Lords Sitting of 17 March 1909

DUNOON BURGH BILL. [H.L.] GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Churchill.)
LORD INVERCLYDErose to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill for the purpose of drawing attention to the increased powers which railway companies are seeking to own steamers. It seems to me that the length railway companies are now going in the direction of steamboat-owning has reached a point when it is a matter of public policy to consider whether the line should not be now laid down and they should not be allowed to go any further.
Certain Scottish railway companies have powers to own steamers, and, in consequence, have practically run all private steamboat enterprise off the Clyde. Only the other day one of the Clyde companies had to go into liquidation as a result. Having done this and lost their shareholders' money in doing so, the railway companies have now entered into a combination among themselves and are withdrawing a certain number of their steamers and arranging to pool the receipts and raise the fares; and this, I maintain, is to the disadvantage of the public. Railway companies, of necessity, have a monopoly more or less on land. That monopoly is now spreading, and railway companies are also obtaining a monopoly of the Channel and coasting trade to a very great extent. Yet I make bold to say that there is not a single steamer owned by a railway company which is run at
466
a profit. I must admit that I am unable to prove that by figures, because the accounts of railway companies are so made up as to render that impossible; but I do not think anyone connected with a railway company will contradict my statement.
It is exceedingly hard that bonâ fide shipowners who run steamers for their livelihood should be subjected to such competition as is now met with from railway companies. The companies, of course, maintain that, although the steamers make a loss, there is a profit to them on the through journey. I do not think that is fair competition, and, as things are going just now, I do not know where it will stop. Under Clause 4 of this Bill the railway companies seek an extension of the steamboat powers they already possess. I object to this clause altogether. I object to the indefinite powers sought under the clause to run steamers to all ports on the coast of France between St. Malo and Nantes. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the coasting trade is confined to ports between Brest and Hamburg. In this Bill the Company are seeking powers to run steamers to ports in the Bay of Biscay. If they are given power to run to the Bay of Biscay, why should they not run to the Cape and to New York? I do not know where it will end. Under that clause also the railway company could enter the British coasting trade between the British ports named in the clause, but I understand that it is not the intention of the company to do so.
Under Clause 5 the railway company may subscribe to the funds of any steamship company running traffic between the ports named in the Bill. The power sought is a very wide one indeed, and the railway company, if they do not run their own steamers, merely have to run another company's, and would be entitled to subscribe money to that company for running steamers between the authorised ports, and, having subscribed to that company, there is nothing to prevent these steamers running to any other ports. In fact, it would only be a separate company in name; and under that clause there is no condition that the steamers should sail under the British flag.
I know I shall be told that other railway companies possess similar powers. I admit that; but I have felt bound to draw

467
attention to this matter because the shipping trade is getting alarmed at the increased powers which railway companies are procuring in this direction. If your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading, I shall make this appeal to the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade, that in the public interest they will protect us when the Bill goes before Committee. Shipowners have not a sufficient margin of profit to go to the heavy expense of fighting these Bills before Committees upstairs, and I think this is a case where the Board of Trade ought to look after our interests.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out the word 'now' and to add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.'"—(Lord Inverclyde.)
VISCOUNT CHURCHILLMy Lords, the noble Lord said he believed he would be answered by the statement that other companies had the same powers as we are seeking to obtain under this Bill. That, I think, is a very effective reply to any objection that can be taken to the Second Reading of this Bill. Under the Bill we seek for no further powers than are already possessed by other companies. This Bill, in fact, is framed on the last precedent passed by Parliament—namely, the North Eastern Railway Bill of 1905, which contains exactly similar provisions to those in Clauses 4 and 5—the clauses to which, I understand, the noble Lord objects; the only difference is that the powers described are confined to vessels registered in a British port. The Great Western Railway Company have already drawn up an Amendment dealing with this subject. The powers sought under this Bill are infinitely more limited than those granted to other companies in recent years, and I really do not know that it is necessary, for the purpose of asking your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, that I should detain the House by going into the details of those powers. The noble Lord remarked that the coasting trade was limited between Brest and Hamburg. Many of your Lordships know that there are companies possessing powers to run steamers to the whole of the Baltic ports, and also to intermediate places along the coast from Dunkirk. The North Eastern Company, in the Act of 1905, have exactly the same powers as we are seeking for in Clause 5. We are, however, perfectly willing to limit that clause to arrange-
468
ments for working purposes only, and not to subscribe to the capital of other companies—in other words, not to subsidise them. A petition has been lodged by Messrs. Hutchison, who are shipowners, which raises practically all the questions touched upon by the noble Lord with regard to both clauses, which will, of course, be heard and fully discussed before a Committee. I understand, also, that my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade in this House is quite satisfied that the Great Western Railway Company are prepared to meet any of the points which the Department would like slightly amended. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, on behalf of the Board of Trade I would say that the Department are always very unwilling t o interfere in any way with these questions. This matter has been given a most careful consideration, and the opinion of the Department is that it is one which may quite well be left to the decision of a Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I do not oppose the Second Reading.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a word. The position of this Bill differs somewhat from that of the Bill which your Lordships were considering last night. The questions raised yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, were of a general character which could not well be discussed before a Select Committee, because they would not arise out of any of the petitions; but, as the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has just stated, a petition has been presented against this Bill by certain shipowners in Glasgow, who, in all probability, will be allowed a locus standi. They raise the objections which have been put before the House to-night by the noble Lord who opposed the Second Reading, and, therefore, they will come within the cognisance of the Committee to whom the Bill will be referred. In those circumstances, I could not advise your Lordships to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD INVERCLYDEMy Lords, in view of the assurance which the noble Viscount has given me in regard to Clause 5, I shall not trouble the House to divide.

469
With regard to Clause 4, however, I am sorry that I shall still have to oppose that clause, but that can be done before the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TORRENS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported, (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

ISLAND OF VATERSAY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I rise to move for the correspondence which has passed between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Congested Districts Board, with reference to the Island of Vatersay since December 31, 1907. Your Lordships may recollect that last session I moved for and obtained the correspondence which had taken place between Lady Cathcart and the Scottish Office with regard to raid upon Vatersay, and that afterwards there was a discussion in this House on the subject. Since July last there have been further correspondence and further negotiations between Lady Cathcart and the Scottish Office, which have terminated in the purchase of Vatersay. Therefore, of course, there are further documents which I think it would be of interest to your Lordships—it certainly would be of interest to me—to be possessed of officially. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House correspondence which has passed between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Congested Districts Board, with reference to the Island of Vatersay since December 31, 1907.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND OF LYTH)My Lords, I think it is well, in speaking of the transactions that have taken place since December 31, 1907, to distinguish between the proceedings which led to the purchase by the Government of the farm and those proceedings which relate to the executive duty now thrown on the Congested Dis-
470
tricts Board of settling tenants upon the farm. In regard to the first, I shall be very happy to lay Papers, and they are almost ready to go to the printer. In regard to the second part—that is to say, the preparation and carrying out of the scheme for settling tenants on the farm—that transaction is, of course, not completed, and I think it would be well to defer laying any Papers on that subject until the transaction is completed. That is the course which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I propose to follow in this case.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am quite content.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

A CROFTER RAID.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to a recent raid by crofters upon the farm of Glendale in South Uist, and to ask what action the Government took with regard thereto; also to ask whether any negotiations with reference to the division of Glendale into small holdings took place between the Congested Districts Board and Lady Cathcart from November 1906 (when Glendale was returned to Lady Cathcart as unsuitable for small holdings) to March 1, 1909; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have now to direct your Lordships' attention to a raid which recently took place in South Uist on the farm of Glendale; and perhaps, as the Government have hitherto acted on the principle that a raid is not a criminal act, it may be as well that I should explain to your Lordships what I mean by a raid and what I do not mean. I do not call a raid a case in which persons take possession of land which they assert legal claim to; nor a case in which they do not interfere with persons who are occupying the land; nor, again, do I call a raid a case which is simply one of dispute between landlord and tenant. What I mean by a raid is where persons who have nothing to do with the land themselves, who do not lay any claim to it, who do not allege that there is any dispute, enter upon land occupied by other persons and violently and forcibly continue to occupy it in defiance of the law and of the ordinary customs of society.

471
In order that your Lordships may be able to understand all the circumstances and the present position, I must ask your indulgence while I very shortly recount what has happened in regard to this farm of Glendale since the year 1904. In September, 1904, I think it was, the then Secretary for Scotland—I think it right to remind your Lordships that Lord Pentland was not Secretary for Scotland until the beginning of the year 1906—submitted to Lady Cathcart a report he had received on the state of society in South Uist, accompanied, I think, by a memorandum by the Under-Secretary. It mentioned that there were about 197 cases of persons who were desirous of getting land, and in the Under-Secretary's memorandum it was stated that if about one-fourth of these could be accommodated he thought the situation could be sufficiently dealt with.
Lady Cathcart, on receiving this, acted in the way which she always has acted. She was most desirous of assisting the Government and the island in every way she could, and she readily gave up two farms—one named Kilbride and the other Gerinish—and handed them over to the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of making small holdings. The occurrence I have just mentioned took place in September and in the following weeks; but on December 12 the late Sir David Brand, who was chairman of the Crofters Commission, with another of his colleagues, and, I think, the secretary, saw Lady Cathcart's Edinburgh agent on the subject, and it was Sir David Brand who suggested that the farm of Glendale should also be given up for the purpose of creating small holdings. Lady Cathcart's agent stated that he had very grave doubts as to whether this farm was really suited for the purpose, but Sir David Brand and his colleague did not agree with him and requested him to lay the matter before her Ladyship. He did so, and Lady Cathcart, although she said she entertained grave doubts whether this farm was suited for small holdings, did not feel herself able to withstand the strong appeal made to her. She thereupon agreed to give in to their petition, and to see whether she could obtain the farm for them by inducing the tenant to give up his lease. She succeeded, and in the year 1906 at Whitsunday, the tenant, one Simon Mackenzie by name, quitted his holding, and it was handed over to her Ladyship,
472
who requested the Congested Districts Board to inspect it for the purpose of establishing small holdings and report upon it. That was in May; and on July 18 the Crofters Commission sent a small committee to report upon it.
Perhaps I ought to describe briefly this farm of Glendale. It consists of, in round figures, 4,400 acres, of which 1,100 are situated in North Glendale and the remaining 3,000 odd in South Glendale. They found that on both farms there was very little arable land. In North Glendale they said they might constitute six small holdings, which they put at a rental of £3 a piece; but, with regard to South Glendale, they reported that unless they were to take the shepherd's house, thereby, of course, .making the farm useless as a sheep farm, it was impossible to establish any small holdings there, and they recommended that South Glendale should be let as a whole either to the neighbouring crofters or as a separate holding. This report was sent to Lady Cathcart, and her local factor proceeded to advertise publicly for tenants. The result was that he obtained offers for the six holdings in North Glendale, but the six holders were unwilling to have anything to do with South Glendale, and he could not induce either the neighbouring townships or any private tenant to have anything to do with South Glendale as a separate holding. That report was handed to the Congested Districts Board on November 14. They examined it, and on November 19 wrote as follows:—
"The Congested Districts Board have at once accepted the opinion of the estate management that Glendale cannot be provided for the crofters with advantage. It would be foolish to destroy the usefulness of the southern part by breaking up the northern part into six holdings, and the Board therefore agree that Glendale must be left out of the scheme for small holdings."
The meaning of that, of course, is that the Board, having occupied this holding for some few months, found that Lady Cathcart had been perfectly right, that they had made an entire mistake, and that the farm was not adapted for small holdings and, in justice to Lady Cathcart, I must say this, that when this land was given up she then, of her own free will, broke up two further farms and gave them to the Congested Districts Board in lieu of the Glendale farm. The result has been that she has provided at least seventy-five

473
holdings, whereas it had been suggested to her that she should provide fifty. That, then, takes us to the end of 1906.
In November, 1906, the farm is thrown back upon Lady Cathcart's hands. From that time to the year 1908 she could not get a tenant. For two years she had to occupy the farm, of course at very considerable loss to herself; and finally, at Whitsunday, 1908, the same Simon Mackenzie retook the farm, but at a loss of over £30 a year in rent to Lady Cathcart. His rent had been £97, but the new rent which he promised to pay was £65. Therefore, what was the net result of the whole transaction up to the year 1908? The Congested Districts Board had confessed that they had made a great mistake; they did not put any small holders upon Glendale; they involved Lady Cathcart in a permanent loss of £30 a year rent, and they turned out her tenant. With regard to Lady Cathcart's loss, last year the Scottish Office or the Congested Districts Board—it is the same thing—paid her a sum of £350. Her agent computed her loss on the farm in each year as at least £125 and the local factor said it was much more; therefore, the result to her was this, that she received £100 as compensation for the loss of £30 a year rent. From that date forward there have been no negotiations between Lady Cathcart and the Congested Districts Board with regard to this farm. There has only been one communication, and that was in March of last year, when Sir Henry Cook called upon her agent in Edinburgh and asked whether he thought her ladyship would let North Glendale. Sir Henry Cook merely had to be reminded of the circumstances; that was sufficient for him and he went away, and nothing more was ever said on the subject.
That brings us to the month of February this year. On February 5 last North Glendale was raided. The tenant, of course, applied to Lady Cathcart's factor, who found that seven men were collecting stones for building houses and were spreading seaweed for cultivation. He pointed out to them that they were doing great wrong. They said that they should remain and that they considered they had a perfectly good claim to have holdings there. He went away and applied to the police for protection. What the result of that may have been I do not know; and I want
474
to know. A Mr. Ferguson, a local merchant, had been very active in this matter, and it is generally believed that either the Scottish Office or the Congested Districts Board wrote him a very severe letter. If they did, I must congratulate the noble Lord on at last beginning to see that the Government have some duty towards property.
The general belief is that the noble Lord wrote a letter, and that on receipt of this letter these raiders retired. Now, I have to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland whether he will be so good as to read that letter to the House when he speaks later. I am very anxious to know what was in it. I will tell your Lordships why. I want to know whether there was anything in the nature of a promise to these men that if they would go away they would receive small holdings. It was on February 18 that they left, and on March 1 Sir John Dewar, the Member for Inverness, asked the Lord Advocate in the other House—
"whether he was aware that the negotiations between Lady Gordon Cathcart and the Congested Districts Board for Scotland to divide up the farm of Glendale in South Uist among the cottars and fishermen in the district had not been completed, and that in view of the approach of the sowing and planting season, there was anxiety and dissatisfaction among the population of that district; whether he could state the cause of the delay, and if he would take steps to impress upon the Congested Districts Board the necessity for having this matter completed with the least possible delay."
What is the meaning of that question? The plain meaning is that negotiations had been and were in progress, and that they must very soon be completed. So far as Lady Cathcart's agent knows, there were no negotiations whatever. Assuming that to be correct, the natural and proper answer to have given to that question was that there were no negotiations. But that was not the answer given. The Lord Advocate, in reply, said—
"It was found impossible in 1906, when certain farms were sub-divided by Lady Cathcart in South Uist, to make use of Glendale as a crofter settlement…. As my hon. friend is aware, these cotter fishermen applied for holdings in the north part of Glendale in January, 1908, but the estate would not entertain this proposal, as it would have left South Glendale unlettable and useless. I am aware that some of the cottar fishermen of the district are anxious to obtain holdings at Glendale, but my hon. friend will realise that the difficulties which have so far been fatal to any scheme still exist. But the Secretary for Scotland will again

475
look into the matter now in the hope of finding some method of convincing them."
Taking that question and that answer, what, naturally, would the cottars suppose? They would suppose, as anybody else would suppose, that negotiations were going on, whereas nothing whatever had been done. This occurred on March 1. It is rather curious that on March 4 Sir Henry Cook officially called on Lady Cathcart's agent and asked whether Lady Cathcart was prepared to consider the formation of six or seven holdings on North Glendale, on the understanding that the Board would make loans for buildings, etc. Poor Sir Henry Cook! He is a man of well-known common sense, of great ability, and familiar with land transactions, and he was the very man who had, only two years before, written to Lady Cathcart's agents to say that the Congested Districts Board found they had made a mistake and that this farm was not suited for small holdings. This same gentleman now found himself compelled to ask whether her ladyship would let a part of the farm separately—a thing he had said himself would be foolish to do.
The noble Lord was Secretary for Scotland in 1906 and chairman of the Board, and must have been cognisant of the proceedings that took place. What I want to know is—Why has he changed his mind? I do hope he will tell us. I wonder whether he has formed any opinion at all in his own mind as to what is to be done with this farm. What is to be done with South Glendale? How does he propose to let it? It has more than once been in the market and no tenant could be found. That is by far the larger portion of the farm. If these small holdings are taken off the North, what is to become of the South? There is another question. This Government pretend to have a great love for occupiers. Are they going to evict this unfortunate Simon Mackenzie for a second time in order, most probably, to again find that they have made a great mistake? Then we come to Lady Cathcart. What is to happen to her? She has already lost thirty per cent. of rent by the transactions of the Congested Districts Board. Is she to bear the brunt of this? I do hope the noble Lord will not repeat in this case, at all events, what he did in the case of Vatersay. I hope he will not say to Lady Cathcart, as he did on that occasion, that the plan of which she had
476
not only disapproved but had opposed to the best of her judgment was her plan, and that she was responsible for the compensation of the tenant who was turned out. If Lady Cathcart has one grain of sense, all I can say is she will not consent to let North Glendale.
If the noble Lord wishes to let North Glendale separately, let him buy the farm and stand the inevitable loss on South Glendale. Does he expect any rent, I wonder? Let me remind him of what has been going on. In Barra there were several of these small crofter tenants who had nominally bought land which they were to pay for by instalments, but who have not fulfilled one of their obligations. The noble Lord found himself obliged to obtain an interdict against them for non-payment of rent. But the noble Lord has done nothing whatever from the time of obtaining the interdict to enforce it. About that he and the Treasury had better settle. But if he thinks he is going to obtain rent from the smallholders in North Glendale his experience will be somewhat different from what it has been in other cases. This case of Glendale is not an isolated instance. I very much wish it were. It is one of a number of raids which, I regret to say, are becoming far from uncommon in the Hebrides. The noble Lord has not heard the last yet of Vatersay. The noble Lord is aware that at the present moment there is a raid on the farm or Eoligary, which, fortunately for herself, Lady Cathcart sold some years ago, though I am sorry for the purchaser. That farm has been raided, and, so far as I know, the men are still in possession.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThat is not so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat suggests at once the question—Did the noble Lord write a letter in regard to Eoligary? Will he tell us the position?
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI shall be very glad to answer the noble Earl about Eoligary when that subject is under discussion. The noble Earl asks me if I wrote a letter. To whom?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThat is not for me to say. I understood the noble Lord to interrupt me and to say that the

477
raiders were not now on Eoligary. I asked him if he would kindly tell us what he had done in regard to Eoligary.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI did not wish to interrupt the noble Earl but simply to give him the information which I thought he was seeking—namely, that at the present moment, so far as I am aware, there is nobody in illegal possession of land at Eoligary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAt all events, the noble Lord will not deny that there were raiders on Eoligary.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThere have been from time to time, as the noble Earl knows, raids such as he has described, and attempted raids.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAnd there was a very recent attempt?
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHYes, quite recent. I have no wish to conceal information, but the facts are not in my possession to give to the noble Earl. Therefore I am sorry I interrupted him. If he will ask me for the facts to-morrow I will give them to him.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI regret that the noble Lord did not go a little farther. He says there is nobody at present in illegal possession of land at Eoligary. Will he deny that within the last three weeks persons have raided Eoligary?
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThat is so. If the noble Earl will allow me, I am anxious to state exactly the facts. Raiding, as the noble Earl knows, is a very wide term. Raiding sometimes means collecting stones and leaving them upon a holding; in other cases it means placing seaweed on the holding; and in other cases it means taking materials for building houses. All those acts come under the general term of raiding, and I do not wish the House to be led to think that a raid is necessarily of a serious character. It is quite true that there have been threats to seize land in Eoligary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNSuch information as I have is that, not only did they use seaweed and stones, but that they remained on the land against the wish of
478
the owner. How came these men to leave? I believe they, too, received a letter, whether from the noble Lord or from the Congested Districts Board I do not know; but I should like to know whether any promise was made to them that if they would remove they should be considered in some manner either with regard to obtaining land or anything of that kind. I now leave the case of Eoligary. There is another farm, the farm of Milton, a large grazing farm. The noble Lord may or may not know that a public declaration has been made that that farm is to be raided because the lease falls out in the course of next year, the raiders being determined to anticipate the termination of the lease. But there are other cases I could mention.
Does the noble Lord call this a satisfactory state of things? Will he tell your Lordships that at the present time law and order is satisfactorily observed in the Western Hebrides? And if this is not so, to what are these raids due? I regret to say that, in my opinion, they are due, in the first place, to that unfortunate declaration of the Government that it was no part of the duty of Government to protect private property, and that if any property were attacked or seized the only remedy was for the private owner to go to Court. I attribute them, in the next place, I regret to be obliged to say, very greatly to the noble Lord's vacillation. How many times has he changed his mind in these matters? Take the case of Glendale. In 1906 he said it was not suited for holdings and threw it back on Lady Cathcart's hands. Now, in the beginning of 1909, he is writing to ask her to give him a part of the farm. But most of all, I think, is it due to a conviction which exists in the minds of the crofters that the Government are on their side. This is not a statement of my own. It is the statement of the Sheriff of Inverness, whom the Government sent to inquire into matters at Vatersay. He said he found that there was a firm conviction in the minds of the raiders that the Government would not allow them to suffer. It is that conviction which has been manifest in everything that the Government have done and everything that they have not done. The state of the Western Islands is at the present time serious and is becoming from month to month more serious, and, unless the noble Lord changes his ways and his methods, he will find himself face to face with some

479
thing which will approach an armed revolution. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given notice, and to move for any Papers that there are in connection with this matter.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers respecting a recent raid by crofters upon the farm of Glendale in South Uist.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHMy Lords, I hope I may be able to give the noble Earl the information he desires, and I trust I may secure your Lordships' indulgent attention in addressing you for the first time. I have no quarrel whatever to make with the narrative given by the noble Earl of these proceedings. It is true that in 1904 Lord Balfour of Burleigh requested the Crofters Commission to report upon the condition of North and South Uist.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI beg the noble Lord's pardon—not in 1904. I left the Scottish Office in 1903.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThe Report was made in 1904, but it was in 1903 that the directions were given by the noble Lord. The Report is addressed to the noble Lord's successor Mr. Graham Murray (now Lord Dunedin). My object in mentioning that Report is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it disclosed a serious state of overcrowding in the island of South Uist. The Report was sent, as the noble Earl stated, with a memorandum from the Scottish Office, to Lady Gordon Cathcart, and her reply was that she proposed to divide up the two farms of Kilbride and Gerinish, and subsequently the farm of Glendale was added. I have done my best to ascertain the source from which the suggestion came that the farm of Glendale should be added to the land to be subdivided, but I am not quite clear from whom the suggestion came. I only mention that so that I may not be taken as agreeing with the noble Earl. It may have been Sir David Brand, but I am not sure that it was.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNLady Cathcart's agent, to whom Sir David Brand spoke, said it was.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI know that is the view held. Ultimately this farm of Glendale was added to the land
480
which it was proposed to give over to the occupation of crofters. I ought to say, at this point, that when the Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman took office at the end of 1905 this transaction was practically on its legs. The Government were committed to the transaction, and it was no part of my duty as Secretary for Scotland to go back upon the policy of my predecessor. The Government, as I say, were committed to the transaction, and it was then in the executive hands of the Congested Districts Board to carry out. I may say that the whole narrative is contained in the Eighth and Ninth Reports of the Congested Districts Board which have been laid before Parliament [Cd. 2946 and Cd. 3471]. There the information is given that because South Glendale could not be utilised the whole farm was taken out of the scheme of settlement and handed back to Lady Cathcart. It is to be noted that for the six holdings which were to be laid out on the north portion of the farm of Glendale there were no fewer than twenty-three offerers, so that obviously there was considerable local disappointment when those holdings were withdrawn from the number to be added to the crofters holdings of the island, but there seemed no other possible solution. The Congested Districts Board cannot afford to have land which is in no occupation at all, and the transaction of handing back this farm to Lady Cathcart, which I do not think the noble Earl made as clear as I should like, was a perfectly amicable arrangement. The compensation asked for by Lady Cathcart's agents was named at £350, and the Congested Districts Board, through their solicitor, agreed to that sum without demur. It w is a perfectly amicable arrangement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI should like to supplement that. The offer was made by Lady Cathcart early. She subsequently discovered that she had suffered a much larger loss, but, having mentioned that sum, her agent did not ask for more.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI did not mean in the least to suggest that the Congested Districts Board had anything to complain of in this matter on the part of Lady Cathcart.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI should think not.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHOn the other hand, I take the position that Lady Cathcart has nothing to complain of in the attitude of the Congested Districts Board. I wish to make that point clear. I now come to the most recent transactions which stand first in the noble Earl's Question. The facts are simply these. On February 12 I received a letter from Mr. Donald Ferguson, dated February 9. I may say that Mr. Ferguson is personally known to me and is a highly respected and trustworthy member of the community there. He is a native of the island, and has risen to his present position by his own exertions. Mr. Ferguson informed me that seven cottars at South Lochboisdale had seized a piece of land at Glendale farm in his own neighbourhood, tenanted by Simon Mackenzie, of Lochboisdale. I had no official information on the subject. I replied on the same day, and, as the noble Earl has asked for the letter, perhaps I may be allowed to read it in full—

"I am greatly obliged by your letter which has reached me this morning, and your kindness in acquainting me of what has taken place. I appreciate warmly your purpose in so doing, but I regret extremely that these men, by taking this serious step, have so greatly prejudiced, if not thrown away altogether, any opportunities which I might have of helping them in their difficulties. With the earlier transactions between the Congested Districts Board and the proprietor I am, of course, acquainted; but, so far as I remember, it is new to me that any application was made by them, as you mention, two years ago to the factor and refused. Your influence with them and your desire to be their friend must, I am sure, be recognised by them. You know how impossible it is for me to do otherwise than disapprove in the strongest manner the lawless action which they have taken. My advice is that you should go to them and exert your utmost influence to persuade them to withdraw at once from their illegal occupation of this land. If you can inform me that this step has been taken by them, and if you will then, on their behalf and your own, ask me to look into the circumstances of the case, I shall be glad to do so with the least possible delay."
Those are the terms of the letter which I addressed to Mr. Ferguson.
LORD SALTOUNWill the noble Lord give the date of that letter?
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHFebruary 12. On February 17 I was informed that these men had relinquished their illegal occupation of the land, and a report was received by me on February 19 to the same effect from the Chief Constable of the county. In passing, I may say, on my
482
own behalf, that I do not think any possible interpretation of that letter can be construed as a promise of small holdings to these men. I will proceed with the narrative in order to make clear to your Lordships what action I have since taken in this matter. On February 18 I sent this information to the chairman of the Small Holdings Committee of the Congested Districts Board, and on the 25th I asked him to communicate with the proprietor's agents. On March 4 an interview took place between members of the Congested Districts Board or their solicitor and the proprietor's agents, and the matter now rests with them. I have not been informed of any final conclusion reached by the parties who are conferring on this subject, and I suggest, with great respect to your Lordships, that in a matter of this kind, which is one of some difficulty —difficulty which has had to be faced not only by this Government but by previous Governments—it is very desirable to allow the negotiations to proceed without anything being said from one side or the other which might prejudice the chances of success. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I hope your Lordships will excuse me from expressing any definite opinion at this stage. I shall be perfectly ready to answer for any responsibility which falls upon me in the matter when the transaction has been concluded. I hope I have now answered the first portion of the noble Earl's Question on the Paper.
The noble Earl next asks whether any negotiations with reference to the division of Glendale into small holdings took place between the Congested Districts Board and Lady Cathcart from November, 1906, to March 1, 1909. The only application of which I am aware was on January 18, 1908, when six cottars who had been applicants for the holdings at North Glendale in 1906 wrote to Sir John Dewar, the member for the county, asking him to help them to obtain these holdings. That letter was forwarded to me by Sir John Dewar, and I sent it to the Congested Districts Board who laid it before the estate management. Lady Cathcart's representatives declined to entertain the matter, and a reply was sent by me to Sir John Dewar informing him that the farm was not now included in the scheme of settlement, and that any further applications must go, therefore, not to the Congested Districts Board, but to the proprietor. That, so far as I am aware, is the

483
only negotiation which falls within the head of the second portion of the noble Earl's Question.
As to the third head—the request for Papers—I have given the House all the information I have on the subject. There are no further Papers which I can think the noble Earl wishes to have. Possibly his chief desire was to have the letter that I wrote to Mr. Ferguson, and as I have now given it in extenso to the House perhaps his desire for Papers may have been satisfied. Reference has been made to Eoligary, and it may be well, as I was partly responsible by an untoward interruption for having drawn the noble Earl into discussing that question, that I should give your Lordships all the information I have on that subject. While the very prolonged negotiations with regard to the placing of Vatersay under settlement by small tenants were going on, some of the cottars and crofters at the other end of the island of Vatersay made requests, which subsequently developed into threats to seize land. After examining the growth of the cottar population in the island of Barra, I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to endeavour to ascertain whether any further land could be made available for occupation, but I stated that the Government could do nothing in this respect until the Vatersay negotiations were completed. Those negotiations were only completed, I think, at the end of December last—I speak from memory—and it has therefore not been possible for me since then to redeem the undertaking I gave, or, at any rate, to bring that undertaking to any definite point, in respect of making further land available in the island of Barra where the farm of Eoligary is situated, but I am engaged, on behalf of the Government, in endeavouring to obtain and to make available further land if that is found to be possible. In these circumstances, whilst there is, I have no doubt, impatience on the part of men who are in great difficulties and who have this hope before them, I trust there may be self-restraint and self-control sufficient to prevent any further difficulties of the nature described. The noble Earl attributed the difficulties in the Western Islands in the first place to my vacillation in respect to the farm of Glendale.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNYour vacillation generally, not only in respect of Glendale.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThe noble Earl quoted an instance of vacillation in regard to Glendale. When he is able to quote another instance, I shall endeavour to answer it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNVatersay. But you will hear more of that.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHWe shall have an opportunity, I gather, of discussing that matter, and your Lordships will be able to judge when the Papers are laid before you. Meanwhile, I hope I may be allowed to say that I hardly think the difficulties in the Western Islands can reasonably be attributed to so small a cause as the fact stated by the noble Earl—namely, that the Congested Districts Board did some time ago intend to include Glendale in the scheme of settlement in the South Uist and subsequently found it impossible and withdrew it from the scheme. I admit, however, that the withdrawal of the farm of Glendale must have caused some disappointment amongst applicants for holdings, and, pro tanto, that strengthens their claims to consideration. So far as the remainder of the case is concerned, I am content to leave it to the judgment of your Lordships. It is not, I think, a very large matter of itself, though I quite agree that the subject of which it forms a part is a most important and difficult one. But, so far as this transaction of itself is concerned, I hope I have succeeded in making plain that the Government have done their best in good faith to discharge the responsibilities left to them by their predecessors.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, it appears to me that the object of the Government, so far, has been to make one of the best landowners in the whole of Scotland a sort of scapegoat, both in the island of Vatersay and at Glendale. The noble Earl who called attention to this matter fully described what has taken place, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland acknowledged the correctness of the narrative. The noble Lord also read the letter he addressed to Mr. Ferguson, but the one thing that struck me was that in that letter he almost said, "You have raided this place; if you go away I will do my best to give you the land in some other way." That appears to me to be the persuasion which the noble Lord used in order to get the raiders to leave the land.

485
Then the noble Lord told us that the first notice he had of the raid was on February 12, in a letter from a gentleman on the island, and that he did not hear from the Chief Constable until the 19th. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that he received no official report of the raid until the 19th.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI had official reports, but I did not think it necessary to refer to them.
LORD SALTOUNThe noble Lord told us that the first official report he received was from the Chief Constable on February 19.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHNo. That was the final report informing me that there was no longer any vestige of illegal occupation. There were reports in the interval.
LORD SALTOUNThe dealings of the Government in reference to this land constitute a really serious state of things. In 1906 the transaction, for taking Glendale for the purpose of placing crofters upon the land ceased, the Congested Districts Board agreeing that it was useless because they could not let the southern half of the farm. They now again propose to take this farm. I think it is only right to emphasise the fact that the tenant who was paying £97 a year gave up the farm in 1906 and that in 1908 it was relet to him at a rental of £65. If you take the farm now, how do you propose to compensate Lady Cathcart? Do you propose to take it on trial and then throw it back on her hands as you did before? If the rental of land is let down in this district it is impossible to get it up again, and it is only right that a proper and fair bargain should be made with Lady Cathcart if any such thing is going to be done. The present rent is down by thirty per cent., and if you take the farm and are unable to occupy it fully, is it to be thrown back on Lady Cathcart's hands again? I should have been very glad if the noble Lord had answered the latter part of the question more fully than he has done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the discussion to which we have listened forms a very interesting sequel to a similar discussion which took place in this House last year. The particular
486
episode which we then debated was, it is true, not the episode we are debating tonight, but I remember quite well that the case of Glendale did come up at the time, and I recollect dwelling upon the fact that Lady Gordon Cathcart had in connection with Glendale, burnt her fingers, and was, therefore, naturally rather cautious in her subsequent dealings with the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Office. My noble friend has told us pretty fully the extent to which Lady Gordon Cathcart did burn her fingers, and I can quite understand that that long-suffering lady should not desire to repeat the process.
One thing I think comes out very strongly in this affair—that if ever there was anyone who did not deserve to be made the subject of what I can only call the kind of clumsy persecution to which Lady Gordon Cathcart has been subjected, it is that lady herself. Her record is an unimpeachable record. We know that it was owing to her desire to provide crofts for these poor people that the Island of Barra was covered with small holdings; we know that in 1904, the moment she became aware that there was a desire to obtain more crofts in this particular neighbourhood, she at once offered two farms of her own for subdivision, and it was, I believe, not of her own accord, but more or less because she was pressed to do so, that she offered the farm of Glendale, and she offered it with a warning at the same time that owing to local circumstances, of which she and her advisers were obviously the best judges, that particular farm was not a suitable subject for division into small holdings. Her warnings were neglected, the tenants on these three farms were compelled to give up their holdings, and the work of subdivision was then proceeded with. It very soon appeared that, after all, Lady Gordon Cathcart was perfectly right in her contention with regard to the farm of Glendale, because we have it in evidence that two members of the Crofters Commission put in a report in which they expressly said that, while it might be possible to plot out half a dozen miserable little crofts on the northern part of the farm, the southern part was entirely unsuited for any such purpose.
What was the result? There were, no doubt, inquiries for small holdings on the northern part of the farm, but the

487
southern portion, as was anticipated, proved to be quite unlettable. At that moment the spirit of reasonableness seems to have come over the mind of the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Office, and it was admitted that as it had been shown that the southern portion of Glendale was incapable of being worked as a separate holding, it was better to drop the Glendale transaction altogether. The facts were too strong for them, and Glendale ceased to be a subject of discussion. Meanwhile, Lady Gordon Cathcart continued her efforts to provide small holdings, and actually succeeded in providing a total number of about eighty small holdings as against the fifty mentioned by the Crofters Commission at the outset as being a reasonable provision for the needs of the locality.
LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI think, in view of discussion on this subject, it is just as well that I should not allow any wrong information to have more effect than it need have. The Crofters Commission expressed no opinion on this subject. The opinion that congestion in South Uist would be sufficiently relieved by the provision of a quarter of 200 small holdings was a personal opinion, and, of course, it could not commit either the Government or the successors even of those who expressed that opinion. The total number of holdings provided was seventy-two, fourteen of which were occupied by crofters other than South Uist crofters.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNELady Gordon Cathcart, in spite of all the trouble and anxiety she had been occasioned with regard to Glendale, certainly did go out of her way to provide as many small holdings as possible. Meanwhile the unfortunate proprietrix was left with the farm of Glendale, the tenant having been got rid of, on her hands, and we know that to hold and stock a derelict farm is neither a very agreeable nor a very economical operation. She held the farm, I understand, for a couple of years, and at the end of that time found herself obliged to let it to the old tenant at a very considerably reduced rent. The whole transaction bore very hardly indeed on the proprietrix, and I find it a little difficult to agree with the noble Lord opposite when he tells us that, in his opinion, so far as the money aspect of the transaction was concerned, Lady Gordon Cathcart had nothing to complain of.
488
That is the end of what you may call the first chapter of the story.
I confess that most people, after reading the correspondence, would have thought that the word Finis would have been written there, and that, as far as Glendale was concerned, nothing more would be heard. Then we come to more recent developments. In the first place, there is the raid which took place last month, followed no doubt, by the retirement of the raiders under the circumstances described, and subject to the advice tendered to them by the noble Lord opposite. But no sooner had this raid taken place than there reappears a proposal for reviving the old .condemned scheme for splitting up Glendale farm. It comes back to my mind that in the Vatersay case, which we discussed last year, and which we may, perhaps, have to discuss again, Lady Gordon Cathcart was pressed very strongly to surrender at discretion to the raiders with the object of what was called "easing the situation." Now is it the case that another "situation" has arisen, and that again Lady Cathcart is to be called upon to ease the situation by submitting to an arrangement such as that which has been described? I must say I think nothing could be harder than to press any proprietor to make a sacrifice such as that which Lady Cathcart is apparently expected to make. All I can say is this. If, in spite of the advice which you have already received on this point, you are really going to recur to the condemned project of splitting the farm of Glendale, then I say, like honest men, buy the whole farm from Lady Cathcart and have done with it.
There are two other points I desire to notice. I wish we had had a more explicit statement from the noble Lord as to the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to these raids. Not for the first time did I notice in the Ministerial utterance to-night that ambiguity of tone in which occurrences of this kind are not infrequently referred to. The noble Lord, it is true, in the letter which he read, expressed his strong disapproval of these lawless actions; but in another part of his speech he was at great pains to explain that, after all, all that these people had done was to put down a few stones, spread a little seaweed, and mark out a few small plots of ground, and he added that these were not very serious matters. To my mind, when one person invades the property

489
of another and commits acts of ownership on that property, whatever the acts may be, that is a very serious matter indeed, and I hope we are not coming to the time when, in any part of the United Kingdom, we shall be told that such unlawful acts are of a venial or not very serious nature.
The other point on which I wish to say a word is this. I am sure your Lordships must have been struck by the fact that, when it was proposed to parcel out North Glendale into small holdings, those holdings were to be rented at £3 each. I should like very much to know what kind of holdings you are going to set up, at the public expense, remember! at £3 rent. The noble Earl who leads the House, and who will, perhaps, follow me, knows that this question of uneconomic holdings is engaging a great deal of attention in another part of the United Kingdom. In Ireland it has been laid down by a Royal Commission, on which the Government to a great extent depend for their advice, that the limit of an economic holding is £10. Is it not the case that you are going to create in these islands, at the public expense, a number of holdings which, ab initio, will be uneconomic and which must continue to be uneconomic holdings? The noble Lord will, perhaps, tell me whether there are any buildings ready to hand with which these crofters can be accommodated? There are none. Very well, then you have on each of these £3 holdings to build some kind of a homestead. At whose expense? At the expense of the tax-payers or the rate-payers. I believe that to be a very serious question indeed. The agriculture of a great part of Scotland was 150 or 200 years ago every bit as miserable, and the condition of the people every bit as squalid, as has been the case in Ireland in the very worst periods of the history of that country; and if Scotland has emerged from that state of things it has been because insensibly these smaller and more miserable holdings have disappeared from the face of the land. Their disappearance may have been accompanied by hardship. I daresay that may be the case. But the Government of this country ought to think a great many times before they set up deliberately in any considerable part of the country these wretched uneconomic holdings, upon which I do not believe that any occupiers, whether crofters or not, can live, except in the most squalid and miserable circumstances. That is really, to my mind,
490
the most serious moral to be gathered from the facts which have been laid before us by my noble friend—facts the accuracy of which has not been challenged by the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench opposite.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, I have really very little to say in reply to the noble Marquess, but I wish to draw attention to one or two of his observations. I have no technical knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, I do not propose to go into the points that were dealt with by my noble friend behind me. The noble Marquess who has just sat down made some remarks on the subject of economic holdings, and pointed out that it seemed an imprudent act, when attempting to reorganise the agricultural industry of a district, to set up any such things as £3 holdings; and he referred, with great truth, to the fact that in the congested districts in Ireland no holding of less than £10 is considered economic. But the noble Marquess does not think that when—if that ever happened—all the holdings in the West of Ireland were made economic, there never would be any holding of less than £10? There will always be smaller holdings held in conjunction with some other industry. There are a number of holdings in the Western Islands held by fishermen, which are a very useful adjunct to their trade, but which are worth a great deal less than £10; and I see no reason why, in the reorganisation of agriculture, those holdings should be interfered with, any more than the allotments of small value held by labourers in addition to their ordinary work. My noble friend the Secretary for Scotland tells me that these £3 holdings were all designed for fishermen.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNNo, no.
THE EARL OF CREWEMy noble friend tells me that the particular £3 holdings in question were designed for fishermen, and that of the seventy-two holdings provided by Lady Cathcart for the benefit of these islanders twenty-nine are of the value of £2 and under. I confess the fact does seem to me startling, because it is evident nobody can attempt to live on a holding of that kind; but, apparently, the small holdings in some of the Western Islands

491
are of that character, and I can only assume that they are held by people who act either as day labourers or as fishermen. On the general question, the noble Marquess complained that my noble friend seemed to speak with a somewhat uncertain voice as regards the transactions known as raids. I am perfectly certain that my noble friend—and I think he showed it in the very good letter which he promptly wrote in reply to the gentleman who gave him the information—has no intention of doing anything but expressing the strongest disapproval and indicating both the folly and the wrong-doing of acts of this kind.
But there are two observations I should like to make in respect of this. Those actions are in my opinion also both wrong and foolish, but it is the fact that if similar action were taken on any of your Lordships' estates in any part of the three Kingdoms you have nothing but a civil remedy. If a man comes and squats on your land the police will not move him, still less will the military forces of the Crown move him; and therefore it is not out of place to point out that there is only a civil remedy in the case of mere occupation, of course unaccompanied by violence of any kind. I do not say this in order to condone these acts, which, as I have said, I consider both wrong and foolish, but we may as well be clear on the facts of the case. Noble Lords opposite have complained of us, but I think we in turn might complain of them. They go deeply into this subject, informed, of course, only on one side of the case, informed by the parties concerned with the ownership
492
of the land, but not a single word falls from any one of the noble Lords opposite to indicate that there is any such thing as a land question or any land difficulty at all in these islands. I think it would be only fair, in stating their case, if they would admit that this demand for land among these rather wild people represents a very real administrative difficulty, one which my noble friend, I am sure, is anxious to deal with as best he can, preserving law and order and at the same time attempting to face the economic difficulty which undoubtedly is involved.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYI should not have intervened but for one observation of the noble Earl who has just sat down. He seemed to suggest that there was only a civil remedy in such a case. Has he never heard of the offence of forcible entry? That offence is subject to indictment, and those guilty of it are liable to imprisonment.
THE EARL OF CREWEI am not going to enter into a legal argument with the noble and learned Earl. But if a man comes and squats on a field, I am under the impression that you have only a civil remedy against him. I am prepared to be corrected by the noble and learned Earl if that is not so.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.