HL Deb 27 May 1886 vol 306 cc179-85

Clause 17 (Appointment of three Commissioners).

LORD DENMAN

said, 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 GORDON

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ETTRICK

thought 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 DALHOUSIE

thought 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 GORDON

pointed 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 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 GORDON

thought 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 ARGYLL

said, 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 ETTRICK

thought 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 DALHOUSIE

believed 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 DALHOUSIE

opposed 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 GALLOWAY

said, what was necessary was a proper defini- 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 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 DALHOUSIE

said 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 FIFE

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

remarked, 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 GORDON

considered 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 ETTRICK

stated 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 ETTRICK

said, 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 DALHOUSIE

said, 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 ARGYLL

remarked, 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.