HL Deb 27 May 1886 vol 306 cc172-9

Clause 11 (Application by crofter for enlargement).

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 ETTRICK

thought 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 ETTRICK

said, he had no objection to the word "neighbouring."

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he was willing to assent to the Amendment with the suggested alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD ABINGER moved, in page 5, line 30, after "crofters," to insert words 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ETTRICK

said, 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 ARGYLL

said, 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 ETTRICK

said, that this clause provided that occupiers settled on neighbouring holdings might 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 DALHOUSIE

said, he would offer no objection to the Amendment.

LORD ABINGER

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 valuation or otherwise according to the custom of the country.")—(The Lord Abinger.)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

pointed 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 ABINGER

suggested that there was a danger that the poor landlords might be robbed.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, 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 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 DALHOUSIE

said, he thought the interpretation of the expression might safely be left to the Land Commission.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

pointed 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 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ETTRICK

said, that was a mistake.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ETTRICK

said, 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 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 DALHOUSIE

apologized 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 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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, to a certain extent, trenched upon the right.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ARGYLL

said, 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.