THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND'S GIFT. (Hansard, 21 August 1916)

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter which arose at Question Time to-day and which, I think, is of some importance apart from the subject raised in the question itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland took, I think, a rather unprecedented course in refusing to grant me information on the ground that he must first of all be assured that it was the desire of the House that this should be done. I do not know how I am to secure to him the knowledge that any question I ask is put with the desire of the House and that the House desires the information. I do not know whether I am to go round and get a list signed by hon. Members, so that I may be ensured of the information which I have always thought was to any hon. Member if it could be obtained without putting the Department to unnecessary trouble or expense. This matter arose out of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Scottish Estimates when he informed the House that the Duke of Sutherland had made a most munificent offer to the State of a large area of land consisting of some 12,000 acres for the purpose of settling sailors and soldiers.
He went on to say that the State would embark upon expenditure, in connection 2444 with the placing of these men upon the land in connection with this farm, amounting to something like £20,000. It was obviously a matter of public interest to know what was the value of this gift in connection with, which this large sum of money was to be expended, and it was also far greater to the public interest to know on what class of land it was the intention of the Government to place the soldiers and sailors who had been risking their lives in its service. Therefore to arrive at some knowledge of the value of this, property, I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman to ask him what was the annual value for rating purposes of the estate, what was the rating assessed in the valuation roll. He replied that the annual value of the land and shootings was £475, which would give a capital value of the whole estate of about £10,000, value of the land and also the value together with the value of the shooting rights. Then I asked the right hon. Gentleman this question: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman's, if this assessment gives a correct estimate of the value of the land, is not the land on that basis worthless, or is it because it is under-assessed?"—[OFFICIAL REPOIST, 15th August, 1916, col. 1630.] I wanted to know whether in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion this was a true assessment, and whether, therefore, the land was practically valueless, or whether he thought the land was under-assessed, and consequently had a greater value than appeared in the Valuation Roll. The right hon. Gentleman replied: I really am at a loss to understand what operates in the mind of the hon. Member which makes him desire to detract from an honourable, a generous and a munificent gift, trying to make out that we, the recipients, are not the real persons who ire advantaged by it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th August, 1916, col. 1630.] I think that was quite an improper reply to make to a question asked, and which I am proving is a very legitimate one to put in the public interest. I desired to arrive at the value of the land alone, apart from the shooting rights, therefore I put another question to the light hon. Gentleman, asking what was 1he value of the land alone, apart fro n the shooting. He replied: I have promised to give full information as to the Borgie estate which has been offered to the Crown by the Duke of Sutherland for the settlement of sailors and soldiers on the land. I do not know whether there is any general interest in having a close investigation into the minutiœ of valuation. If there be any general desire to enter into such details, it is possible that this separation of values could be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th August, 19l6, col. 2063.] 2445 Again, I asked a question to-day of the Secretary for Scotland as follows: With reference to the estate of 12,000 acres gifted by the Duke of Sutherland of which the annual value of the land and shootings is £475 according to the Valuation Roll for 1914–15, whether ho can state from the Valuation Roll how much of the annual value is attributable to the land, so that an estimate may be arrived at of the approximate value of the land on which it is proposed to settle soldiers and sailors. Again, the right hon. Gentleman tells me he first of all must be assured that there is a general desire that these facts should be ascertained. I am asking him again, and raising this question to put the demand that those facts shall be ascertained and shall be given as a matter of public interest. The reason why this should be done is fairly obvious. If this land is valueless land, if it is poor land upon which men cannot make a living, then a great fraud and deception is intended to be perpetrated upon the soldiers and sailors they propose to put upon this soil. There is nothing more cruel than to put men upon land from which they cannot make a living. Upon the other hand, if this land is capable of maintaining men, then it follows that virtually the whole of the land in the North of Scotland now being devoted to the grazing of red deer and to deer forests is also capable of maintaining men.
This land, I should say,-judging from this valuation—remember that it is 12,000 acres—has an annual value of £475, including the shootings. Probably, if you take out the value of the shootings, you will arrive at an annual value of, say, £200 per annum—that is to say, it is worth, on that basis, about £5,000, or 10s. per acre of capital value. At the most it is worth £l per acre. Probably we should find, if we got the facts, that it is worth about 5s. per acre, or even less. I believe it is because it would be found that this munificent gift is valueless that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to tell me the facts that could be easily ascertained. The public interest in this matter arises from the fact that if this land as shown by the valuation is only worth a few shillings an acre of capital value and is still capable of providing sustenance for the soldiers and sailors, it follows that millions of acres in the Highlands of Scotland that are to-day given over to red deer and to grouse are also capable of being put to a similar use, from which it follows, in the national interest, that if this estate is of any value whatever we should set out to make a new clearance of the Highlands—clear all the 2446 red deer, the game, and the irresponsible men who are now in possession of the same—

§ Commander WEDGWOOD
And the dukes!

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
And clear off the dukes, too.

§ Sir T. WALTERS
What funny logic!

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I would retort what a funny mind the hon. Member has if he cannot understand the logic of it. If the right hon. Gentleman is able, with that gift of the Duke of Sutherland, to put men satisfactorily on the land, which the valuation roll shows is worth only a few shillings an acre, the rest of the Dukes' property, of over 1,000,000 acres, is also capable of maintaining men. The 3,000,000 acres devoted to deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland are also capable of maintaining men. If, on the other hand, this land is not capable, of maintaining men, why does the right hon. Gentleman call it a munificent gift, and propose to put our soldiers and sailors upon it? But for the moment I only ask that we shall get the land value ascribed to this property in the valuation roll, and then we shall be able to measure the generosity of this gift and the capacity of the land to support men upon it.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant)
The hon. Gentleman asked me to go into very considerable detail as to the value of the Duke of Sutherland's gift. I replied that I was quite willing to go into it if I thought it would satisfy any general desire, but inasmuch as I thought it was only to pander to the hon. Gentleman's wishes, clearly expressed to me in a previous series of questions, I did not think it worth while doing it.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
It is your business to pander to my desire for information.

§ Mr. TENNANT
If everyone except the hon. Member had asked me that question I think I should probably have given him a different answer. But as he has made no secret of his desire to show, or endeavour to show, that the gift of the Duke of Sutherland, which I think is a generous and patriotic gift, is not worth anything at all but is to be depreciated entirely because he is a duke, which is absolutely demonstrated by everything the hon. Member has said—

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Where did I say it?

§ Mr. TENNANT
In this House.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Where and when?

§ Mr. TENNANT
The hon. Member talks about a great fraud being perpetrated upon the soldiers and sailors whom it is proposed to place on the land. The facts are that the Duke of Sutherland is the owner of a very large quantity of land, most of it poor land. But the great proportion of the land in that part of the world is not rich, and therefore if we are to carry out anything like a large programme of placing soldiers and sailors upon the land we must be content to try and make such poor land profitable and teach persons to cultivate land which is not rich to a profit, which I think can be done by careful operations both in husbandry and forestry, and I believe by that means we can achieve success in the long run. This is, of course, an experiment. We must have an experimental trial. The Duke of Sutherland comes to me and says, "I am willing to give 12,500 acres in this part of the country. I make it over as a free gift. I give you the buildings," which—he did not tell me this, but I have ascertained the figures—it must, I think, have cost more than £2,000 to build—for nothing. It is worth £12,000. The figures which the hon. Members asked for are: for the farm and shooting £475, of which the shooting is worth £308 and the farm £167 annual value as it stands to-day.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
The right hon. Gentleman had the figures when he refused to give me an answer.

§ Mr. TENNANT
No; I had not. I have since ascertained the figures. I really do not care. I am sure no one cares about that. What we care about is that the owner of the soil has come forward in time of crisis in order to try and do his part in getting his own fellow countrymen settled upon the land. It is a generous thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman's action in this is an ungracious action and is not worthy of a Member of this House. I am surprised that he should have taken the action he has.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I must protest against this constant interruption. The hon. Member was very free with his adjectives, and he must take the reply. He must allow the House to listen to the answer as well as to his speech.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
That is no argument.

§ Mr. TENNANT
I have no desire to have any argument with the hon. Gentleman, but if he insists on argument he must concede some argument on my side. He talks about a valueless gift. I still maintain that we are very much indebted to the Duke of Sutherland for giving us this opportunity of making an experiment which, I think, will be very valuable. I would like the House to remember that, besides the shooting lodge, there are offices and an extensive farmsteading and five small dwellings. Some of those buildings can be adapted for the settlement of soldiers and sailors and they will also serve to accommodate the forestry staff required in connection with the planting scheme. In that way considerable outlay in new buildings will be saved. Supposing we wanted to buy 12,500 acres in that part of Scotland we should have to go to a great deal of trouble, with which the-House is familiar, in the endeavour to get the land. It nearly always involves going to the Land Court, which takes a considerable time, and if the landowner objects to the valuation put upon his land by the Land Court we could then go to arbitration, which -takes an interminable time and is very costly in legal proceedings. We have now a chance of afforestering between 5,000 and 6,000 acres suitable for the purpose. It affords a good opportunity of demonstrating afforestation in the Northern Counties, and the land is handed over to the State without payment. I do not understand why any hon. Member should make it his business to detract from a gift which is really a spontaneous offer made in perfectly good faith by a nobleman who happens to be a duke— poor man, it is not his fault!—and who happens to be the owner of only poor land. So far as I know, it is only poor land of which he is the owner. At any rate, he has done this out of purely disinterested motives, and I for one am not going to allow a gift of that kind to be placed in the light of a gift of land of which he is glad to be rid. I do not know what is operating in the hon. Member's mind. Why should the Duke of Sutherland have been actuated by other than honourable motives? I cannot understand any man adopting the attitude of the hon. Member, and I do not think that it is a course, conducive to the encouragement of other 2449 landowners to come forward and do the same thing, or that it is a course at all proper for an hon. Member to take.

§ Commander WEDGWOOD
I did not come into the House intending to say anything on this subject. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to attack him, and I think the House will acquit me of any desire to say anything derogatory of the Duke of Sutherland's magnificent gift. So far as I can see from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the gift of the Duke of Sutherland is worth at least £3,000, and probably it will cost us £6,000. That is a gift which is ducal from every point of view, and should be appreciated by every Member of this House. What I do protest against—and I protest in the interests of every private Member—is that the answer to a question by a Member of this House should have been refused, subject to the general consent of the House. I am quite aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley represents views which are not popular in this House. He is probably as opposed to my view of the War as any Member of this House. He probably does not even represent at the present time his constituents. Still, he is a Member of this House, and as long as our Constitution allows him to remain a Member of this House, he is entitled to receive from the Government the answer which every Member of this House is entitled to receive. We are not accustomed to being treated as schoolboys.

§ Mr. KING
Oh, yes, we are!

§ Commander WEDGWOOD
Every Member of this House stands equal before the law, and whether he is in favour of the War or whether he is a pacifist or a conscientious objector, he is entitled to receive a civil answer from any member of the Government. The question which he asked to-day, whatever he may have said about the Duke of Sutherland's gift, was a question that he might have asked perfectly honourably and perfectly honestly. I wanted to know what the value of the land was as agricultural land previous to the gift. I wanted to know so as to be able to judge what rent should be charged to the tenants on that land. We now know from the answer, which could have been given 2450 this afternoon, that it is worth about. £160 a year. Therefore, we ought to see to it that the tenants on the land are not charged a refit in excess of £160 a year, plus the interest on the capital which will have to be sunk in putting up buildings, etc. I maintain that the question is a perfectly honest one and is a question which was put in the interests of the public and should have received an answer from any member of the Government.

§ Mr. KING
I may say a word or two, because I often ask questions and often receive answers which are unsatisfactory. I hope that I have always endeavoured to be as courteous as possible, and though I have no doubt that every Member who tries to do his duty in this House irritates Ministers on that bench, I never do it intentionally, and I am always sorry for them, perhaps even more than for-myself. But I wish to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) for his very proper protest. If we remain Members of this House we have a right to equal and fair and traditional treatment. Whatever the questions we ask, if the answers to those questions can be given consistently with the public interest, they should be given. The hon. Member for Hanley asked a question which might not have pleased the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, but which was a perfectly proper question, and an answer to which could have been given without any detriment to the public interest. Therefore, I myself feel that a very proper protest has been made, because it has been nothing less than the evasion of the rights of hon. Members of this House to refuse to give answers to perfectly legitimate questions, simply relying upon the general sense of the feeling of this House as to the answer being unpopular or possibly the Member being unpopular. I hope that we shall have less in future of this style of answer from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we do, possibly I, for one, and others also, will trouble the House less in the future than in the past.