the time you know it will never effect that, I think 1514 you are perpetuating a fraud on these men. Therefore, if this thing is useless, as is alleged all round, and is a fraud and a delusion, and a worse method than that which has already been adopted in Scotland, and has effected so little, then I think in common honesty it ought to be cut out of the Bill, especially as we know this sort of thing is all right for the South of England, the monopoly-ridden South of England, and it might not go much further than these trumpery bureaucratic measures. But we know perfectly well the sentiment of Scotland as regards land legislation is far in advance of this measure, which, I think, has been faked up by men whose views do not extend much beyond the southern counties of England. I think it is a peculiar injustice to Scotland, and a peculiarly unfair thing for the Scottish soldier, to come along with these trumpery, useless measures, and to suggest you are doing something to establish him on his native soil, if happily he has the opportunity of returning. Therefore, I can well support the hon. and gallant Member in his Motion for the rejection of this Clause.
§ Mr. RAFFANI simply desire to put again the point I put earlier to-day, and I am very glad the Secretary for Scotland is here.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to put the same argument now, but I must remind him that is out of order.
§ Mr. RAFFANI hope a request to the Secretary for Scotland, which I could not put to him because he was not here, may now be put?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf it is relevant to this Amendment.
§ Mr. RAFFANMy point of view, and I think that of some of my hon. Friends, with regard to this Bill, has been modified, because we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it that he is promised land on extremely favourable terms. I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any such promise in Scotland. In England we have been assured that any fear that monopolist prices will be exacted is groundless, because the Board of Agriculture has already got the promise, and they will be able to secure the land on favourable terms. If it is true that these colonies are to be set up outside Glasgow and Edinburgh, and you have to pay monopoly prices for your 1515 land, then I am entirely with my hon. Friend. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman is able to give us the same assurance as his colleague that landowners in these districts are ready to contribute to this experiment by meeting the Government on fair terms, so far as I am concerned I should not support this Amendment. But I do say we are entitled to be told whether the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has thought this thing out at all, whether they have entered into any negotiations with any men, or whether, if we pass this Clause, we must take the land on the landlord's terms.
§ Mr. TENNANTI think my hon. Friend who has just sat down has rather misconstrued something that has fallen from my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, because I understand he cannot say he has received promises as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. This has been sprung upon me, and naturally I cannot give an assurance that I am going to get land at extraordinarily cheap rates. I have had no such promise, and therefore I cannot give the assurance. All I can say is that if my hon. Friend and the Committee will trust the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office with the administration of this Act, if it becomes an Act, I think they can rely on us to find land fairly cheaply. There is a good deal of land going. I have seen estates sold in the last two or three months at extraordinarily cheap rates compared with twenty years ago, and, that being so, I think it would be a great pity not to give us a chance of putting this experiment into force. I am sure my hon. Friend who moved the elimination of this Clause would not wish to hamper us, or rather deny us an opportunity of carrying out an experiment which may be of great value, and may be really of lasting advantage to the country. Therefore I would ask him not to press his Amendment. As regards the question of rates, I am not a lawyer, but, so far as I have been able to look into this question, I believe the system of exemption of improvements for rates will apply to the land taken under this. If I am wrong, I must apologise, but I think that is the case.
§ Commander WEDGWOODMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry at the Scottish Office into that particular point, so that we may know by the Report stage?
§ Mr. TENNANTCertainly.
§ Mr. MORTONI do not propose to ask the Committee to divide on this matter. All I should like to say is, I keep a perfectly free hand, especially with regard to getting information on the questions asked on the Report stage.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.