THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Royal Commission on Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, said: My Lords, special circumstances have occurred which render it absolutely incumbent upon me to call attention to this subject at the earliest possible moment. A discussion was raised in the other House of Parliament upon this question; and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in speaking of the difficulties the Government had in dealing with the subject, made a personal appeal to those Highland proprietors interested in those parts of the country where crofters exist, that they should come forward and publicly explain what they were willing to do to assist the Government; because a great many things can be done by voluntary effort, which it would be clearly impossible for Parliament to provide for otherwise. I felt that that was an appeal which the Home Secretary had a good right to make, and to which we, as Highland proprietors, are 87 bound to respond. I desire this evening to bring under the attention of the House of Lords a state of facts, out of which this Report has arisen; and before I go into the detailed recommendations of that Report I wish to say a few preliminary words on the circumstances which have appeared to render the issue of a Commission necessary in that part of the country. In the first place, I wish to say that it does not arise from any general bad distribution of the occupancy of land over the Highland as compared with the Lowland counties. I am not going to detain your Lordships with any long illustration of this point. It is a point with which I have dealt in an article in a monthly review, and those noble Lords who are interested in the subject can refer to that paper. I have proved in that paper that, as regards the occupancy of land—that is, in the distribution of farms and the variety of sizes of the farms—the Highlands, on the whole, are more equally distributed than the best of the Lowland counties of Scotland, or than the richest counties in England. I think my noble Friend (Lord Napier and Ettrick) has in his Report given a somewhat erroneous view of the Highlands as a whole. I am sure it was unintentional on his part; but my noble Friend has made it appear as if the Highlands were divided, into very large farms and very small farms, the truth being, as I have pointed out, that they are very equally distributed—much more so, indeed, than other parts of the country. It is a point of considerable interest and importance how we are to classify the smaller farms. I maintain that they belong to the labouring class, and that the holdings cannot be considered as farms at all. My noble Friend fully admits, as regards the small crofters, that they belong to the labouring class; and he points out that there are very few places in the Highlands where the labouring class are wholly dissociated from the cultivation of the land. Another matter which I wish to point out to your Lordships, as regards the circumstances of the country as a whole, is this—that the appointment of that Commission was not called for by the fact of any evictions being extensively complained of in the Highlands. This is a very important point, because a great many of the public do not understand it. But my noble Friend him- 88 self said in his Report, in a very significant passage, that the era of evictions has passed away, and that the desire of the proprietors in the Highlands is not in the direction of eviction, but, on the contrary, their desire was to make the crofter more comfortable. That is an important and valuable admission of my noble Friend, which he makes in a passage in which he goes on to say that the real danger of the future is not the danger of eviction, but the tendency of the people to sub-divide their crofts. Then, as regards those districts where the crofting system prevails, there is no exceptional poverty as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. There is nothing, I believe, in the condition of the crofting population to be compared with the distress in many industrial centres in England. The crofter population in the Highlands, however discontented they may be locally with their condition, from causes to which I shall presently proceed to advert, are certainly not in distress in that sense. On the contrary, my Lords, there is very good evidence to show that the crofter population, as a whole, has advanced of late years rapidly in their material prosperity. I believe that their standard of living is higher a great deal than it was 25 years ago; and I am not at all sure that one of the causes of the agitation has not been this very rise in the standard of living. Formerly the people had to depend almost entirely on the produce of their holdings—on oatmeal and potatoes—supplemented by fishing; but now, I understand, there are through all the Islands and through all the croftering districts large consignments of groceries—tea, sugar, tobacco, and so on—sent from Glasgow. There is a very remarkable fact given by my noble Friend in one of the appendices of his Report, which I think, is conclusive in that matter, and it is the Return of the Poor Roll. The proportion of paupers of the whole population 20 years ago—in 1861–2—was 1 in every 21.2. The proportion in 1881–2 was 1 in 25.1; and I rejoice to say that the great county with which I am connected shows, taken by itself, a most wonderful decrease in pauperism. In 1861–2 the proportion was 1 in 16.6, in 1881–2 it was 1 in 31. That is a decrease of very nearly 50 per cent in the pauperism of Argyllshire. Your Lordships will see in the evidence before 89 the Commission a great variety of opinion expressed on the point, whether the crofter population was better or worse off now than it was 25 years ago. I imagine the Return I have quoted is decisive on the' point. The amount of pauperism was always greatest among the crofters; and this decrease could not have taken place unless there had been a great and substantial increase in the raising of the level of that population. I have said these few words to deprecate the supposition that the issue of this Commission was rendered necessary by any one of these causes—an unusually bad distribution of land, evictions by the proprietors, increase in pauperism, or distress in the country. None of these causes have led to it. The agitation has been to a large extent a political one, founded, however, on local circumstances, to which I shall advert presently. I come now to the recommendations of my noble Friend. The first is this—that the old townships, so called, should be recognized by law; and he rather implies that it has been a fault in the history of the law in Scotland that the law did not recognize these townships. My noble Friend says that the law recognizes townships only as dividing farms. Now, my Lords, that is perfectly true, and the law recognized townships as dividing farms for the best of all reasons—that that is exactly what they are. The township in Scotland has never been in recent times in the nature of a large farm. It was not a community having communal management over all its affairs. It was simply a farm divided into separate parts. It was pure individualism. Every tenant had his own division of the arable land. It might be changed from year to year by lot; but still the bit of arable land—or the bits, because they were immensely divided—belonged to each as his own, and they were not managed by the community. In the second place—and this is still more important—the cattle, which were the main produce of the farms, were individual, and not communal property. Each man had his own cow, and, as a rule, his own sheep. It is true that in certain cases the sheep were managed by the community as a common stock, but not the cattle. I know that some people have called this sort of possession a club farm. But that is not my understanding of a club farm. My 90 understanding of a club farm is where there is one common management all through the farm—arable, cattle, and sheep—and where the proceeds are divided among the different tenants according to their different shares. That is a most interesting condition of agriculture, which has been tried, and is likely to be further tried, and in the success of which I shall feel the greatest interest. But that is certainly not the case with regard to the farming in the Highland townships, which were simply farms divided and exceedingly badly managed. Let me point out what would be the objection to the recognition of these townships by statute. The stock is always inferior on account of the individual discretion and individual skill which subsist in the selection of the rams and bulls. If one man buys a good bull, another buys a bad one, and it is only when stock is managed by one common management that improvement is possible. As the cattle are driven down from the hills into the low country during the summer months, the grain crop cannot be cultivated to any extent. Although, therefore, I know many townships where the people are comfortable—because they sit at very easy rents—no man can deny for a moment that it is an inferior condition of agriculture, and does not tend to the improvement of the country. While I am altogether against interfering unduly with these townships where they exist, I think it would be madness for any Act of Parliament to provide that that state of things should continue for future ages. I suppose most of your Lordships know that this condition of townships existed, not in the Highlands only, but all over Scotland and all over England. A great part of England 200 years ago was divided into townships; and it is a very curious fact that, so late as 1811, the first Duke of Sutherland, who was much blamed for his improvements in the country, had at the same moment to deal with the abolition of townships in Shropshire, which was one of the great improvements he made in that part of England. In short, we may say, with perfect truth, that the abolition of these townships has been coincident with the progress of agriculture and the civilization of the country. They survived in some parts of the Highlands simply because the progress of agricul- 91 ture there had not been so rapid as elsewhere. Therefore, my Lords, although I am entirely against interfering with these townships where they exist now, I should very much object to any Act of Parliament which would recognize them as a permanent state of the country and stereotype their existence. The greatest part of the land of Scotland for many hundred years had been let under lease, or what is called tacks, and those who are now crofters were the sub-tenants of the tacksmen. In my own case, in the Island of Tiree, where, I am sorry to say, the agitators have got possession of the minds of the people to a certain extent, I can give you the date when these farms were cut up into townships. They were cut up by my grandfather, John, Duke of Argyll, in 1803. He wished to provide for his own soldiers, and also to provide for the sub-tenant population, who were then in a very miserable condition; and he took four or five of the best farms in the Island and cut them up into crofts, his desire then being that no croft should hold less than about 11 head of cattle. I need not say that that is a very comfortable small possession, and very different indeed from crofts which are to be seen in Skye and Lewis. However, in the 43 years which elapsed between 1803 and the potato famine of 1846, all these townships became so subdivided into miserable and wretched holdings, in consequence of the impossibility of enforcing the estate regulation against sub-division, that when the potato famine came these people were in danger of positive starvation. They addressed a petition to me at that time to be assisted to emigrate to Canada, and a considerable sum of money was laid out in sending about 1,000 of them to Canada entirely at their own request. These townships, instead of being very ancient holdings, were at the time of the potato famine only 40 years old; and that I believe to be the case in many other parts of the Highlands. I am happy to say that, out of 26 farms in the Island of Tiree, 25 still remained as they had been sub-divided. I therefore say, in response to the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that, so far as I am concerned, instead of being hostile to the tender feeling of these people for their townships, and to the preservation of them if they can live in comfort in 92 them, I have pursued that system from the time I succeeded to the property. I desire to nurse them as far as they can be nursed, until the people themselves see that a more economical division would be in the interests of all the parties. Before passing from this matter, I wish to point out to my noble Friend the Chairman of the Commission (Lord Napier and Ettrick) the injury which has been caused to us proprietors by the method in which the investigations were conducted. I am not blaming him, because I do not know all the difficulties with which he had to contend; but I want to point out this—that the Commission did not go in detail into any one of the estates on which alleged grievances existed. They went in a steam vessel; they landed at certain points of the coast; they retired to the nearest church or school-house; they sat with open doors; everybody could make what complaints they pleased; but they never visited the localities. They had not the machinery for testing the statements of the crofters. There was no adequate cross-examination of the witnesses, and all this is admitted by my noble Friend in his Report. Therefore, we have no authorized and authentic verdict on the accusations made against us by the agitators in the other House of Parliament, and outside we have no judicial body before which we can defend ourselves, and from which we could get a verdict whether we have been guilty or not guilty of the alleged cruelties. This is a very great injury to us. I will mention a case affecting myself, and I mention it all the more because false accusations have been made against me by a Colleague of my noble Friend on the Commission, who sat on that Commission, and who published in a speech the other day in Scotland, which was repeated in another speech in "another place" by a confederate, Mr. Macfarlane, the other day, that I had removed so many of the people and converted so much of the Island into large farms that the whole land was virtually possessed by four or five large farmers, and as many thousands of people were living on the margins of soil which were left on these large farms. My Lords, this is an absolute mis-statement of facts. As I have already told your Lordships, out of 26 farms which were divided into townships by my grand- 93 father, 25 remain exactly as they were, except that they are in a better and much healthier condition. I have examined by the survey the number of acres relatively held by the large farmers and by the crofting farmers, and I find that 10,000 acres of the best of the land are held in townships, and only 5,000 acres among the larger farmers. I should have desiderated that we could have come before by noble Friend, or some judicial body, and that we could have proved these facts in the faces of our foes. As it is, we are left to make our contradictions in the public Press. But that is not the manner in which these grave matters should be dealt with. So much with regard to the recognition of townships. I am entirely against interfering with them, and my efforts have been to make them more comfortable, and to increase the size of them wherever I could. I now come to a number of other recommendations of my noble Friend which are of extreme interest, because they go into the history of the people. The first may be called a minor recommendation. It is that all services shall be abolished. In that I entirely agree with my noble Friend. But where did my noble Friend ever hear that these services now survive? "We have long ago abandoned these services. I suppose your Lordships know that in the Middle Ages, and up to a comparatively recent time in Scotland, sub-tenants paid no rent, because they had no money. They paid a few cows or beasts, but their main rent was in service; and I dare say your Lordships have very little idea of the amount and extent of service which these poor people were compelled to render to their tacksmen and proprietors. A most interesting paper on this subject was published by the late Sir John Sinclair, from which it appears that when the system was in full force the sub-tenants were really in menial servitude. They had hardly any time for the cultivation of their own lands. In fact, this was in former times one of the greatest grievances of the Highlands. It has been supposed—and there is no supposition more commonly spread about the country than this—that in the old times the relation of Highland tenants to their proprietors was that of clansmen to their Chief, and not of tenants to their landlords. That is quite true; but the suppo- 94 sition that their condition was better is a very absurd supposition. Their condition was infinitely worse. They had, in lieu of rent, to give labour service, which was arbitrary alike in its character and in its extent. The power of life and death over them was enjoyed by the Chief. In short, instead of the relation of landlord and tenant being a deterioration of the latter's condition it has been an enormous improvement. All the efforts of the great landlords for the last 150 years—since the Rebellion—have been to put an end to those services to which my noble Friend refers. On this subject I contributed to the Commissioners a most interesting letter from a most distinguished man, Lord President Forbes, of Culloden, than whom there was none better acquainted with the condition of the Highlands in his own day. Forbes, of Culloden, was employed by one of my own ancestors to look over his estate, and he gave a most deplorable account of the services that were required by the tacksmen, and urged on the Duke of Argyll of that time the desirability of giving direct leases, of abolishing these services, and turning the rents into fixed money payments. The advice of my noble Friend implies this—that we have not done this long ago. Now, as a matter of fact, I know of no estate in the Highlands in which services of the kind are exacted except for very trivial purposes, or in the service of the township itself. My noble Friend's advice is that they should be abolished except in connection with townships. I agree with him; and on my own estate, and over the greater part of the Highlands, they have been entirely abolished, and they have been abolished by the persistent efforts of the landowners. As regards the idea that the sub-tenants of the Highlands have any special claim to their possessions, I do not know a more instructive document than the first lease that is known to have been granted in Scotland. The date of that lease is 1312, two years before the Battle of Bannockburn. It was given by the Abbot of Scone to two tenants for land surrounding the Abbey of Perth, and you could not have now a better model of an improving lease—providing for definite payments, increasing with a number of years—increasing, that is to say, with the opportunity of improvements, and with the returns which those 95 improvements were calculated to give; definite covenants that the tenants were to erect houses for their sub-tenants, for their husbandmen, and a covenant which is remarkable as showing that 500 years ago the tenants had no proprietary rights—namely, that the lease should terminate in the event of the Grown recalling the grant of the land from the Abbot of Scone. Another recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission is that we should abolish all special rents, such as those that are paid for seaweed, heather, peat-cutting, and the like. I agree with those who think these dues ought not to be exacted, and ought to be abolished; but I know of no estate in my own country where they are exacted. On my own property there is little or no peat-cutting, and no charge is made for seaweed. If such dues exist elsewhere, I think they ought to be abolished. Now, I come to a recommendation for which I desire to thank my noble Friend, and to which I should like to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. My noble Friend, whatever faults there may be in his Report, cannot be accused of having any tenderness towards the Irish land system. He denounces it on every possible occasion. In standing sponsor for his Report he denounces that devil and all his works. My noble Friend says he would not allow—he would go further, and cause Parliament to prohibit—either an outgoing tenant or a proprietor to receive payment of arrears from an incoming tenant. This is the very essence of tenant right as it exists in Ireland; but so sensible is my noble Friend of the mischief likely to result from the incoming tenant being thus encumbered, that he would positively prohibit it by Act of Parliament. In this respect, also, however, we in Scotland have long anticipated the recommendations of my noble Friend. I have never heard of a Highland landlord which allowed payments for goodwill, or accepted payment of arrears from an incoming tenant; and we think that a most mischievous practice. When we are obliged to get rid of a tenant, as sometimes happens, with very large arrears, I think it would be doing, not only my estate, but the public, a great injury if I accepted these arrears from the incoming tenant, for I know it would hamper him in the future management of his farm. The next recommendation 96 is, that we should not allow sub-division. Yes; but has my noble Friend recommended that our hands should be strengthened to prevent sub-division? We have always prohibited sub-division. So far as I know, it has been a fundamental condition of all estate regulation that sub-division should not take place. But the successful prevention of subdivision is another thing. It requires a condition of settled law and order. It requires that the authority of property be enforced by the strong arm of the law, and it requires conscientious vigilance on the part of those who manage property to prevent this; and at the present moment, in the Long Island and other places, where the greatest distress prevails, sub-division cannot be prevented by the landlord, because the law does not enable him to enforce this prohibition. Sub-division has been one great cause of the evils that exist in the Highlands, and I am glad to see that there are several passages in the Report in which my noble Friend calls attention to it and denounces it. So far as I am personally concerned, it was not until the other day that I had any real difficulty in enforcing the condition against sub-division. Of course, this was not done without a constant struggle, for in districts where the people have no sense of domestic comfort, and almost no sense of decency, and where two or three families are in consequence crowded together, it is most painful to have to say—"You must not do it; you must get rid of these relatives of yours." It was almost impossible, under such circumstances, to prevent overcrowding. What you can do, however, is to prevent other new cottages being built, and that I have endeavoured to enforce. In Tiree, during 37 years, I have resisted the building of new cottages, and the consequence is that the condition of crofters in that Island is infinitely more comfortable than when I succeeded. The next recommendation of my noble Friend is that vacant crofts should not be re-let, but should be consolidated. I agree with him. That is what I have invariably done with very satisfactory results. I am not quite sure whether my noble Friend wishes the law to intervene, and to say that proprietors shall never re-let a croft by itself, but shall always add it to the next. If the Legislature should say it is so sensible of the immense evils 97 of Sub-division, and so desirous to see the consolidation of small holdings, violent as I should consider such a measure was as an interference with property, I should not resist it. The Report then recommends that crofts below £6 should be resolutely but gently withdrawn. There I have ceased to follow my noble Friend. That is not the line that I would take for the purpose of reducing small crofts; and I do not see the possibility of Parliament adopting it, and my reason for saying so is that crofts vary so much in character that you cannot be guided by a rent line. The £6 line is quite a different thing in different places. I have made no difference, and I intend to make no difference, between the larger and the smaller crofters. I wish them all to remain where they are, so long as they can live comfortably according to their own notions of comfort. When a £6 croft becomes vacant I should deal with it according to the particular circumstances of the case; but in all cases, while anxious to enlarge the crofts, I would guard against any violent withdrawal of small holdings; and I cannot conceive the possibility of Parliament imposing on landlords the duty of abolishing them under all circumstances. Then, in regard to crofters below £6, I understand that my noble Friend proposes that they should not have the same privileges as larger crofters in the townships. That would be extremely difficult, because there are many good men of £6 who are regular members of the township.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLThe noble Lord proposes that crofts below £3 are not to be continued at all. That, again, is a recommendation that may be very good to give to landed proprietors for the management of their property; but I do not see what place it could have in an Act of Parliament. The next recommendation is, that cottars should hold from the landlord. There are cottars who hold from the tenant; but I do not think it is a good system. Where you have sub-division upon sub-division, which landlords have not been practically able to prevent, you have a large number of cottars who hold from nobody. There are 200 families on the Island of Tiree who do not pay 1s. of 98 rent, either to me or to the tenant. They are mere squatters, paying rent to nobody; but I am unwilling to turn them out. I entirely agree that cottars should be wholly under the landlord. The last recommendation of this class which I shall notice is this—that no arrears Should be exigible from the tenant beyond two years. That is a most excellent rule, if you remember that the landlord must have summary power to eject the tenant within the two years. Otherwise, the tenant might go on from two to 20 years, and no rent be exigible at all. If the landlord has summary powers, then I quite agree that the long accumulation of arrears is a mischievous practice, and ought to be discouraged, if not actually prohibited, by Parliament. I pass from these, which many of your Lordships may consider minor points, to the great question of rents, and the tenure of land. My noble Friend has distinctly said that, taken as a whole, he does not believe the crofter population to be over-rented. He has, therefore, not recommended any State valuation of rents as under the Irish Land Act. I entirely agree with my noble Friend that the State valuation of rents is wholly wrong in principle, and mischievous in its results. This is a point upon which the Home Secretary, having made an appeal to the great proprietors of Scotland, they ought to make some response. Let us be frank about this matter. I object altogether to an eleemosynary scale of rent. I believe it has a corrupting influence on the population, and a moderate and fair rent ought to be arrived at; and I believe many of us would be perfectly willing to submit our rent-roll to some neutral man, and we could come to an agreement as to the amount to be paid. The rents of crofters are almost always determined by the amount of stock, and there are certain matters perfectly well known in certain districts which regulate more or less the rent of the croft. It is so much a cow, and so much a sheep. I have ascertained this fact—that in the Eastern counties of Scotland—Aberdeenshire and other places—where there are many crofters but no townships, and where the rents of crofters are determined in the usual way, the average rent is about one-fifth of the capital value of the stock. In the Western Highlands, and on my own 99 property, the rents are not above one-eleventh part of the capital value of the stock. They run from one-eighth to one-eleventh. Of course, these are matters which vary to some extent with the value of the grazing and the quality of the land; but, provided the valuation of rents is upon some understood principle, and bears some intelligible relation to the rents paid by the tenants, who are able to make their own bargain, I should have no objection whatever to such a valuation being made in regard to these small tenants; and, what is more, I should rejoice if, by such a process, we could come to a peaceful settlement with those whose minds are now agitated and disturbed. I pass from the question of rents to the question of tenure. I see in a great many papers in the Appendices of my noble Friend's Report complaints, especially by clergymen of the Free and Established Churches, of want of security of tenure. Now, I am quite willing to meet the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by saying that I am willing to give to my crofters any duration of lease which they are willing to accept. I really do not care what it is. If they choose to take a 30 years' lease, they are welcome, and I shall give it to them upon far less onerous conditions as regards improvements than those suggested by my noble Friend. But to tell you the truth, I have found that the crofters at the present moment—I think under the effects of agitation—are not willing to accept these leases. They do not want them. They have a vague notion that Parliament is to interfere and do something on their be-half; and as they do not know what they may get, they do not wish to be bound by the terms of a lease. Since I have entered this House to-night, I have received a telegram from a very large proprietor in the North of Scotland, who says he believes the crofters themselves would willingly accept leases; but they had been got at by the emissaries of agitators from London and elsewhere, who have persuaded them to refuse leases. An instance of this kind came under my own notice. Last August I happened to be talking to a crofter whom I greatly respect, a most intelligent man, who had done a very unusual thing—he had built a very good slated house on his croft without having a lease beyond 100 the well-known custom which prevails in such cases. But the crofter complained that the house let in water, so I said to him—"My good man, as you built this house yourself, why don't you mend it? If you want security for your outlay, you are welcome to a lease. I will give you any duration of lease you ask for." He was very civil, and thanked me; but I have never heard from him since. During 37 years I have only received one petition in favour of a lease. To anyone who applies, I say distinctly I shall rejoice to give it; I shall make no exception between £6 and £10. Anybody who wishes security of tenure has only to apply, and I will give him a lease. When you come up to rentals of £30, I should be disposed, in giving a 30 years' lease, to require some of the conditions which my noble Friend has laid down; but as regards security of tenure I am ready to grant it to any extent that is wished. In saying this I am, of course, only speaking for myself; but I have a firm conviction that all the proprietors in the North of Scotland, and along the West of Scotland, would act as I am now proposing. They have no wish to get rid of their people; they only desire to see their condition improved; and they think many of the crofts much too small. A lease, after all, did not prevent a crofter emigrating to Canada or to Manitoba; and my hope is that with the progress of the country, and the gradual rise in the standard of living which is going on by slow degrees in the Highlands, some of these people will give up their holdings, whether under lease or not, and let them be added to the holdings of those who remain in the country. Now I come to the most formidable proposal of my noble Friend—a proposal which has startled everybody who has read his Report. It is, indeed, a most extraordinary proposal. My noble Friend proposes that every existing township in the Highlands, however poor, should have the right to call in the Sheriff to say that it was overcrowded, and to get the authority of the Sheriff to annex a large slice of the next croft or farm.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLThat may not be what my noble Friend means; but there is no limit whatever in the recommendation.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLOh, yea; £100 rental. So far as I understand the proposition, no discretion is given to the Sheriff to say whether this overcrowded township has been due to the fault of the people or not. They may have overcrowded by sub-division against the rules of the estate; and when the potato crop failed they fell into a condition of distress and danger. There never was such a proposal. Look at the other side of the question—the farm to be annexed. I am not now speaking of what I think my noble Friend intends, but the proposition in the Report. I will give a case which I have in my mind's eye—a township which has been carefully reserved by the proprietor, because he did not wish to interfere with the people. But there is a dairy farm on the one side and a cattle farm on the other, with a good deal of arable land. The proprietor has made great outlay upon the dairy farm, and the amount of accommodation depends strictly upon the acreage, and the number of cows upon the quality and acreage of the land. The particular township adjoining, with its wretched cultivation, says it wants one-half of the acreage of these two farms. Why, if that were done the whole farm would be ruined, and the buildings would cease to be applicable to the farms; and so in the case of the mixed farm, the outlay of the proprietor and the unfortunate tenant had both been made with reference to the confidence in the extent of the holding. I think this is a proposition which Parliament will never submit to, and which I, for one, would resist to the death. It is unjust to everybody; it is ruinous to the agriculture of the country. Not only would there be no outlay on the township farms, but every proprietor would grudge every shilling paid down on every farm in the vicinity of a township farm. Now, I come to what I really believe was the condition thought of by my noble Friend, and I am sure by the Home Secretary. My noble Friend was contemplating this—that in many townships it is said—I am not saying it is true—by agitators that within the past 30, 40, or 50 years since sheep farms have been created these townships have been deprived of their hill pasture. What my noble Friend has in contemplation is, that a slice of the hill pasture might be restored to the township. I 102 at once say, in a case of that kind, where it is possible, that that is a most reasonable proposition, and which I should be most willing to agree to. My noble Friend proposes that in such a case the township shall show ability to stock the farm. Under these conditions, I think it quite possible that in some parts of the Highlands which have been monopolized by very large sheep farms, slices could be cut off without material damage, especially under existing conditions of sheep-farming, and restored to the people if they ever possessed it. I shall be quite willing to entertain a proposal of that kind where I have land of this character to dispose of. I must explain, however, that I am making a proposal which has very little reference to my own property, and which may be a very serious one for others. In Tiree there are no sheep farms—no deer forests, no grouse - shooting, and no hills, except mole-hills, and there has been practically for 30 years no alteration in the condition of the holdings. When I was in Skye a few days ago, during a visit to Lord Macdonald at Dunvegan, I found that steps were already being taken in that district by his Lordship and some other proprietors to divide great sheep farms into much smaller divisions, and one of the proprietors has succeeded in getting the township to take one of those farms, giving some security for the stock. It is not improbable, therefore, that under the existing conditions of the sheep farms in the Highlands it might be possible to constitute or reconstitute club farms. This is the case evidently contemplated by my noble Friend; and by what fell from the Home Secretary I think the proprietors in the Highlands would be most willing to respond to the appeal which the noble Lord has made. I know that on the land of the Duke of Sutherland active efforts are now being made to increase the pastures of townships wherever the people can afford to stock them. But the great difficulty is this—that many of those townships are utterly unable to stock these places. They have not capital enough to stock them. A sheep grazing of 2,000 or 3,000 sheep is quite out of the question with these people, and that is confessed in the evidence given before the Commissioners. Having said so much in regard to rent and tenure, I wish to say 103 a few words more in regard to another very anomalous recommendation of my noble Friend, which is the right of purchase. He does not give an absolute right of purchase; but he proposes that the State should assist tenants to buy their crofts with the consent of the landlords. As regards myself—I speak for myself only—I should be very glad indeed to see many of my crofters buying their own crofts, especially in the Island of Tiree, which is naturally rich and suitable land, where crofters might be able to get a good living. But I very much question whether the State will come forward with the security which my noble Friend recommends to enable that plan to be adopted by Parliament. At all events, if it is adopted by Parliament, I should work heartily with it on my own property. I wish to say a few words on the recommendations which my noble Friend has made to the Government, but not to the Crown. I wish, in the first place, to thank my noble Friend for the generous calculations which he has made to the Treasury on our behalf. I am not sure whether my noble Friend is likely to get them; but I should be very glad if he could get some of them at least. I must say, however, they constitute rather a novel request. The Treasury is to be called upon to provide piers and harbours. I am not sure but that, in some eases, this outlay will well repay the Government. As regards fisheries on the West Coast, a Committee of the House of Commons sat on the matter last year, and I had the honour of being examined before the Committee. I am not quite sure what the recommendations were; but I am afraid they were not much in favour of the Government launching out in this matter. There are some places, however, in the West Highlands where I think harbours must be erected, and to provide which it was quite beyond the possible reach of any proprietor to do so with advantage to the people. Of course, I cannot help remembering that the amount of population which will be served is comparatively small, although it will not be strictly local population, because on the banks of the Island of Tiree, East country fishermen have been accustomed to come for many years. My noble Friend next recommends that the Government should enter into loans with individual 104 fishermen for boats and gear. I confess, however, that I am a little incredulous of my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone or the Chancellor of the Exchequer being very generous in this matter of loans. My noble Friend recommends—and here I entirely agree with him—that the Government should give a much more liberal outlay for the improvement of the services of the Telegraph and the Post Office. In the Western Highlands we are shamefully supplied in this respect. The Orkney and Shetland Islands have for a long time been much better supplied than the Western Highlands, where we suffer severely from the bad accommodation given to us by the Post Office. I think, in regard to those comparatively poor counties, that the Government should consider the outlay without the same reference to terms as they do in the Orkney and Shetland Islands. My noble Friend recommends that help should be given to railways and canals. I doubt whether my noble Friend will get the Government to agree with him. With regard to another proposal of my noble Friend I have great doubts. He proposes that any excess of school rate over 2s.in the pound should be paid by the Treasury. It is true that the education rate in some parts of the Highlands is a fearfully high rate, and is far beyond anything that the Education Department ever expected, or the Government anticipated. It is stated that in the Long Island the education rate and the other rates amount to upwards of 11s. in the pound. This has been partly due, I believe, to the gross extravagance in the building of schools. There is no part of this Report which impresses more on my mind the importance of having a local Education Department for Scotland itself. I am quite sure if the education grant for Scotland had been administered by the Board in Edinburgh, or by any Local Board knowing the requirements of the country, they would not have allowed these extravagant buildings to be erected. I have seen some of the most intelligent children I ever knew returning some of the most intelligent answers I ever heard in schools held in "black houses," as they are called—thatched cottages, with a mud floor, and plenty of ventilation. I think it absurd in these poor out-of-the-way districts to put up great buildings, built with expensive stone, and costing thou- 105 sands of pounds, imposing a serious burden on the people. I do not deny that in some parts of the Highlands this burden of the school rate has become an intolerable burden on the people; and, therefore, a great deal is to be said for the proposal of my noble Friend. Now I come to the question of emigration. I am not sure whether I agree with all that fell from the Home Secretary on the question of emigration; but I understood him to have spoken only as regards Government emigration, and we all know the insuperable difficulties which have prevented the Government taking up State-aided emigration. These difficulties were stated by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this House during the last Session of Parliament. I listened carefully to the reason he gave as regards Ireland, and I think they are as strong as any objections that could be stated. I am in favour of emigration, and I hope the day will come when the overcrowded districts will be relieved of their surplus population. I do not say that the Highlands are over-populated as a whole; far from it. But in the Long Island and other places they are undoubtedly over-populated. I have a Return showing that the population of the Island of Lewis, which is a wretchedly poor Island, has increased in the course of the last century from 6,386 to 25,487, while the increase during the last 20 years has been 5,793. The Island of Lewis is incapable of supporting that population. My noble Friend has analyzed the Returns, and shown the number of acres that go to each man, and has shown that the Island is wholly incompetent for the support of such a population. Of course, they do not all live by the land; some are fishermen; but they are all in a state of great poverty. Before I sit down I wish to say a few words in regard to the lawlessness which has prevailed in some districts of the Western Highlands. I believe, and I know, that this lawlessness has not been born among the people of the country. It is the work and the active propaganda of Socialistic agitation. In the Island of Skye, when I was there last year, I heard details which left no doubt whatever that the minds of the people have been poisoned by active emissaries altogether outside the people. Naturally, they are the most tractable, the most loyal, and the most law-abiding 106 people in the world. I have had the pleasure—and it has been a great pleasure—of dealing with them during the last 37 years; and, as far as regards lawlessness or the shadow of lawlessness, I have never had one moment's grief or anxiety. The whole thing has been got up by one of the societies in London. The lawlessness which has compelled the Government to send an armed force to Skye has been very serious indeed; and as this is very much glossed over, I wish to explain to the House the extent to which that lawlessness has gone. So far as I know the fact, it is not a question of resisting rents—it is not a question of resisting evictions or removals. It has nothing to do with that. It is a question of seizing other people's land. A great many of the crofting townships there have issued and executed a threat of entering on the ground of the larger tenants and seizing it by main force. If such a state of things is allowed to go on all capital will be driven from the country. There will be no improvement and no possibility of entering into any of those arrangements which imply a confidence in the law and confidence in the enforcement of the law. In conclusion, I will only say that if the Government see their way to make any reasonable proposals on the lines which have been indicated—at least on some of the lines which have been indicated by noble Friend, I am sure they can count on the loyal and hearty co-operation of the proprietors of the land in that part of the country.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKMy Lords, the noble Duke is regarded in Scotland, and particularly in the part of the country with which his family has so long been connected, as an exemplary proprietor; and, my Lords, he is usually ranked among those who, in theory at least, would rather apply a strict economical principle to the management of land than those practices of benevolence and mutual accommodation which are advocated by others. I say in theory, because I have no doubt the practice of the noble Duke in the management of his property, as he himself has explained, has been very different from any strict economical theory. With reference to this particular case—that of the crofters—the noble Duke has in various forms, by pamphlets, by letters in the newspapers, by articles in the Reviews, plied 107 us with matter argumentative, admonitory, and controversial, and with much instructive and interesting information; and I am bound to say that, when the noble Duke announced his intention of making a speech on the subject, I was not without some apprehension that he might say something more likely to widen the breach between different interests and different classes than he has done. Because, my Lords, we know that, whatever are the theories of the noble Duke, he is in the habit of advocating them with a conscious ascendancy and eloquent impetuousness, and sometimes arbitrary logic, which is extremely inspiriting to his supporters, and very often both provoking and inconvenient to his adversaries. But, my Lords, I am happy to think that the language of the noble Duke generally in discussing the subject has been so wise, so conciliatory, and so benevolent towards the class of persons with whom he deals, that I cannot but believe that the tone which he has adopted and the measures he has recommended cannot fail to exercise a very happy influence both upon the proprietary and upon the tenant classes of his country. Now, my Lords, in discussing this question, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence. Your Lordships are aware that I seldom address your Lordships' House, and I am altogether unversed in the practice of extemporaneous debate, of which the noble Duke is a veteran and accomplished master. But I am about to address your Lordships on a subject with which you are extremely familiar, and in which your hearty sympathies are engaged. I shall, therefore, proceed to notice in some detail, and, as far as I can, in regular order, the points which the noble Duke has submitted to your Lordships. At first, my Lords, the noble Duke referred to an article which he recently wrote in The Nineteenth Century, a portion of which was devoted to the discussion of a particular point to which reference is made in the Report of the Crofters' Commission; and that is that the Commission, having at heart to illustrate the evils attached to an extreme sub-division of land among the small tenantry, and the extreme consolidation of land among the larger holders, cited the condition of four parishes in the Western Highlands. The noble Duke complains that this 108 conveys an erroneous impression as to the state of the Highlands of Scotland generally: and he implies, if he does not directly say, that the Commissioners meant to imply that the state of affairs found to exist in these four parishes and the surrounding district was really characteristic of the whole Highlands. Now, my Lords, this is so far from being the case that it is particularly specified in the Report that the four parishes in question are characteristic—not of the whole of Scotland or of the whole of the Highlands, but merely of a distinct area, which is strictly and accurately defined. It is pointed out that the evils attached to excessive sub-division and excessive consolidation are less in certain parts of Argyllshire and on the Western seaboard generally. It is, therefore, distinctly stated that the condition of affairs revealed in the four parishes referred to are not to be taken as applicable to the whole of the North of Scotland or the Highlands in general, but that they are simply characteristic of a particular restricted area of the country in which the crofter question has attained the most pressing position. It may be asked why the Commission have dealt particularly with these four parishes, and why they have not extended their comparison to a larger area? The reason simply is that the district to which I refer is, in reality, the district in which the crofter question has become of serious importance; and if that district were struck out of the map of Scotland, the crofter question would probably never have been heard of. The noble Duke has referred at considerable length to the question of the Highland townships; and that point I desire to treat in connection with the principal grievance or hardship of the people in the crofter districts of the North of Scotland. My Lords, the capital grievance which was brought before the notice of the Commission, in the course of their tour, was the question of the restriction of crofts. That objection was urged and admitted by all classes of witnesses—by clergymen, by professional men, by farmers, by every independent person, and I need hardly say that it was strongly enforced by the crofters. It is, therefore, to the capital objection—the restriction of the area of crofts—that the Commissioners had to direct their attention. The evil is the excessive restriction of 109 the small tenancies. How are these tenancies to be enlarged? The most obvious method by which it can be done is, naturally, that of the emigration of some tenants, and the division of their land among others. I agree with the noble Duke in regretting that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on a recent occasion, seemed to discountenance the remedy of emigration. I think that the remedy of emigration is not only necessary, but indispensable, subject to limits—first, that emigration should be entirely voluntary on the part of the people; and, secondly, that the land vacated by the emigrants should be divided among tenants of the same class. The second means of promoting the consolidation or enlargement of these small holdings is to be sought in migration—that is, the transfer of the small crofters from their present places to other places; and this transfer will probably be best accomplished, first, by the extension of emigration, which would show the people how they could benefit their position by removing elsewhere; and, secondly, by the encouragement of fishing stations and harbours by the proprietors and the Government, by which the people, who now are engaged in the mixed occupation of cultivation and fishing, might spontaneously give up their small holdings and form into fishing communities, leaving the holdings to be consolidated with those of their neighbours. But both emigration and migration will, under the present circumstances, operate slowly, and will not achieve, at least with sufficient rapidity, the objects aimed at. It was felt that the evil of the restriction of area must be combated by local remedies applied to the area itself. How is that to be effected? If the area is too small, the first result is to secure that the area shall not be restricted any further, and that result may be obtained by giving the present holders fixity of tenure, by giving them absolute security that their present holdings should not be taken from them. But if that condition was secured to the small tenants, we should, on the other hand, by giving them fixity, render the object we have at heart—that is, the extension of holdings—more difficult still. We cannot give the people security and consolidate the holdings by giving the individual occupier fixity of tenure. We have, 110 therefore, conceived this idea—that the area occupied generally by this class of small holders might be secured without securing the individual tenant, so that the proprietor within the general crofting area should have a sort of flexible administrative power of availing himself of all legitimate opportunities of uniting or consolidating it. The general area occupied by the crofting population is not to be interfered with; but individual holdings may, under due restrictions, be interfered with, with the view of consolidation; and in order to constitute this reserve for the class of small tenants, we have conceived and adopted the expedient of recognizing the Highland township plan, that there are certain specific areas which shall be reserved for small tenancies, within which the administrative and improving power of the proprietor is not to be withdrawn, but that the general area is not to be interfered with. I now come to a point on which the noble Duke commented with peculiar solemnity, and that is the power we propose to give as to the expansion of holdings. We have satisfied ourselves that an expansion of the holdings is absolutely indispensable to the welfare of the population; and we believe that the process of expansion will, under ordinary circumstances, proceed so slowly that a very great length of time will probably elapse before any practical good will be effected, and that, therefore, it is absolutely necessary to give to the crofting area, to the Highland townships, the power of expansion of its area from the neighbouring lands. This power of claiming additional land for expansion beyond the present area is a claim on the part of the tenant that the proprietor shall give a portion of his property for the benefit of a particular class of tenants; and if that power is to be given it ought to be very strictly limited, both with reference to the extent of the land to be taken and with reference to the extent of the expanded holding. The noble Duke has argued that this power of expansion, if generally exercised in an unrestricted manner, might be exercised to the very serious prejudice of the larger farms which have been improved by the expenditure of a great deal of capital on the part of the proprietor and tenant. But if these stipulations, by which the adjacent property is protected in the Report of the 111 Commission, are not sufficient, the Commissioners would be the first to admit that those conditions should be improved. We have laid down that when a township claims and receives an expansion, that expansion is not to be exercised as against farms below a certain size. Our object has always been to leave the large farm as a competent area, so that the farm buildings and the other improvements which have been made upon it shall not be wasted or cast away; and we have also guarded this right proposed to be granted to the townships by this condition—that the right of expansion shall not be exercised in such a manner as to create holdings in the townships of more than an average value of £15 a-year. The adjacent property is, therefore, already protected in the terms of this Report by restrictions and limitations of a very stringent character. But all I can say is, that if additional limitations and provisions are necessary, they should certainly not be resisted by Her Majesty's Commissioners. Our object has never been utterly to break down and destroy the large farms, which we consider a most valuable element in the agricultural economy of the country. It is obvious that if the expansion is to be effected, it can only be done by recognizing the corporate characteristic of the crofting community; but that constitution or recognition of the township is not only justified for the capital purpose of expanding the holdings; it is equally justified by the necessity of improving the condition of the crofting population. I would ask your Lordships to consider how is it possible for the individual crofter in large areas in the Highlands, where these conveniences do not exist, to obtain township fences, township roads, roads to the shore, roads to the peats, and all those elementary works which are absolutely necessary to the welfare and comfort of this class. He cannot, by any individual exertion, obtain all those things. It is absolutely necessary that there should be corporate action on the part of the crofters, and it is absolutely necessary that they should be able to call in the co-operation of the proprietor. Township works can never be effected by the individual or the whole corporation of the crofters. They must be effected by co-operation between the corporation of the crofters and the pro- 112 prietors, and that is what our recommendation urges. But it has been urged that the improvements which we authorize the crofting community to demand from the proprietors are of a preposterous character; that the landlord is called upon to make an outlay from which he would receive no direct return; and that this is a tyrannical exercise of authority on the part of the small tenants. To that I most absolutely demur. There is no unreasonable claim made in this Report. All we ask is that the proprietor should do for the crofting community a great deal less than he is obliged to do every day for the large farmers. He is obliged to make all those improvements which we see on a well-managed farm. We do not ask for anything comparable to that. All that we stipulate is, that the crofter should have the right of exacting from the proprietor, not the erection of a house, not the erection of offices, fences, and drains—nothing but boundary fences for the croft roads to the nearest high road, to the shore, and to the village. We do so for the purpose of knitting together the proprietor and the crofter in the execution of useful works for the common good. The most distressing feature in the condition of these people is the inertia, the lethargy, the want of activity, the want of progress, which is everywhere apparent. What we want to do is, to stir the people up; to stir up the proprietor to an interest in the tenantry, and the tenantry to an interest in their own welfare. Without the recognition of the township, it is impossible to obtain either the necessary expansion or the necessary increase of the crofts. The second question which was so much urged on our consideration was the question of security. There is a widespread misapprehension as to the eviction of crofters. Eviction has certainly not been a frequent occurrence, except for the non-payment of rents. It is perfectly obvious that the want of security has not really prevented improvement in those regions; because whatever improvements have been executed have been executed by the tenantry themselves, without security, and these improvements are very considerable. If anything at all exists—if the crofting class exists at all, if crofting accommodation exists, if houses exist, it is owing to the exertions of the tenant. The whole country, such as it is, has been 113 created and improved by the people without security; and, indeed, I have seen most considerable amounts of money expended by persons in the most dependent condition in the world, and even on estates which were not remarkable for the humanity or indulgence with which they are administered, and where the tenant had no security whatever. There is no doubt that a small tenant in the Highlands trusts a good deal to the indulgence and kindness of his landlord. But, at the same time, security gives a great impulse to improvement; and therefore it became our duty to inquire as to what form of security would be the most advisable. Absolute fixity of tenure granted to the whole of these people in every class appeared to us to be a measure which would be far more likely to intensify the evils under which the country labours than to diminish them. It became, therefore, our duty to recommend security as a conditional measure. For that purpose we have endeavoured to devise what we call "improving leases." We selected that first, because it is congenial to the habits of the people in the Highlands. Not on the West Coast, but certainly in the centre, and on the East Coast, the country has been, in a great measure, relieved from sterility under the stipulations of improving leases. We do not doubt that, eventually, the people on the Western Coast may be led to adopt these improving leases. We considered it was indispensable that the people, in receiving a boon on the part of the proprietor, should show themselves worthy of it, and labour for their own benefit. We have always stipulated that the proprietor and the tenant will have every opportunity of coming to a spontaneous arrangement; but we have recommended that where the tenant cannot come to a friendly and just arrangement with his landlord, he should have the right of framing an official lease. The majority of the Commissioners did not think that it would be desirable to grant the right of claiming an improving lease to the smallest class of tenants, keeping in view the great object, which is the consolidation of holdings. It was thought that to give to the smallest class of tenants an improving lease might tend to strengthen that particular class, and to prevent the expansion of holdings; and, therefore, the majority of the Commis- 114 sioners decided that the right of claiming an improving lease should not be granted to those who possessed holdings of less than £6 annual rent. The noble Duke says he does not think that those who have holdings of less than £6 should be excluded from the benefits which are conferred upon the higher class. In that I agree, and I disagree with the majority of those with whom I was associated on the Commission. I think that the right of claiming an improving lease of land might be safely conceded to the larger class, and that it might even be granted to the tenants of land below the £6 line—perhaps even to tenants holding possessions of £4, or even £3, annual rent. With reference to what is ordinarily called free sale or disposal of improvements, we contend that this is a right which could not be conceded to the small tenants, either with justice to the landlord or with safety to the tenant himself, keeping still in view the great object of increasing the area of holdings. We thought that to enable the small tenant, the holder of an improving lease, to sell the improvements on his holding to all and sundry, would also tend to stereotype the existence of small holdings, and to prevent that consolidation which is the capital object of our policy. We, therefore, have stipulated that where the tenant throws up his lease, and leaves the tenancy, he can only have the power of disposing of his improvements and of his tenancy to the landlord. In fact, subject to the one condition that the proprietor shall be obliged, with certain limitations, to increase the area of the small tenancies, our object has been to maintain the rights of property undiminished and unassailed. Our object has been to maintain all the responsibilities, all the duties, and all the enjoyments which constitute the duty and delight of the proprietors, and which we believe in the Highlands can be rendered instrumental for the good of the community. It may be thought that in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, owing to peculiar circumstances, the power of the proprietor cannot be in future usefully exercised for the benefit of his tenantry and his domains. If that is the case elsewhere—which I need not affirm or deny—I am satisfied that it is not the case in the Highlands. I am satisfied that any- 115 thing which, would seriously diminish | the rights and the attractions of property in the Highlands would be detrimental to the welfare of the community. There is no doubt that there still is a very great desire, on the part of many, to acquire property in the Highlands. There is no doubt that there is a very great reluctance on the part of proprietors to be dispossessed of their existing rights; and, with the expansion of the area of the small tenancies, we have have endeavoured to save the integrity of the proprietary rights. With reference to what the noble Duke has said in regard to rents, I have very little to say. The noble Duke has gone a step beyond what we have ventured to propose. The Commissioners, in their Report, have not thought it fit, generally speaking, in the crofting districts of the Highlands, to say that the rents are so excessive as to offer the least justification for a general revaluation of the land. We have, therefore, not recommended any judicial rent, except in two particular cases. But we have recommended that when an additional area is granted to a township, that, in that case, the value of the portion granted should be officially ascertained, and the tenant should receive it at the rate fixed by an impartial valuator. We have also stated that, in our opinion, when an improving lease is granted, that previous to the settlement of the tenant, in order that he should have a fair start, and against his making a bad bargain, and expending his substance and labour improving another man's property, an official value should be ascertained. With the exception of these two cases, we have not thought ourselves justified in recommending an official inquiry. I think what the noble Duke has himself suggested is a wise and benevolent suggestion—that the proprietor should undertake, for the pacification of the country, a revaluation of the land, not by way of arbitration, but as far as possible conducted by an impartial person in whom landlords and tenants have confidence; and such parties can be discovered. I do not hesitate to say that the advice of the noble Duke in this particular, if accepted—and if the proprietors in those portions of the country where some complaints were made of excessive rents should agree upon a revaluation of the small holdings—would afford very great 116 satisfaction, and spread contentment amongst the people. As to compulsory service, the noble Duke has said he is not aware that such service exists—that it has been abolished; and in the case of his own estate for upwards of 100 years. That is perfectly true. But the noble Duke will not find in the Commissioners Report that the existence of such compulsory service is a matter of general complaint. It is mentioned, because it appeared as a matter of complaint in some rare cases in the evidence which was submitted to us. There is, or there has been, such service, but to a very small extent, upon some estates—such as the exaction of a certain amount of labour, or the payment of a portion of the rent in the form of labour. These cases are very rare, and they are altogether insignificant; but as they were mentioned we thought it right to notice them. Therefore, we have, in a general way, recommended that in all cases such payment should be in money. The same might be said in the case of the collection of sea-ware, and other small matters. There were some exceptional cases, where small payments were made, either to the adjacent farmer, or to the proprietor, for commodities or privileges of that nature. Therefore, we thought it better to advise that the whole of these payments should be abrogated, or that they should be consolidated and charged in the form of rent. The noble Duke seemed to think we recommended that holdings of less than £6 annual value should be prohibited. That is not so. What we recommend is, that where, within the limits of a township, a holding of less than £3 annual value falls to the landlord through death, or some other cause, it should be used for consolidating with the other holding. I do not know if that is a provision which can be given effect to in law; but, in substance, it is one which the noble Duke has recommended. I am sorry to hear the noble Duke thinks some of the recommendations are not likely to be accepted by Parliament. The noble Duke also touched upon the question of emigration. It was the opinion of the majority of the Commissioners, and especially of a Member of the Commission who has given his attention particularly to this matter, that no efforts, either by the proprietors, or by the Government, would be effectual, unless accompanied 117 by emigration. We failed to see how it was possible that emigration, on an adequate scale, could be conducted without the co-operation of Parliament. The people themselves do not possess the capital which is necessary, nor do I think we can expect much assistance from the assessment of the areas of the country involved, because the local assessments are already so heavy that there is no margin left to hope for any considerable help from that source. Therefore, if emigration is to be conducted on a beneficial scale, it must be by the co-operation of Parliament. I am bound to say, although the question may be a complicated and difficult one, there does not seem to be any reason why a measure might not be provided between the Authorities in our Dominions and our own Authorities, under which a large number of the population might be conveyed to the vacant Colonial areas, and settled in the country, without an appreciable cost to the country whatever. I believe if the people were transported to the Colonies, and set a-going on a good footing, that they would gradually repay any moderate outlay which was undertaken by the Government. I know that has been proposed in the case of Ireland. Our duty has been to consider the case of Scotland only; and we think, with reference to Scotland, that some such measure might be adopted with perfect security. With reference to the cooperation of the Government in the creation of harbours, the noble Duke is at one with the Commission. Generally speaking, I may say we consider that the Government would be justified in affording means for the creation of harbours, and for the construction of one railway to a certain point on the West Coast, not only in the interests of the local population, but in the interests of the great national industry of fishing. It is not for the benefit of the crofter population alone that we have recommended this. It is for the benefit of the whole country—for the fishing communities on the coast, as well as for the whole of the consumers throughout our land. As to the school rate in some parishes, it amounts to 3s. and 4s. in the pound; and, if I am not mistaken, in some cases that figure is exceeded. Such a rate is crushing to the proprietors, and to the poor people. It is altogether un- 118 congenial to the people, and disproportionate to their wants. It has been forced upon them, not by their own opinion of what is required, but is due to the extravagant and exaggerated expectation of the Educational Authorities in England. It is the extravagance of the Central Authority—it is the extravagant and exaggerated expectations of the Educational Authorities in England, which has imposed this sacrifice and this exaction on the people. I am grateful to the noble Duke for the measure of general support which he has given to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I observe with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have behaved with wisdom and energy in this matter. I do not doubt that the action of the Government will be extremely salutary and useful; but I trust the restoration of peace and order in the country, which I have no doubt will now generally ensue, will not justify Her Majesty's Government in delaying the application of remedial measures which will be absolutely necessary for the restoration of permanent contentment and prosperity in that part of the country.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI rise for the purpose of making a few observations, because I think it is most undesirable that any silence on the part of the Government should convey the notion that they do not attach the greatest possible interest to this question, so full of difficulty, dealing with principles of the greatest importance, and which require very delicate handling to bring them to a successful issue. But if I say very little, it is partly owing to the fact that the Government form the chief part of your Lordships' House at this moment. Besides that, I doubt whether it would be desirable or useful, and I believe it would be premature, for me to enter into any discussion as to the recommendations of the Report of the noble Lord and his Colleagues, which have formed so legitimate and instructive a subject of discussion between the noble Duke and the noble Earl. I entirely concur in the compliment paid by the noble Lord to the conciliatory tone of the noble Duke's speech. I wish merely to state what is known to your Lordships' already about the attitude of the Government. I need not now refer to the state of things which made it obligatory 119 upon them to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the question. Since that time your Lordships are aware—whether exaggerated or not exaggerated I do not say—that there has been a very deplorable state of things in the Western Highlands, particularly in Skye, and in which it has been necessary that Her Majesty's Government should act with energy, not with the view of repressing one class or of favouring another, but for establishing and maintaining the majesty of the law, and preserving the peace of the country. The use of any measure of a repressive character at any time must depend on the attitude of all concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was quoted by the noble Duke as expressing a wish that he should be seconded by the landlords of the crofters; and I think the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was an easier task in consequence of the number of landlords not being very large; and I may say it is with great satisfaction that I have just heard from the noble Duke how these landlords have met, how they seemed to have combined, and, as far as I understand, how they are prepared to act on the principles—I do not now enter into details—on the general principles of fairness and conciliation which the noble Duke himself has exercised for a long time, and which I believe have also been exercised by the majority of the landlords, but which are neglected by others. I cannot help thinking also that the immediate emergency—that is, the necessity of preserving the law—will be all the more easily dealt with, because of the powerful help of such Bodies as the Free Church Commission, which has issued one of the strongest possible recommendations to the people to avoid breaking the law. Such an attitude on the part of a Body like that not only facilitates the preservation of peace by the Government at this moment, but is extremely useful, inasmuch as it immensely facilitates, and, indeed, probably narrows, the limits of whatever legislation it may be necessary to carry out in consequence of the Report of the noble Lord and his Colleagues.
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)I wish to say a word with reference to a single point in the case which has been brought 120 before the House by the noble Duke, and the noble Lord who followed him. It relates to a matter of fact, as to which it appears to me both the noble Duke and the noble Earl had forgotten the state of the case—that is in regard to the schools in the Highlands and Islands. Whether they are unsuitable, or whether or not there was any extravagance in connection with them, I am not now saying. I very much doubt whether there was; but, however that may be, the fact is that these buildings, so far from being the work of the central Education Department in London, which has been assumed by the noble Lord—so far from being the outcome of an English authority, supposed to be ignorant of the state of the country and of its requirements, were from first to last in all respects the work and the outcome of a purely Scottish Board sitting in Edinburgh. The Scottish Education Act created for a certain time—I think it lasted for six years—a purely Scottish Board sitting in Edinburgh, for the purpose of supplying the school buildings that were wanted in the Highlands and elsewhere in Scotland; and all these school buildings complained of were the work of this Scottish Beard, were built according to the standard laid down by them, and were solely the creation of that purely Scottish Board.
§ LORD WAVENEYsaid, he had learned all that he knew from the speeches of the noble Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick) and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). The system described differed materially from that of Irish cottierhood by the existence of corporations of cultivators, and the interposition between them and the landlord of farming tenants necessarily in sharp competition. Still, he thought that the instinct of a community of interests, by the cooperation of landlord and tenant, which formed the basis of the tenant right of Ulster, lingered amongst the crofters from remote times. Great labour had been expended by the Commission to form a scale of compensation and equivalent; but, amongst a people of such primitive habits and ideas, he would prefer a less rigid and arithmetical mode of satisfying the crofters' needs.