Lords Sitting of 27 May 1886

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Earl of Chichester, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) (95–127).
Committee—Report—Municipal Corporations (Scheme Confirmation) * (90).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Commons Regulation (Stoke) * (102); Commons Regulation and Inclosure (Totternhoe) * (103); Local Government* (104); Local Government (No. 2) * (105); Local Government (Poor Law)* (106); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (107); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3) * (108); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4)* (109); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5) * (110); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* (111).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) (No. 2) * (84).

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER No. 128).
Report from the Select Committee considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), on rising to move that Standing Order 128, which provided that no interest out of capital should be paid on calls under Railway Bills be vacated, and that a new Standing Order recommended by the Select Committee be adopted in lieu thereof, said, it would be in their Lordships' recollection that a short time ago a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Standing Orders of that House with regard to Railway Bills, prohibiting the payment of interest or dividend out of capital during the construction of works. That Committee was appointed to consider whether any alterations ought to be made in the Standing Order of their Lordships' House, having in view the fact that the Standing Order of the House of Commons, which was formerly the same as that of their Lordships' House, had been two years ago altered very materially, and also seeing that on more than one occasion their Lordships had thought fit to dispense with their Standing Order in its existing form. The Select Committee took the matter into their consideration, and were unanimous in the Report which they presented to their Lordships' House, although certain differences of opinion were no doubt entertained by Members of the Committee as to the extent to which it was expedient or justifiable that a Bill should, authorize the execution of railway or other works and sanction the payment of interest out of capital during construction. But it was felt that the matter could not be left in its present very unsatisfactory position, because while the House of Commons allowed, under certain somewhat stringent regulations, the insertion of a clause sanctioning such payment of interest out of capital during construction, their Lordships' House, by Standing Order 128, absolutely prohibited it. The result of this was that a measure containing such a clause could pass through the other House; and in one case, at least, their Lordships suspended their Standing Order, and permitted the insertion of the clause as sanctioned by the House of Commons. The Select Com-

153
mittee had thought it better to recommend that substantially the Standing Order of their Lordships' House should be the same as that of the House of Commons; and therefore they had recommended only certain verbal alterations in that Standing Order, which, in their opinion, made its object and purpose somewhat more clear in an important particular, and also one or two alterations in form rather than substance, which were necessary to bring it more into conformity with the proceedings in their Lordships' House. Substantially, what he asked them to adopt was the Standing Order, which two years ago was adopted by the House of Commons. Everyone must be agreed that where an undertaking was secured by statute with the permission to those who were to execute the works to pay interest during the time of construction out of capital and not out of earnings, it was extremely important that those who were induced to invest their money in the undertaking should have clear and distinct notice of what was being done; and, provided that they had such notice, he thought it would not probably be considered necessary, at all events in all cases, that the care of the Legislature over them should go further than that. The Standing Order of the House of Commons was stringent with regard to the interest to be allowed, the time during which it was to be allowed, when it was to begin, and the conditions of subscription of capital under which a loan was to be allowed. In the Standing Order now recommended to their Lordships it was made perfectly clear that the notice of a Company having power so to pay interest must be given in every prospectus, advertisement, or other document of the Company inviting subscriptions for shares and in every certificate of shares. The Select Committee were unanimous in the conclusion at which they arrived that a provision of that sort might be recommended to their Lordships' House with a substantial feeling of security against any injustice or wrong being done. Of course, to a very great extent, people must take care of and protect themselves; but when an Act of Parliament was required it might reasonably be maintained that some further protection might be inserted for the benefit of the unwary and those who were wanting in
154
caution. He thought that if they secured that in every case the document which invited them to part with their money should at the same time make known to them exactly what was being done in the matter of paying interest out of capital during construction, beyond that people might be left to take care of themselves. The Select Committee were satisfied that there was substantial ground for altering the Standing Order of their Lordships' House, inasmuch as it was thought by most of the Members that unless a provision of this sort were adopted undertakings of a perfectly substantial and legitimate character would not, and could not, be carried out, because money which would be subscribed with such a provision would not be subscribed without it. A provision of this sort was not required to bolster up unsound and speculative concerns, but might be legitimately introduced in the case of sound and substantial ones. It was most undesirable upon a matter of this kind, unless there was some extremely strong reason for it, that there should be a difference between the Standing Order of their Lordships' House and the Standing Order of the House of Commons. It did occur to the Committee that in some respects, perhaps, changes might be desirable; but they thought it would be better in the meantime to pass the Standing Order in the form in which the House of Commons adopted it, and, should further amendment prove desirable, the matter should be made the subject of a communication between their Lordships' House and the House of Commons, so that the Standing Orders of both Houses upon this matter might ultimately be the same.
Moved, "That Standing Order No. 128 be vacated, and that the following Standing Order he adopted in lieu thereof:
"A clause shall be inserted in every Railway Bill prohibiting the payment of any interest or dividend out of any capital which the Company have been or may be authorised to raise, either by means of calls, or of any power of borrowing, to any shareholder on the amount of the calls made in respect of the shares held by him, except such interest on money advanced by any shareholder beyond the amount of the calls actually made as is in conformity with the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or the Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, as the case may be; and except such interest (if any) as the Committee on the Bill may, according to the circumstances of the case, think fit to allow, subject always to the following conditions:—

155

(1.) That the rate of interest allowed by the Committee do not in any case exceed four per centum per annum;

(2.) That interest be allowed to be paid in respect only of the time allowed by the Bill for the completion of the railway, or such less time as the Committee think fit;

(3.) That payment of interest be not allowed to begin until the Railway Company have obtained a certificate of the Board of Trade to the effect that two-thirds at least of the share capital authorised by the Bill, in respect whereof interest may be paid, have been actually issued and accepted, and are held by shareholders, who, or whose executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, are legally liable for the same;

(4.) That interest do not accrue in favour of any shareholder for any time during which any call on any of his shares is in arrear;

(5.) That the aggregate amount to be so paid for interest be estimated and stated in the Bill, and be not deemed capital within Standing Order 112;

(6.) That notice of the Company having power so to pay interest out of capital be given in every prospectus, advertisement, or other document of the Company inviting subscriptions for shares, and in every certificate of shares; and

(7.) That the half-yearly accounts of the Company do show the amount on which, and the rate at which, interest has been paid:

And the Company shall be authorised by the Bill to pay interest accordingly, but not further or otherwise.
"If in any case the Committee on the Bill do not think fit to allow any such interest, then there shall be inserted in the Bill provisions making liable to penalties, recoverable summarily, any director or officer of the Company who shall, directly or indirectly, pay or procure to be paid any interest or dividend prohibited as aforesaid, and making illegal and void any contract entered into by the Company, or the directors thereof, or any of them, under which payment of any interest or dividend prohibited as aforesaid shall be, directly or indirectly, provided for.
"No Railway Bill authorising the payment of interest out of capital shall be read a second time until a report thereon from the Board of Trade has been laid upon the Table of the House."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he had always been of opinion that the principle of their Lordships' Standing Order was a very sound one. He felt the force, however, of what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the great necessity for something like unanimity of action upon this subject between the two Houses of Parliament. He would not oppose the Motion, although he continued to think
156
that the Standing Order of their Lordships' House was better than that of the other House.
Motion agreed to; and resolved accordingly.
The said Standing Order to be printed. (No. 126.)

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
(NO. 95.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).

I.—Security of Tenure.
Clause 1 (A crofter shall not be removed except for breach of statutory conditions).
LORD LOVAT, in moving, in line 12, before Sub-section 1, to insert a new sub-section—namely—
"A crofter shall reside on his holding unless serving with an embodied regiment of Militia,"
said, it was desirable that the crofter should continue to reside on his holding. As the Bill stood, he did not see anything to prevent a crofter fencing his croft round, planting it with trees or anything else he chooses, going off to America, and returning after 20 years, and coming down upon the proprietor for payment for any improvements. The object of the Bill was not to do that, but to provide land for the crofter; and, therefore, he moved this Amendment, so as to secure that the crofter should reside on his holding.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, after line 12, before sub-section (1.), insert as a new sub-section—"(1.) The crofter shall reside on his holding unless serving with an embodied regiment of Militia."—(The Lord Lovat.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought an Amendment which he had put down would meet the object of his noble Friend better. He intended to propose that the definition of a crofter should be a person who resided habitually on his holding.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that there were many cases of men who had to leave their crofts and serve with the Army, and who might be away for a year or a year and a-half. While he was away his croft might be taken care of by his wife or his mother, and it would be hard to deprive him of it in

157
these circumstances. He might be absent, and yet the croft suffer no damage, and there might be a bonâ fide intention on his part to come back.
In reply to Lord ABINGER,
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that the case he had put was not at all an unusual one. It certainly was a very ordinary case in past times, when hundreds of crofters returned from military service and resumed agricultural operations on their crofts. He would be more inclined to accept the suggestion of the noble Duke to insert the word "habitually" than to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE)said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. Enough had been said already to show that it was an objectionable Amendment; but it was even more objectionable than had been shown, for crofters often went to the fishings, and even worked for a while on the large farms. If the Amendment were accepted, he was not sure that it would not seriously affect the value of the Bill.
LORD LOVATsaid, he was quite ready to accept the suggestion of the noble Duke to insert the word "habitually" in the Definition Clause and withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved, as an additional sub-section, to insert—
"The crofter shall have been convicted of felony, or theft, or be in receipt of parochial relief."
While he regretted that legislation such as this had been proposed, he thought they should endeavour to make it as innocuous as possible. It put the interests of the landlords on one side and the interests of the crofters on the other. Now, while he might admit that there were ruthless landlords, yet, on the other hand, they had sometimes worthless tenants; and the privileges of the Bill should not be, in his opinion, extended to convicted felons and thieves, or to crofters who were in receipt of parochial relief. He had been for 25 years Chairman of the Board of one of the largest parishes, and he found that the old feeling of independence was very much wearing off, and that many were on the poor
158
roll who ought not to have been there. Under the circumstances which would be introduced by the power of bequest contained in the Bill, the landlord ought to have some power over crofts held by persons in receipt of parochial relief.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 16, after ("tenancy") insert as a new sub-section—"The crofter shall have been convicted of felony, or theft, or be in receipt of parochial relief."—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment. He did not think it would have any practical value, while it had an exceedingly offensive aspect. He could sincerely say that among the crofting population in the West of Scotland ordinary crime, such as was here referred to, was almost unknown, and he did not remember the case of any crofter being convicted of theft or felony. It was offensive to apply it to them when it did not apply to the larger class of farmers, who were not deprived of their farms by law on conviction for theft. As to those receiving parochial relief, he had never heard of a man being admitted to be a pauper in his district who had got a croft. The ratepayers looked after that. There might be cases in which a crofter became bankrupt, and his cattle and goods sold off. He might then become a pauper; but if he came upon the roll he could not retain his holding. The Bill would really gain nothing by the Amendment.
LORD ABINGERsaid, he had no intention of proposing anything offensive. As there was so little likelihood of his Amendment being enforced, there could be little objection to its being inserted.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not understand the point of the Amendment. If the crofter did not pay his rent, he could, under Sub-section 1 of this clause, cease to be in possession of his croft.
LORD ABINGERmaintained that a difficulty might arise in this way in connection with the Bequest Clause. If a man became a pauper he did not pay his rent; but if he had not paid for two years he had to get six months' notice. If he died in the interval his son might come in and get the croft, and the landlord would have no claim against him for the past rent. The object of the Amendment was to give the landlord power to

159
take over the holding on the crofter taking parochial relief.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he agreed with the remarks of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and would even go further. He asked their Lordships to consider whether there was not a moral question involved here? The noble Lord (Lord Abinger) proposed that when a man was convicted of an offence, not only he should be removed from his croft, but his family should also be made to suffer, and they must all remove somewhere else. The man might go to a town, and become worse there and increase its criminal population. It seemed to him a more rational thing that every parish should consume its own vice and crime, and not be so solicitous to send its crime to other parts of the country. Then in regard to the point of parochial relief. Under the Bill the smallest occupier paying the smallest rent became a crofter; and they could easily conceive circumstances in which an old man or an old woman should be in temporary distress and receive outdoor relief. Would it not be a gross act of cruelty if they were to sanction the summary expulsion of such old persons from the holding to which they were warmly attached? On the whole, he regarded the Amendment as very pernicious in its tendency, and he hoped their Lordships would not agree to it.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would be very sorry if their Lordships assented to this Amendment, and he would suggest a difficulty. There was no such crime known in Scotch law as felony. It therefore would be easy to pass the Amendment to that extent, because it would be inoperative but for the other considerations. He thought it would be a very ungracious act if they should put in such words as were proposed. He concurred with the appeal of the noble Earl the Secretary for Scotland, who on the second reading said that the Bill should be discussed with every desire to ameliorate the condition of the crofters. In that spirit he thought the words now suggested were unnecessary, and therefore he could not support them.
Amendment negatived.
LORD ABINGERsaid, he proposed to amend the 4th sub-section of Section 1, which provided that the crofter should
160
not, without the consent of his landlord in writing, sub-divide or sub-let his holding, by inserting the words "or permit any other family to reside in the same house."
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 25, after ("thereof") insert ("or permit any other family to reside in the same house.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which he thought was too dictatorial.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, there were, no doubt, many cases in which parents took in the families of their sons into very small houses; and sometimes, even in cases of sickness and death, scenes very shocking to decency occurred. They had several examples of this before the Royal Commission. If the noble Lord would insert the word "habitually" he should feel inclined to support the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that no doubt the Amendment was pointed against what was a real evil in the Western Highlands, where there was great overcrowding in the cottages. He had found it almost impossible to prevent it, and such a provision as that proposed seemed rather to belong to the class of Bills which dealt with sanitary questions than with Bills dealing with questions of tenure. He had no doubt that Parliament would adopt further and more stringent measures with regard to the health of the people; and if Local Bodies were ever intrusted with such duties they would take cognizance of this great evil. It was a difficult and invidious duty to cast out a crofter because he admitted his son's wife. The crofters did not take in crofters, but allowed their married children to come in and overcrowd the house. He thought that was an evil which they must put up with for the present, and wait for the progress of education and local government.
Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved, as an Amendment, to add the following new sub-section:—
"The crofter shall not persistently violate any written condition for the protection of the landlord's interest or the interest of the neighbouring crofters which is legally applicable to the holding, and which shall be sanctioned as reasonable by the Land Commissioners."
The object of the Amendment was to

161
prevent the abuse of rights by one man to the disadvantage of his landlord and his neighbours. As the Bill came up to this House there was no possibility of getting rid of a crofter unless he did not pay rent. But there might be a whole string of regulations which the crofter had signed as conditions of keeping his holding, and he might evade every one of them. Some of these stipulations were in the interest not of the landlords, but of the neighbouring crofters. It was common to put in conditions as to the amount of cattle to be on the common grazing, and there was no more common cause of quarrel than when one man of strong will, perhaps not with the highest character, put on more cattle than his own share on the common grazing. Sometimes this one man overruled the rest of the crofters. In order to present this state of things the landlord often inserted a provision that the crofter should keep his cattle to the proper limit. He knew one case, he was sorry to say, where a minister of the Church of Scotland who had a right of grazing put many more cattle on the common grazing ground than he had a right to do. He understood that the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment if words were inserted to show that the agreement had actually been signed by the crofter. He was willing to accept the proposal of the Government, although such matters were very often simply customary obligations. However, he admitted that there was some difficulty, and he was quite willing to limit his Amendment to the case where the crofters had actually signed the conditions.
Amendment moved,
In page 1, line 27, after sub-section 4, insert as a new sub-section—"The crofter shall not persistently violate any written condition for the protection of the landlord's interest or the interest of neighbouring crofters which is legally applicable to the holding, and which shall be sanctioned as reasonable by the Land Commission."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would accept the Amendment, subject to the limitation suggested by the noble Duke.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABINGERbegged to move an Amendment to give the landlord power to enter a holding for the purpose of
162
taking "limestone," in addition to stone, marble, &c., already provided for.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 12, after ("stone,") insert ("limestone.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEconsidered the introduction of the word "limestone" was unnecessary.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONbelieved that limestone was stone.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, sub-section (6.), line 20, leave out ("sea,") and after ("shore") insert ("of the sea, lakes, or rivers.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he had no objection to the addition of the words, although it was not always easy to draw the line between the shore of the sea, or a river, or a lake.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought his noble Friend might safely accept the Amendment. In some parts of Scotland there were immense lakes, 20 or 30 miles long, to which such a provision as this ought obviously to apply. The extension was of no importance as against the interest of the landlord, although its use to the landlord would be considerable.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved to enable the landlord to take "wild birds or vermin," as well as game and fish. This provision was principally directed against wood-pigeons.
Amendment moved, in line 25, after ("fish,") add ("wild birds or vermin.")—(The Lord Lovat.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved to add the following new sub-section:—
"The crofter shall be subject to removal at the first term after six months' notice if convicted of smuggling spirits or allowing smuggling on his holding, or if convicted of felony, or if twice convicted of poaching."
He considered it was highly important in the interests of the crofter as well as the whole neighbourhood that smuggling should be discouraged.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, after sub-section (7.), add as a new sub-section—"(3.) The crofter shall be subject to removal at the first term after six months'

163
notice if convicted of smuggling spirits or allowing smuggling on his holding, or if convicted of felony, or if twice convicted of poaching."—(The Lord Lovat.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought the provision was unnecessary, and that the offence of smuggling was already sufficiently provided against. A severe penalty was attached to smuggling. If a crofter was convicted of smuggling he was not likely to hold his croft very long.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Provision for resumption by landlord).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved an Amendment dealing with the power of the landlord to withdraw land from a holding for the purpose of feus. He felt quite sure that neither House of Parliament wished that the rights of owners in Scotland should be unreasonably interfered with. On some estates there were landlords who derived much from the feuing value of their land. They looked to it as a means of raising the rental of their property and of recovering some of the immense losses sustained by them in consequence of agricultural depression. The introduction of feuing districts into the Highlands could never be anything but a public advantage. Feuars were of very great importance to the landlords, and there was no conceivable case in which land withdrawn for the purpose of feuing would not be of public service. The Bill provided that land should only be withdrawn for the purpose with the sanction of the Land Commission, and he submitted that that was not a wise restriction. If the landlord took land from the crofter, he always gave ample compensation, and, in the case of larger holdings, clauses were inserted in the leases providing that the landlord might take back land for this particular purpose at a fixed rent. If this Amendment were passed, it would, of course, be in the power of the Land Commission to decide in favour of so large an amount of compensation as would preclude the land from being taken over; but such a contingency he did not fear, as he had every confidence in the reasonableness of the men forming that Body.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 27, leave out ("the Land Commission may on the application of"); in line 38, after ("landlord,") insert ("may,") and leave out ("and upon being satisfied that he desires to.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not think the substance of the Amendment differed very much from the intention of the Bill; but he objected to it on the ground of its form. It was quite inconsistent in form with the clause giving the crofter absolute fixity of tenure. Under the noble Duke's Amendment that fixity of tenure would be invaded, and the only power left to the Land Commission would be that of assessing and fixing the amount of compensation to be paid to the crofter in the event of his being removed by his landlord. If this Amendment were passed, the crofters, on whose behalf this Bill was introduced, might fairly argue in this way—"By the 1st clause of this Bill you give us absolute fixity of tenure, and by the 2nd clause you allow that fixity of tenure to a certain extent to be taken away. You allow the landlord, because he is a rich man and able to pay for the luxury of removing us, to turn us out, however injurious it may be to us." Of course, it would be quite possible to fix a prohibitive sum for compensation; but he submitted that the Bill as it stood was a very good Bill. It had been drafted with great care, and had already passed through a great many storms and tempests in "another place," and he hoped it would pass in its present form. This might be regarded as a small Amendment; but to the crofters it was a very large and important one. At any rate, it was one which told on the landlords' side of the case.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not press his proposal to a division.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 37, after ("Commission,") insert ("whom failing the sheriff of the bounds.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not understand under what circumstances such a provision could possibly be necessary.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONalso failed to grasp the state of things contemplated by the Mover of the Amendment. The powers of the Land Commission with regard to extension closed by Clause 21 after the expiration of five years. The duties of the Land Commission for other purposes would continue; but he could not see when the action of the Sheriff could be called in, because if the Land Commission were abolished by some future Government, or even by the existing Government, should they remain in Office so long, they would be certain to substitute some authority for it.
LORD ABINGERsaid, that the Government might or might not make adequate provision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that it was only one of the functions of the Commission that came to an end at the expiration of five years.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved to include "planting" in those reasonable purposes having relation to the good of the holding for which land might be resumed.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 41, after ("letting,") insert ("planting.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he objected to the Amendment. He thought the general words would include planting.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYhoped their Lordships would assent to the proposal of his noble Friend. To reject it was to show an absolute want of confidence in the Land Commission by whom the Act was to be administered. To insist on the exclusion of planting was one of the most extraordinary species of tyranny he had ever seen in his life. If it were unnecessary the Land Commission would put it right.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not see any harm in adding the word.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would consider the matter on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of Lord NAPIER and ETTRICK, Amendment made, in page 3, line 1, after ("industry,") by inserting—
166
("Or for roads practicable for carriages from the croft or crofts to the high road or the seashore.")
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved to insert an Amendment giving the Sheriff of the bounds—
"Failing the Land Commissioners, power to give the landlord resumption of a holding for the purposes specified in the Bill."
The Amendment proceeded—
"The landlord shall also have power to resume possessisn of any croft or crofts for such estate purposes as he may consider necessary upon payment to the crofter or crofters of compensation at the rate of seven years' rent of the croft or crofts so resumed."
A somewhat similar Amendment had worked very well in the Irish Land Act.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 9, after ("Commission,") insert ("whom failing the sheriff of the bounds shall determine. The landlord shall also have power to resume possession of any croft or crofts for such estate purpose as he may consider necessary upon payment to the crofter or crofters of compensation at the rate of seven years rent of the croft or crofts so resumed.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Amendment of the noble Lord went a great deal further than the one which, after discussion, had been withdrawn. The Amendment was not compatible with the 1st clause of the Bill, which conferred fixity of tenure upon the crofter. He could not accept it on behalf of the Government.
LORD ABINGERsaid, they gave fixity of tenure to the tenant, but they practically handed over the landlord's property without any compensation. He had no objection to substitute 10 for seven years; but there ought to be some point at which the landlord could resume possession.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he hoped the Irish Land Act would not be cited as a reason for the passing of this Bill. He objected as much to the provisions of the Bill as any of their Lordships; but he was aware that some such Bill was necessary; and having passed the 1st clause, which practically gave the crofter fixity of tenure, he would not like to be a party to any action which would undo what had been done in the 1st clause. If they gave fixity of tenure, and then said that the landlord might resume the

167
land whenever he pleased, it seemed to him that they were giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It was not a question of how many years' rent the tenant should have as compensation, but of whether he should remain on the land or not. He accepted the Bill as applying to the Highlands of Scotland; but he trusted no such application would be made by other parts of Scotland, nor he hoped was there any necessity for it. He might mention that the only person who seemed under the Bill not to have fixity of tenure was the large tenant. Between the passing of the Act and five years from that time any tenant who had entered into a lease for 19 years might be disturbed at any period, between now and five years, whether he liked it or not.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 3 (Removal of crofter for breach of conditions) agreed to.

II.—Rent.
Clause 4 (Present rent) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Rent altered by agreement).
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE moved to alter the wording of this clause, giving power to alter rent by agreement by substituting for the latter part of the clause the following words:—
"The rent so agreed on shall be substituted for the present rent so long as such agreement subsists, and after the expiry thereof so long as no different rent shall have been fixed by the Land Commission upon the application of the landlord or the crofter, and so long as no new agreement between the landlord and the crofter shall have been made."
It was only necessary to add that the object of the alteration was to make the meaning of the clause more clear.
Amendment moved,
In page 3, line 28, leave out from the first ("and") to the end of the clause, and insert—("The rent so agreed on shall be substituted for the present rent so long as such agreement subsists, and after the expiry thereof so long as no different rent shall have been fixed by the Land Commission upon the application of the landlord or the crofter, and so long as no new agreement between the landlord and the crofter shall have been made."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, on the second reading he bad addressed a good
168
many observations against the principle of the Bill, founded upon what he found was a misunderstanding of this clause. In his opinion, it was by far the most important clause in the Bill. It was a clause in favour of free contract, giving the crofter access to the capital of his landlord. Having excluded the crofter from the benefit of public money for agricultural improvements, it would have been a monstrous injustice to have also prevented him entering into an agreement with his landlord for improvements. But upon inquiry, although the wording excluded such a case, be found it was not the intention of the Government to do so. The Amendment of the noble Lord professed to give what he had advocated, and if it really did so it would materially reduce the mischief which undoubtedly would result from the Bill if such a clause were not inserted. He would accept the Amendment in the meantime, and if be found it did not meet his views of the case, he could move an Amendment on Report.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would consider the suggestions which had been made before the Report stage of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 6 (Fixed rent).
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he objected to the term "fair rent," which, although it appeared in the Irish Land Act, ought never to have found its way into any Act. No one knew the meaning of the word. One said it meant such a rent that the man could live and thrive. Those who had to administer the law, as a rule, took off about a fourth. They considered themselves on a mission of reduction. In one case the rent was £6 17 s. 4d., and the Commissioners struck off the 7s. 4d. That was absurd.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Why?
LORD BRAMWELL: If £6 10 s. was a fair rent, £6 17 s. 4d., agreed to, could not be unfair, so as to justify altering it. There was only one clear meaning of fair rent, and it did not apply in this case. That clear meaning was "the rent which one person was willing to take and another person was willing to give," In the sense in which it was

169
used here "fair rent" was an improper term. It represented no definite idea. If there was any idea in the mind of the Legislature, it ought to be so stated that people could act upon it; otherwise they would not avoid the confusion which arose under the Irish Land Act. They ought either to strike out the word "fair" or substitute another for it.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that if the noble and learned Lord wished to propose any Amendment, he ought to give Notice of it. The deduction of 5 per cent might be a small one in the learned Profession to which his noble and learned Friend belonged, but it was of some importance to small crofters. The Bill would be worked by practical men, to whom the word "fair" would have an intelligible meaning, whether it was capable of a legal interpretation or not.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKthought the expression "fair rent" unreasonable, and peculiarly unacceptable in the present state of the Highlands, when no rent would be looked upon as fair. He thought the word "judicial" should be substituted for "fair."
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhad a large amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, and had frequently pointed out in the Irish Land Act that the words "fair rent" had no interpretation except in the breast of the valuators. But the word "fair" was not altogether without precedent in Scottish law. It was used in the Entail Act, and also in the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act. The life tenant of entailed property who might accept a fine and let land at a low rent was prohibited from doing so to the prejudice of his successor. It was provided that no life tenant should let his land except on fair rent. The context showed that a market rent was implied. Clause 11 spoke of "such terms as are usually obtained in the letting of land of the like quality and similarly situated." These words were convertible with "fair rent." But they should be considered with reference to the difference between land taken from a landlord to be added to a croft and land which had been improved in value by the occupying tenant. In the Scottish Valuation Act in dealing with land which was not let assessors were directed to ascertain what was its fair letting value.
LORD WATSONsaid, he always understood that the only object of the first Act cited by the noble Duke was to prevent a life tenant doing injury to his successors.
On the Motion of The Duke of RICHMOND, Amendment made, in page 3, line 40, after ("holding,") by inserting ("and suitable thereto.")
On the Motion of Lord NAPIER and ETTRICK, Amendment made, in page 3, line 40, after ("executed,") by inserting ("is paid for.")
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved to insert, in Sub-section 4, the words "upon consignation of the rent due or finding security therefor." Without some such restriction they might take advantage of the clause to avoid paying rent pending the decision of the Commission. In this way they might dispose of their cattle and goods, and when decision was given they might have practically nothing. They should either deposit the money in Court or find security for it.
Amendment moved,
In page 4, line 17, after ("proceedings,") insert ("upon consignation of the rent due or finding security therefor.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, it might be unfair to compel the crofter to find security for the whole amount. The rent might be £5, but after the valuation it might be fixed at £3, and surely it would be hard that he should have to find security for £5. Besides, in the last line of the clause the Land Commission had a sufficient discretion left them to protect the interests of the landlords.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that he could not imagine an alteration in the terms of the Act more irritating, more unreasonable, or more inept than this. It was manifestly absolutely impossible that many of the crofters should be able to find security.
LORD WATSONsaid, that the Commission had a right in this clause to impose any condition as to payment of rent during the stay of execution, and the question was whether the Commission should at discretion exact security or a deposit of the money.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

III.—Renunciation of Tenancy.
Clause 7 (Renunciation of tenancy) agreed to, and added to the Bill.

IV.—Compensation for Improvements.
Clause 8 (Compensation to crofter for improvements on removal) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 9 (Compensation to cottar for improvements on removal).
LORD ABINGERsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that compensation for improvements on removal should be only paid when executed by the crofter or his predecessor in the same family "within 30 years."
Amendment moved, in page 5, line 13, after ("family,") insert ("under 30 years.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that there were plenty of cottages with mud walls which stood much longer than 30 years. He thought the Commissioners should be left to decide whether the improvements were exhausted or not, and he hoped that the house would not put in the limit of 30 years.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved the omission of the sub-section providing that the improvements for which compensation was to be given should not have been
"Executed in virtue of any specific agreement in writing under which the cottar was bound to execute such improvement,"
and to insert in its place—
"Executed in virtue of the stipulations of a lease, or in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings."
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 14, leave out sub-section ("c,") and insert ("such improvements as have not been executed in virtue of the stipulations of a lease, or in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that it was extremely desirable that the responsibilities of the crofter should be limited to points as to which there could be no doubt whatever. In other parts of the Bill they had refused to have the door open to general regulations and understandings, and had limited the responsibility of the crofter to the specific
172
agreements which he himself had signed, and it would not be consistent if they went away from that principle now.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 10 (Principle of valuation) agreed to, and added to the Bill.

V.—Enlargement of Holdings.
Clause 11 (Application by crofter for enlargement).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved, in page 5, line 27, to insert, after the word "resident," the words "on contiguous holdings." The word "township" had not been raised in the Bill, and yet the principle of the group of crofters had been in the mind of the Government in drawing up the Bill. The five crofters who could make an application for an enlargement of holdings had clearly a reference to a contiguous group, and yet it might so happen that that application was made by one dissatisfied crofter on his property, who might get other four resident 40 miles away, although in the same parish, and they together might go to the Land Commission, and get an enlargement for the one man, while the intention of the Bill was that five crofters in a township should have liberty to apply.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 27, after ("resident") insert ("on contiguous holdings.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKthought the words "on contiguous holdings" were rather too stringent. He would suggest such words as "five occupiers on the same estate," or "not remote from each other." He would remind them that five respectable occupants in a township might have a common interest, yet their five holdings might not be contiguous.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Call it "neighbouring holdings."
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he had no objection to the word "neighbouring."
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was willing to assent to the Amendment with the suggested alteration.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER moved, in page 5, line 30, after "crofters," to insert words

173
to the effect that the land to be added should "have been previously held by crofters." He said that if the croft was to be enlarged it was only reasonable that it should be enlarged out of land which some time or other had been in the hands of crofters. He did not want to fix any limit of time.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 30, after ("crofters") insert ("which have been previously held by crofters.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the noble Lord had overlooked the fact that in many cases crofters had been removed to the seashore from places which they formerly occupied, and it was extremely desirable that there as elsewhere there should be power to enlarge the holdings. These cases might not have been very numerous; still they existed, and the Bill endeavoured to provide for them. If the Amendment were adopted it would certainly not deal with the most plausible of all the grievances of the crofters.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, there would be a difficulty with reference to the interpretation of the term "crofter." It here meant any occupier holding from year to year and paying rent directly to the landlord. But there were many cases in which men had paid to the landlord, and who were deprived of land which actually was in the occupancy of their predecessors of the same class; but these predecessors had not been crofters, but sub-tenants of tacksmen. Therefore, the proposal of the noble Lord would deprive present crofters of land which did belong to the same class of people formerly, although not under the same name.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the Amendment would not work. If his noble Friend went back he would find that the whole of the country was in fact held by sub-tenants, and the crofters were the living descendants of those sub-tenants. Where there was no limitation of time he did not think the direction contained in the Amendment would be of any value.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that this clause provided that occupiers settled on neighbouring holdings might
174
ask for an extension of their holding, which generally meant common pasture in the same parish. But boundaries of parishes were not identical with boundaries of farms or estates, and it might happen that the area available for the extension of the pasture land would be just over the boundary of the parish. He proposed, therefore, to insert the words "or in an adjacent crofting parish." Unless they had these words they ran a great risk of taking away from some parties their right of getting an extension of their holdings. It was a difficulty that might easily occur.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 31, after ("parish") insert ("or in an adjacent crofting parish.")—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he would offer no objection to the Amendment.
LORD ABINGERsaid, he could not agree with the proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, line 32, after ("land") insert ("belonging to the same landlord or landlords.")—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not object to the provision on principle, but pointed out that it was defective as a piece of drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 12 (Intimidation to landlords).
Amendment moved,
In page 6, line 2, after ("heard") insert ("on oath,") and after ("thereupon") insert ("and shall ascertain as far as possible how far the small size of the holdings has been due to the action of the landlord or of the crofters.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The Lord NAPIER and ETTRICK, Amendment made, in page 6, line 5, after ("parish") insert ("or in an adjacent crofting parish belonging to the same landlord or landlords.")
Amendment moved,
In page 6, line 13, after ("land") insert ("and to acquire the sheep effeiring thereto by

175
valuation or otherwise according to the custom of the country.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKpointed out that if the Amendment were accepted Parliament would impose on the crofter the necessity of taking over sheep stock which might be diseased, or which he might not be competent to manage, or which he might not require. If it were adopted it must remain in many cases utterly inoperative.
LORD ABINGERsuggested that there was a danger that the poor landlords might be robbed.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the truth was that landlords in Scotland had got into a very vicious system of valuing sheep and cattle stock. Against that system he had been going for years. Landlords had been in the habit of taking over stock at its full value, and very often at more than its value, whereas it was only reasonable that it should be taken over at the actual market price at the time.
Amendment negatived.
On the Motion of the Duke of ARGYLL, Amendment made, in page 6, line 26, after ("seaweed") insert ("for agricultural or feeding purposes.")
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 13 (Available land).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON moved to omit the word "near." It was impossible for his Lordship to say what was near, as it was altogether a relative term.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 31, leave out ("or near.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he thought the interpretation of the expression might safely be left to the Land Commission.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLpointed out that it would be very undesirable to confine the expression in any way. There were many cases in the Hebrides where the arable land of the crofts was on the mainland and the pasture on an island a mile or two from the shore. Some of the most bitter quarrels in the Highlands—some that were even now pending—had arisen with regard to grazing on islands.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK moved an Amendment to the effect that the landowner might grant the application of the crofter for an enlargement of his holding to the extent of raising the annual value of the holding from £15, as stated in the Bill, to £30. The definition of a crofter was an occupier who paid rent up to £30, and it seemed logical that if the crofter claimed an enlargement he should be allowed to do so up to the extent of raising the value of his holding to £30.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 36, leave out ("fifteen,") and insert ("thirty,") and at end of clause add—"In the event of an enlargement of his holding being granted to a crofter by an order of the Land Commission, and in case the crofter shall make application in writing to the landlord for pecuniary and other assistance towards the occupation and stocking of such enlargement, it shall be competent for the landlord and crofter to make a voluntary agreement as to the payment of interest and reimbursement by the crofter to the landlord in consideration of such assistance, and on the written application of the parties concerned to the Land Commission, and with the approval of the Land Commission, such payments may be added to the fixed rent of the holding and form part of the same, under the provisions of this Act, until the claim of the landlord, under the terms of the agreement, or otherwise, has been exhausted."—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Government, in fixing the maximum at £15, had adopted the limit laid down in the Report of the Crofter Commission.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that was a mistake.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the Bill was intended to meet the case of the very miserable and smallest crofters, and to enable them to exist in reasonable comfort. It was not the purpose of the Bill to use the power of the State to set them up in a large commercial way of business. Moreover, to take land from one man to give it to another so that he might have a holding worth £30 a-year would be scarcely fair.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, there was no inconsistency with the recommendation in the Report of the Crofter Commission and this Amendment. Their Report was based on the principle of establishing townships, which

177
he still thought was a preferable plan; and they suggested that the maximum average holding need not be more than £15 in value; but this would not have prevented a crofter in the township from having a holding of the value of £30.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEapologized for having misunderstood the noble Lord.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 14 (Deductions from rent in case of lands held for sporting purposes) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 15 (Assigned land).
LORD DENMAN, in whose name the following new Clause stood upon the Paper:—
"It shall be lawful for all crofters to capture or kill any deer which may have strayed upon their holdings, unless they shall have been unfairly enticed by the crofter,"
said, he placed it on the Paper because of Lord Bagot allowing his tenants to shoot deer which had strayed on their holdings. The principle was not unknown in the Crofters (No. 1) Bill, which only cost ½d. more than the Government Bill. Stringent provisions were contained to allow tenants to shoot deer upon their holdings, and to be under the Ground Game Act. If their Lordships did not grant this privilege it was within the power of every landlord to do so. If they had a Dissolution, and this Bill were lost, he hoped this concession would be granted by proprietors. He would have no regret though this Bill were not passed. If they were to have a Dissolution, he hoped the Infants Bill and the Women's Suffrage Bill would not be lost.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 16 (Bequest of holding).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving the following additional Clause:—
"Provided always that in the case of any legatee or heir-at-law more distant than wife, son, grandson, brother, or son-in-law, it shall shall be competent to the landlord on his own part, or on the part of neighbouring crofters, to represent that, in the interest and for the comfort of any adjoining crofters, the holding ought to be added to them, so as to increase their size, and in all cases in which the Sheriff
178
shall determine in favour of such representation, the heir, or the legatee, as the case may be, who but for such determination would have succeeded to the holding, shall have right to any claim for compensation for improvements theron which would have been competent to the deceased crofter if he had been removed at the date of his death,"
said, his object in this Amendment was to increase the size of the holdings. There would be many cases in which it would be impossible to increase holdings by annexation of adjacent land. He himself never evicted any widow, son, or other near relative; but only the other day, in a township on the West Coast, a man died, and a distant cousin from Glasgow took possession. There was no chance of increasing holdings if distant relations like that could step in. He hoped the landlord would have power to go before a Sheriff in such a case and agree to pay compensation to the legatee rather than allow him to take possession of land where it was desirable to increase the size of the holdings. This Proviso was entirely in the interest of the crofters themselves.
Amendment moved, at end of Clause, add the following:—
("Provided always, that in the case of any legatee or heir-at-law more distant than wife, son, grandson, brother, or son-in-law, it shall be competent to the landlord on his own part, or on the part of neighbouring crofters, to represent that in the interest and for the comfort of any adjoining crofts the holding ought to be added to them so as to increase their size, and in all cases in which the Sheriff shall determine in favour of such representation, the heir, or the legatee, as the case may be, who but for such determination would have succeeded to the holding, shall have right to any claim of compensation for improvements thereon which would have been competent to the deceased crofter if he had been removed at the date of his death.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that if this Bill had been now put forward for the first time he might have been in a position to accept this Amendment or something like it; but the Bill had passed through a number of changes in "another place," and no Amendment to this effect had, as he understood, had any amount of support from the Representatives of the crofters. The Amendment might be conceived in the interests of the tenants, but he did not think they had that opinion themselves. The Bill established the descend ability of the crofter's estate, which he believed the crofters valued, and this Amendment,

179
to a certain extent, trenched upon the right.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, the crofters valued an increase of their holdings as much as anything else, and he thought the Government would do well to accept an Amendment in the direction of that moved by the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, after consultation he would accept the Amendment provisionally, although possibly the wording would have to be altered on Report. Perhaps the Amendment was one which the crofters would favour if they understood it, and on that ground the Government would give way.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, from his personal knowledge of the crofters, he was certain if they understood the Amendment they would be favourable to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

VI.—Land Commission.
Clause 17 (Appointment of three Commissioners).
LORD DENMANsaid, he approved of one of the Commissioners under the Bill being able to speak Gaelic. He should be perfectly free to oppose the Bill on the third reading; and he was encouraged to take that unusual course by its success the other night in the case of the Durham Sunday Closing Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that in introducing the Bill the noble Lord opposite said that one of the Commissioners should be a trained lawyer of eminence. Now, with all respect to the Scottish Bar, he was afraid it did not always follow that an advocate of 10 years' standing should have attained to a position of eminence. Of course, upon the men chosen depended the proper and safe working of this Act. He should have preferred to have had one of the Judges on the Commission; but, at any rate, it would be satisfactory to have, before this Bill left this House, some notification as to who the Commissioners were to be. They would then be satisfied as to whether the Commissioners were likely to carry out the Act in a manner such as would commend itself to them.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that he hoped that when the Bill was before the House for the third time he would be in a position to give the names of the Commissioners.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 18 (Area covered by the Act) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 19 (Procedure in fixing fair rent) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 20 (Procedure in enlarging holdings).
Amendment moved,
In page 10, line 37, leave out ("necessary or expedient,") and insert ("just: Provided always, the crofters shall be required to bear a fair share of the said cost."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKthought it was rather a wide power to give the Commissioners. They might order the landlord and the crofters to put up solid stone fence of a mile long, or wire fence five miles long, round the crofters' common pasture without any limitation as to the proportion in which the outlay should fall. It was true that the Royal Commissioners contemplated proposals of that kind; but they all understood that there was to be a fair sharing of the expense. He would suggest that the clause be modified.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEthought the clause should be left as at present. It confided the matter to the Land Commission, and that Body might find cases in which they might hold that the crofters should bear the whole cost. He did not see better provision could be made by laying down directions in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONpointed out that it was for the benefit of the crofters that the fencing was to be done, and therefore the whole expense should not fall on the landlord.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the words "just to the parties concerned," or "just, necessary, and expedient," might be introduced on Report if the Amendment were withdrawn.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 21 (Duration of the Act).
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK moved to leave out the clause, and to substitute the following new Clause:—
"The powers of the Land Commission, as defined by the present Act, shall continue for a period of five years from the passing of this Act, and after the expiration of that period all the powers vested in the Land Commission shall be transferred to the sheriffs depute of the counties in which the crofting parishes contemplated by this Act are situated, and shall be vested in them for the purposes of the present Act."
The noble Lord pointed out that Clause 21 contemplated the cessation of the powers of the Commission at the end of five years with reference to one of the most important provisions of the Act. In a great many cases the adjacent sheep farms were held under long leases, and the crofters might never have an opportunity of claiming an enlargement. He did not advocate an unlimited extension of the existence of the Commission. He humbly thought the Commission need never have existed, as the provisions of the Bill might have been cheaply carried out by the existing Judicial Authorities of the country or those authorities otherwise assisted to a slight extent. He did not complain, therefore, of their existence being limited; but what he did object to was that their necessary powers should terminate. He hoped, therefore, that while the Commission should terminate in five years, their powers should fall on those best qualified to cary them out—the sheriffs depute of the counties.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought that would be one of the worst clauses of a Bill which he did not think very satisfactory as it was. There was a clause in the Bill limiting the operation of the Act to five years.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, there was no doubt that this Bill would have the effect of stopping improvements, not only on crofters' holdings, but on the grounds adjacent; and, therefore, for Heaven's sake let them have a definite time fixed for its expiration. For his own part, he would avoid all outlay on farms adjacent to crofters' holdings, because it might result in a demand for the farms to be divided. No landlord could with any security go on improving farms which might be claimed in that way, and thus the Bill would operate most seriously against the improvement of the West Highlands.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKthought the noble Duke would not expect the Bill to be limited to a definite period. It was impossible for the crofters to get all their cases disposed of in five years. The subject would be brought up again at the end of five years, when the period for the continuation of the Bill would be enlarged and the authority transferred from the Land Commission to another body. He would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 32 (Saving in case of holdings in possession of servants).
Amendment moved,
In page 13, line 40, after ("holding,") insert ("or buildings,") and after ("landlord,") insert ("or buildings let to shopkeepers, inspectors of poor, tradesmen, or artizans paying above six pounds of rent.")—(The Lord Abinger.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEbelieved the Government would be able to accept the Amendment, but he should like time to consider it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving, in page 13, line 42, to insert, after "landlord," at the end of the clause, the following words:—
"Nor on any holdings on which the permanent improvements have been executed by the landlord,"
said, that in the Irish Act it was provided that where, as in England and Scotland, the improvements were executed by the landlords the estate was exempted. Now, he had, on the small crofts exactly as on the large ones, built the houses, drained the land and inclosed it, and he only asked to have the same law applied to him as had been applied in like circumstances to the Irish landlords.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that under it a crofter, by accepting some of the improvements made by the landlord, might shut himself out of the benefits of the Bill. The Amendment would limit the scope of the Bill too much.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, what was necessary was a proper defini-

183
tion of a crofter. He considered the Amendment reasonable and fair. He hoped the Government would consider the question between this and Report.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 33 (Definitions).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON moved, in page 14, line 2, to insert, after "who," the words "habitually," the object of the Amendment being to define the crofter as one who resided habitually on or near his holding.
Amendment moved, in page 14, line 2, after ("who,") insert ("habitually.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid he must decline to accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
On the Motion of The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON, Amendment made in page 14, line 2, by leaving out "or near."
THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, the Amendment he begged to move would define "permanent improvements" as—
"All improvements which, in the judgment of the Land Commission, shall add to the value of the holding to an incoming tenant."
As this was not an Agricultural Holdings Bill, a general definition was all that was required to guide the Land Commissioners as to what was meant by permanent improvements. If his Amendment were accepted, he would afterwards move to omit the Schedule.
Amendment moved,
In page 14, line 19, leave out after ("means") to the end of the paragraph, and insert ("all improvements which, in the judgment of the Land Commission, shall add to the value of the holding to an incoming tenant.")—(The Earl of Fife.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEremarked, that the Amendment comprised what was already comprised in the Schedule. It was necessary, or at all events highly desirable, that the definition should be specific. Crofters were not a very well educated class. It was, therefore, as well to give a few instances of improvement in order that they might the better judge what improvements would entitle to compensation. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to remain as it stood.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONconsidered the Schedule to be far better than the proposal of the noble Lord, because the Amendment would place an almost unlimited power in the Commission to say what they considered permanent improvements. In his opinion it was far better to retain the Schedule, outside of which the Commissioners had no power; therefore, he strongly opposed the Amendment. He might point out that at the end of the Schedule were to be found the very words which the noble Earl now proposed to insert in the body of the Bill.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKstated that there were numerous cases in which improvements were made by tenants which added nothing to the letting value of the holding, but for which, nevertheless, compensation should be granted. Considerable latitude should, therefore, be left to the Commissioners in determining what were really permanent improvements. Improvements of all kinds should be encouraged as an incentive to industry.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 34 (Short title) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Schedule.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he had a series of Amendments in respect to the Schedule of the Bill, but he did not intend to press them all; but as the Schedule proposed to give compensation for all kinds of improvements, he proposed in the case of dwelling-houses to limit the claim for compensation to two dwelling-houses joined together by a party wall.
Amendment moved,
In page 15, line 1, after ("Dwelling-house,") insert ("of which the external walls are constructed of stone and lime.")—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment, as he believed it would be more satisfactory to leave the question of compensation as it stood to the Commissioners' own sense of justice.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
In page 15, line 10, leave out ("Planting trees,") and insert ("Plantations of trees.")—(The Lord Napier and Ettrick.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLremarked, that if the Land Commission could not distinguish a plantation when they saw it they might be presumed not to be competent for their other duties. It reminded him of a story he once heard descriptive of the trees in Islay. The trees were said to be very fine, but you could not see them for the grass.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 127.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.