§ 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 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 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.)
§ 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 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 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 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.
164
§
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.
§ 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 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.
§ 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 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.