SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 05 December 1911 vol 10 cc574-647

House again in Committee (according to Order).

Debate resumed on the Amendment moved by the Earl of Camperdown to add, at the end of subsection (11) of Clause 7, the following proviso— Provided always that it shall be competent for any person aggrieved by the determination of the Land Court, if the amount in dispute exceeds four hundred pounds, to require the Land Court to state and sign the case upon which the question arose, setting forth the evidence, together with the determination thereon, and to transmit such case for the decision of either division of the Court of Session, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, and such decision shall be final.

LORD CLINTON

The Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Camperdown just before the adjournment last night is one which I think your Lordships will agree is drawn in a spirit of the strictest moderation, so moderate, indeed, that I am certain it will not meet with the approval of many of the extremer critics of this Bill. We have shown during the course of the Second Reading, at all events, that we dislike the setting up of the Land Court altogether, and nothing has happened since that time to make us change our views; but we have to recognise that in supporting this Amendment we are accepting the principle of a Land Court as applied to existing small tenants and qualified leaseholders and other tenants who come under the usual provisions of the Crofter Act, subject to the appeal for which we are now asking. I should like to make my own position clear upon this matter, because while I feel bound to accept the Land Court subject to this appeal, it is only so far as these particular tenants who come under the crofter system are concerned and does not apply to those tenants who are in an entirely different position and who come under Section 32 of the Bill, and with regard to whom there is an Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.

The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, in opposing last night any appeal from the Land Court, reminded us that we should be appealing from, I think he said, an expert Court to probably an inexpert Court. He told us that the duties winch this Land Court would have chiefly to do would be confined, to some extent at all events, to assessing compensation and valuing and fixing rents—all matters which are usually submitted to a final arbitration. Arbitration, of course, is what we would like to have in this case. We make no secret of it. Although the Land Court in itself may be considered an arbiter, yet there is this very essential difference from what we would prefer, that neither party to the dispute has any voice in the composition of the Court. At the present moment we have no knowledge at all of how the Court is to be composed, and we do fear that under the provisions of this Bill we at all events will not be able to look upon the Court as necessarily an impartial body. I think the position in the Bill forbids our doing so. The Court is too closely connected with the creation of small holdings, and it seems that it can only justify its existence by the number of small holdings which are created.

My noble friend Lord Camperdown spoke of this Court as being both judge and jury, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland objected to that construction. He said that it was a misapprehension of the powers of the Court, and that the Court itself had nothing to do with the promotion of small holdings. That is, of course, perfectly correct. The actual promotion is done by the Commissioner for Small Holdings or by the Board. They have to bring a scheme into force by agreement, if they can, but failing agreement they have to apply to the Court, and the whole of the rest of the powers are left in the hands of the Court. The fixing of a fair rent, the fixing of terms and conditions, the assessment of damages and compensation to the outgoing tenant—all those matters are in the hands of the Land Court. The decision which they come to over these matters will be of enormous importance both to the owner and to the occupier. But more than that, supposing they think it necessary to assess a large amount of compensation to be payable to an outgoing tenant, the fact of the compensation being so much may actually prevent the scheme coming into force. Is not that an actual inducement to them to keep the compensation down to the lowest possible amount? The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland shakes his head, but may I put it in this way? If the amount to be paid to an outgoing tenant for damages or loss is so large that the interest on that sum added to the amount which must be put on the small holder is beyond the amount which the small holder can pay, would not that prevent the holding being let off to small tenants? I admit I am speaking in the dark. I do not understand the finances of the Bill. It may be that by a system of loans and gifts the noble Lord may be able to pay off the largo holders and yet let the small holders live at a reasonable figure; but if it is to be worked as an economic proposition he cannot do so. I think I am not wrong in saying that if the compensation is assessed at a large figure the rent must be fixed for the new holder at a figure at which he probably cannot live, and that must make it difficult for the scheme of small holdings to be carried out. We think that this is placing an enormous power in the hands of a body purely autocratic in its nature and of whose composition we know nothing. But there is satisfaction in hearing from the noble Lord that this body, or at all events part of it, is to be selected for its knowledge of agriculture and valuation. That may satisfy us to seine extent of its competency. I think he told us that four members of the Court were to be appointed without any regard to politics. That, I am afraid, means that the fifth is to be appointed with regard to politics.

LORD PENTLAND

I do not think the noble Lord is justified in that inference. The chairman of the Land Court will be a judicial officer, and will be appointed for his suitability for that position, his knowledge of law, his eminence in the profession, and so forth. The remaining four will be appointed from such persons as I described yesterday.

LORD CLINTON

Then the chairman of the Land Court is to have no politics? But I will not pursue that point. We are really being asked to accept a body to decide cases of enormous importance to us actually blindfold, and without knowing whether they will be in a position to settle the matters that will come before them in a manner which we can consider fair. You are really asking us to take too great a risk considering the great issues which are at stake; and in supporting this Amendment of my noble friend I do so solely because it does appear to me to be some sort of middle course between what is proposed by the Government and what we would have liked to see adopted ourselves. In the hope of coming to terms with the Government in this matter I ant glad to support the Amendment.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I confess I was somewhat astonished last night to hear the Secretary for Scotland inform us that there was already a Court of Appeal in this Bill in the 5th subsection of Clause 25. As I read that clause it does not constitute a Court of Appeal. It states that the Land Court may delegate any of the powers conferred upon it to one of its number. Therefore any single member of the Land Court, if the power had been delegated to him by the rest of the body, could settle whether a scheme was to go through, the amount of land to be taken, the fair rent to be fixed, and the compensation, if any, to be paid to the landlord and the tenant from whom the land was taken. Then there is an appeal from that single person, to whom this power is delegated, to himself with two other members of the Court, to whom probably similar powers have been delegated with regard to other estates, and on whose decisions he will have in turn to sit in review. So, therefore, this appeal is really from the one Commissioner who has decided this matter to himself and two of his colleagues who had been doing the same in other cases. It seems to me that this will be less a Court of Appeal than a mutual admiration society.

And then remember that every one of these gentlemen is liable to be removed at any moment by the Secretary for Scotland on the ground of inability. Now what is the meaning of the word inability? It may mean inability to carry out the provisions of the Bill to supply small holdings to tenants in Scotland, and the reason they may be unable to do so may be because they give so much compensation to landlords that it would be impossible to finance the schemes. The noble Lord told us last night that at the present time it did not pay landlords or tenants to create small holdings. The economic value of these holdings is not going to be changed by this Bill. The Bill is going to create them so that it will be to the advantage of small holders to hold them. Therefore, there must be a loss to be borne by the landowners or by the State, and it is because we suspect that this Bill when it comes to be worked will result in a loss to the landlord and not to the State that we are pressing so earnestly to have a Court which shall be an impartial Court, and which shall judge on the evidence before it what is the value of the land taken and the loss suffered by the landlord or tenant from whom the land is taken.

We have suffered greatly in Ireland from expert views as to the value of land. A late Chief Commissioner gave evidence before a Royal Commission on this point, and he said that the value of land was not the value which it had to the landlord and was not fixed in consideration of the rent which he might have received from it. He stated that the land might be worth £2 a year to the landlord, but for the purpose for which he (one of the Chief Commissioners) required it it might only be worth £1 a year, and he said it was on that basis that a landlord ought to be compensated. He gave further evidence of the way in which his views were influenced, because he said he thought it probable that in a short space of time the restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle would be removed, and that therefore land and stock would fall in value. It is possible that some of these gentlemen who may be appointed members of the Land Court may hold similar views, and it is because we wish the compensation to be given to be on the basis of the value which the land is worth at the present time and has been worth for many years, and not on speculative ideas of what the future value of the land may be, that we press for an appeal in these cases. My noble friend has confined the appeal to cases where the amount of compensation is over £400. Personally I am sorry that this is the case, though I quite understand the reason which prompted him to do so. It was, I understand, to enable cases where the amount of compensation is small to be settled quickly and not to put litigants to much expense; but if cases above £400 are to go to a High Court, I hope that the decisions which they come to will influence the decisions which will be come to by the inferior Court.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

This particular Amendment raises a much wider question than that which is applicable to this particular Bill. Not for the first time there is a disposition on the part of His Majesty's Government to distrust the Judges, and instead of trusting to the ordinary Courts of Law to set up Courts of their own in sonic form or another which shall be subject to the particular authority which may be in office at the time. That is a very dangerous principle, and one which I hope your Lordships will resist. During the whole troubled period of the Revolution and the legislation which followed it, over and over again the statement was made in Parliament that the liberties of the people were dependent upon the maintenance of the law as it was, that there should not be any new Courts created, and that the Judges should hold their office quandiu se bene gesserint. That gave them a freehold in their office and made them independent of the Crown, and to my mind that is one of the most important things one should take care should not be nibbled away by little amendments and little Courts.

I do not think the importance of this Amendment, or, indeed, of any other Amendment, will be adequately understood unless one looks at what the constitution of the proposed Court is. I am glad that nobody knows who the members of the Court are to be, because whatever I say on the subject cannot therefore be supposed to be any reflection upon individuals, but upon a system which appoints such persons as are dismissible at the will of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe that is absolutely unknown to our system ever since the Revolution. But it is in terms laid down in this Bill that the Secretary for Scotland may dismiss persons comprising the Land Court. I suppose the persons who devised this Bill thought that they must in some way or another put in some check upon that, and I observe that the dismissal with its causes is to be laid on the Table of Parliament for a certain number of days. But that is not the same thing. What you want is the independence of the Judge, and if you do not insist upon the independence of the Judge I believe you will relapse into a very loose practice indeed.

With regard to the point we are discussing, I suspect that the person who drew up this provision had a notion that by repeating the same thing in different words he would cause greater security. Let me read to the House what the appeal is as it stands. Subsection (2) of Clause 25 recites that this new Land Court— shall have full power and jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters, whether of law or fact, and no other Court shall review the orders or determinations of the Land Court, subject always to thy provisions of Section 7 of this Act; Provided that the Land Court may"— observe the mode in which the Land Court is compellable to have an appeal of any sort, law or fact— if they think fit"— those are the cardinal words; they exist in other circumstances in other places, and according to my experience where that jurisdiction is given every weak Judge "thinks fit" in many cases when he ought not to think fit— if they think fit, and shall on the request of any party unless they consider that such request is frivolous or vexatious, state a special case … Then it may go to either division of the Court of Session.

Now why should the appeal not go to the Court of Session? What is the magic about this particular question which renders it necessary to have a special Court to itself? I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will confirm me when I say that Courts of Law have every conceivable question that could possibly be raised come before them; they are compelled to determine them, and I have never heard that there has been any objection to their ultimate determination. What is the reason why this particular thing should be done in Scotland? I said just now that all through the period of the Revolution there was over and over again the affirmation of the necessity of the independence of the Judges. Let me read the concluding language of the 12th and 13th William III—it is very remarkable. In the first place the Statute begins by saying that the Judges' Commissions shall be made quandiu se bene gesserint, and then it goes on to say this— And whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore further humbly pray that all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion and the rights and liberties of the people thereof and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force may be ratified and confirmed, and the same … are ratified and confirmed accordingly. This is one of the Statutes which was at that time establishing a new Constitution, and one of the things continually referred to was the independence of the Judges. As I dare say your Lordships will remember, the demise of the Crown was supposed to put an end to the Commission of the Judges, whereupon by the 1st George III that was amended. And this is no old musty sort of law that one is dealing with. When this House was established as a Court of Appeal it was still felt necessary that the independence of the Judges should be likewise confirmed.

The example in this Bill is one which has been set for the first time. I think, in forming a Court of this sort. It is one of the things I am sorry for that we should have to affirm such a Court at all, but I am unwilling to move the rejection of the Court because it seems to me there is something in the nature of an agreement between the parties. But certainly I should think no Scotsman would be contented to have a Court of this character without the guarantee of the independence of the Court and without an appeal to the ordinary Courts of Justice. Let me say also—and here again I am sure my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will confirm me—that no one could be more accurate or skilful than those learned persons who come before us from Scotland to argue appeals. The judgments of the Scottish Courts themselves exhibit the great care with which justice is done in Scotland, and I believe an attempt of this sort to set up a rival Court simply because you are dealing with a different subject would be most mischievous. For that reason I most heartily support my noble friend's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN)

I most, certainly, with national pride, confirm what the noble and learned Earl has said in regard to the great capacity which is shown at the Bar by my countrymen who come here to argue cases. I do not think there are ever cases argued better than by them, and the Court of Session in Scotland deservedly holds the highest reputation. I have particular pleasure in confirming that statement of the noble and learned Earl. I also agree that nothing could be more important or sacred in this country than to maintain the independence of the Judicial Bench—their irremovability except for misconduct. Anybody who reads, and reads with shame, the history of former times, both English and Scottish history, knows what fearful wrong was inflicted upon the community when you had removable Judges, and I believe that few greater calamities could happen to this country than that any retrograde step should be taken in that respect, departing from the principles laid down upwards of 200 years ago. I agree to the full with all that, and if we were dealing with a question of the independence of the Judges I should make no criticism at all.

But in this Bill you are not setting up a Court of Law. I do not underrate the importance of the ditties that have to be discharged; but you are not dealing with the liberty of the subject, you are not dealing with those vital questions affecting the freedom and the stability of our institutions. You are dealing with nothing more nor less than how much is to be paid in money as compensation for land and the severance of land, or compensation by reason of a tenant, vacating land and the landlord suffering in consequence. II think the noble and learned Earl will agree that that is, roughly speaking, the subject matter. There is nothing for this tribunal to do in the way of executive functions. The noble and learned Earl is completely in error, if he will allow me respectfully to say so, in thinking that there are executive functions attaching to this Court. The Executive (the Board) and the Judiciary (the Court) are jealously separated in their functions, as I said five years ago ought to be the ease in my opinion. There is nothing but valuation to be done by this Court.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

What does the noble and learned Earl say about fixing rent, and so on?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That I call valuation. I include it in the wider sense. What is the value of land per year? I say that is valuation. I do not think it is always an easy thing to decide. I should be quite incompetent to decide it myself. At the same time it is a pure assessment in money of a particular thing—namely, land to be enjoyed year by year. These gentlemen may be removed only for inability or misbehaviour, but no such order is to come into operation until it has lain on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for not less than thirty days, and it is not to be operative if either House passes a Resolution objecting to it. I think that is giving a very fair measure of security. The County Court Judges and the Sheriffs in this country do not enjoy such security. In fact, only the High Court Judges have the right of holding office unless removed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

I believe the noble and learned Earl wants fair play for this Bill, and that he wants fair play for the landlord and for the tenant. I want the same thing, and I will endeavour—although do not know that I am very hopeful because I am afraid the House does not like the Bill and does not approve of it—to persuade the House if I can that this is fair play. The questions, as I have said, are those of valuation. Any question of law can be taken to the Court of Session under the Bill as it stands, unless it is frivolous.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

No, I beg the noble and learned Earl's pardon; only if they think fit.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They have to do it unless it is frivolous.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

No, I think that is a mistake.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Earl thinks that, let him put down an Amendment so as to secure what he desires, because what the Government also want is that any real point of law may be brought before the Courts.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

If the noble and learned Earl will read the Bill, I think he will agree with me that no such provision is there.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Here are the words. They are in Clause 25, subsection (2)— Provided that the Land Court may if they think fit, and shall on the request of any party unless they consider that such request is frivolous or vexatious, state a special case on any question of law arising. If you think that is not sufficiently stiff; if you think that means—are we not getting a little into a suspicious humour?—the evading of what is intended, namely, that points of law shall be raised before the Court of Session if they are really points of law, then move an Amendment making it clear. We shall not raise any difficulties about it. We need not deal with words. If these words are not sufficient to do in substance what we want to do, let us consider the question when we come to it and put in better words in their place. I pass from that.

Then it is only on questions of fact that the decision of the Land Court is final. Similar questions of fact have to be determined under the English Small Holdings Act. Those are determined by one valuer appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture, removable by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and his decision is final. Why may you do all these things in England, and when we in Scotland say, "We will have four valuators and a high judicial officer on the top and give an appeal to all of them sitting together," why are we to be severely criticised? Are we not doing quite as much in the way of fair play as was done for England, which has worked without a single complaint I believe being made since the year 1906? That is the first observation. The second is this. The debate has been carried on as if there never had been any system of arbitration or valuation by valuators in this country. Why, my Lords, ever since the year 1845 under the Lands Clauses Act and the Railway Clauses Act there have been numberless arbitrations, involving sums of anything up to half a million or more and down to sums of as little as £100 or less, which have been systematically and constantly dealt with by single arbitrators.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

And by the Courts, too.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If you please; sometimes by the selection of the parties and sometimes by the appointment of a Judge or other authority or by juries on questions of fact, and there has been no complaint, unless indeed it be a complaint that they have been rather liberal and generous in their awards, a charge which I do not think is really well founded. The system of valuation by arbiters has been so well established that no one who has been in practice at the Bar has not appeared many times before them. I am sure the noble and learned Earl has appeared hundreds or thousands of times before these tribunals assessing the value of land large or small in amount. The practice is to get skilled persons for valuing the land whenever the occasion for valuing land arises.

Now it is proposed in the Amendment that if the sum of money amounts to £400, you shall be entitled to go to the Court of Session in order to determine the value of particular pieces of land. Let us look at the questions which might thus come before the Court of Session on appeal. There may be a decision that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land. That is to be decided by three Judges. There may be a question of depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land to be occupied by a new holder forms part, or a question of the value of two or three or four or five or fifty acres of land. Do you think that the Court of Session or His Majesty's Judges either in England or in Scotland have any knowledge at all of the value of land? I enrol myself in that battalion of whom the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, spoke when he said he was not an agriculturist. I am not an agriculturist. There is probably not a farm manager or agent, even perhaps not a labourer, in Sussex who would not be better able to value a piece of land than I should myself. I should have to judge according to the evidence. But if you ask for knowledge and experience and particular information, you are going to a set of men who are the least capable of their own knowledge to contribute anything to the solution of the problem as to what is the value of land or the depreciation of property. It would have to be taken entirely on evidence. There is not one out of ten of the Judges of this country or of Scotland who specially know anything about the value of land or agriculture or farming.

Under this Bill there is to be an experienced judicial officer with some knowledge of the law and at the same time a knowledge of the value of land, with four men to assist him who will be honestly chosen. If you are to assume that they will be dishonestly chosen, you had better throw out the Bill at once. It would be a fraud both upon Parliament and on the country. To whom are you proposing in this Amendment to make the appeal on the question of the value of fifty acres of land from these four experts, competent and experienced, and knowing all about it, with at their head a Judge or Sheriff or whatever you please to call him? To three Judges of the Court of Session who admittedly in most cases do not know anything whatever about the value of land. If it is a question of law, if it is a question of principle, I could understand it thoroughly; but when the whole question is, "Here are fifty acres of land, how much money is to be paid for it?" in what way do you imagine that the learned Judges in the Court of Session are to be inspired for the occasion in order to be able to overrule the experienced opinion of these four gentlemen? If I were either a landlord or a tenant—I am neither one nor the other—I should shudder at the idea of the opinion of these experienced men being overruled by three Judges of the Court of Session, who decide questions one clay relating to a charter party, the next day relating to a will, and the day after that relating to a mine, and so forth. Their want of knowledge is a disadvantage, but that is not the only disadvantage. They have to decide on evidence. Here is the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, which says that tie Land Court is to state and sign the case on which a question arises—that is, the question of what the value is of the fifty acres—setting forth the evidence together with the determination thereon. Therefore these unhappy Judges in the Court of Session are not to decide by going down to look at the place themselves, which the valuators may do, but they are to get it all on paper. They are not to see the witnesses; and everybody knows that the countenance and demeanour of a witness are a better sign and token of his credibility than anything he may say. They are not to see the witnesses, but to have a long roll of paper with question and answer, which imparts to them absolutely nothing except the words printed upon it. With that information alone they are to overrule on a point of value the decision of these four men. I think the noble and learned Earl himself was sitting in one case when we had to discuss, only within the last fortnight, the disadvantages under which we laboured in this House through not seeing and hearing the witnesses themselves. In that case the Court of Session had laboured under the same disadvantage; they had not had an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and judging of their testimony with regard to a question of fact, and for that reason we overruled the decision of the Court of Session and restored that of the Lord Ordinary, because he had had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanour when giving their evidence.

What will be the result if the Amendment is accepted? The Court of Session will have to act upon expert evidence. It is quite impossible, as I have said, for them to act upon their own knowledge. They will not be able to form a general opinion to be corrected by others merely. They will have to rely wholly and exclusively upon this written roll of evidence by experts without even having the advantage of hearing and seeing them. I forbear from saying what I might say about expert witnesses. We all know the famous story of a Judge in this country when defining what was a liar. He said there were three classes of liars, and illustrated them by the positive, the comparative, and the superlative, the first being the liar, the second being the liar with the addition of an expletive, and the third being—well, I will not say which was the superlative. You will have to employ these professional witnesses in order to inform the ignorant Judges of the Court of Session adequately, and it will not only be most expensive but most unreliable. There is only one thing you can be certain about, and that is that they will contradict one another.

I have endeavoured to put what I submit is the view of fair play to the noble Earl. He cannot wish that the landlords and the tenants should be smothered in expenses; he cannot wish that the appeal should be from the competent to the incompetent. What I believe is at the bottom of his Amendment is this: he is afraid that fair appointments will not be made. I do not seek to make any declaration of it, but I know quite well that my noble friend Lord Pentland is certain to try at least to make fair and good appointments. But is not this an astonishing thing, that while you do not trust a tribunal consisting of a Judge and four valuators in, a Scottish Bill, you are quite prepared to accept in an English Bill one valuator appointed by the Board of Agriculture? What have we done in Scotland to justify such an invidious discrimination? Are we less honest or less reliable than other people? I say it is a very unfair thing to refuse that confidence to the Scottish valuators and to the Scottish Secretary which you accorded five years ago to the English valuator and to the English head of the Department. We are just as honest as you are, and you may depend upon it that our appointments will be made as honestly.

LORD CLINTON

May I point out that we strongly objected at the time to that form of valuation in the English Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

You accepted it.

LORD CLINTON

We were forced to accept it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know where the force came in. I do not wish to speak warmly, but I do feel very strongly about it. Why is this measure only now dealt out to Scotland? Why have we had to wait five years when you in England got your Bill in 1906, and why do you threaten to wreck this Bill on the point of four valuators when you took one valuator only under your own Bill? I say it is not fair play. I appeal to the noble Earl whether, unintentionally and unwittingly, he is not refusing us fair play. I do not think he would wish to do it, certainly not to Scotland, being a distinguished Scotsman himself. I trust this Bill will realise the hopes that have been created with regard to it. I believe it will go a long way, but Scotland is in a difficult position. Your Lordships are well aware how emigration is going on and the difficulties we have to encounter in that country. I do not think we ought to be looked at distrustfully; and it is my belief, such is my confidence in the resource and energy of my countrymen, that if this Bill is passed in a good shape and is administered by the Scottish Office, in generations to come Scotland will be turned into a garden.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down spoke several times of arbitration and pointed out that we had accepted, or been forced to accept, which ever you like, the arbitration which is in the terms of the English Bill. Does the Lord Chancellor not remember that we offered to accept the terms of the English Bill when this Scottish Bill was before the House before, and that what we objected to was this Land Court?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My memory may be inaccurate, but my impression was that five years ago you objected to any Court at all and wished to have arbitrators selected by the parties. The arbitrator in England is selected by the parties, and the only difference is that by this Bill there will be four valuators in Scotland selected by the Scottish Office, whereas in England there is only one.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Will the noble and learned Earl give us arbiters to be selected in the first place by the parties, and if they cannot agree then to be appointed by the Court, or by the Secretary for Scotland? I am taking the corresponding terms to the English Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No; we think this is preferable, and fair to both sides.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I did not say what was preferable. Now we must get on to the question of why it is preferable. My noble friend Lord Clinton hit the nail on the head this evening when he said, "We object to this Land Court for the purposes to which you propose to put it." We have gone so far as this, that we have allowed this Land Court to pass even with regard to such questions as rent, and so on, and it is only on this question of compensation that we say we are not ready to give them full power to do whatever they like. Let the noble and learned Earl call to mind that he is going to give to this Court absolute power—to put it in general language—with regard to all holdings under £50 in Scotland, absolute power with regard to new holdings, and very large powers with regard to existing holdings. Even that we have allowed to pass so far, but what we say is that on this question of compensation we are not prepared to place unlimited confidence in this Court. In the first place one of the members—we do not know who he is—is to be a lawyer. Who are to be the other four? They are to be experts, and we heard from the noble and learned Earl just now what his opinion of experts was.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I said expert witnesses.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The noble and learned Earl quoted somebody else, and he did not say he disagreed. He asks us to place in the hands or these four experts and this lawyer a power which is to be equal to that of the Court of Session or of this House. The noble and learned Earl said, "Why go to the Judges; can the Judges form any opinion as to the value of land?" I have every confidence in His Majesty's Judges, certainly in the noble and learned Earl himself. If he had evidence placed before him I would much rather take his opinion than that of any expert and all the members of this Land Court put together. He said, "If I were a landlord or a tenant—but I am neither one nor the other—I should shudder at the idea of appealing to the Court of Session from this Land Court." That is just it. The noble and learned Earl is neither a landlord nor a tenant. He has no notion of what their opinions or feelings are with regard to these matters. I am sure that all landlords, and I believe all tenants, infinitely prefer the Court of Session as a final appeal to being placed in the hands of this Land Court without any appeal. I am sorry I cannot agree with the noble and learned Earl that the functions of the Land Court will be purely with regard to valuation. They go very much further. But, after all, that is a point which has been dealt with before, and I will not trouble your Lordships further with it.

The Secretary for Scotland said the other night that if you go past this Land Court your experts will not be fully utilised. What that meant I do not know, except that it meant that you will not get out of them 20s. in the £ in work for the amount of salary you give them. As to the value of their opinion, experts ought not to be Judges; they ought to be witnesses. That is the purpose for which they are always brought before the Court, and it is the exact difference between an expert witness and a Judge that makes me prefer a Judge to an expert. Without speaking in any disrespectful manner of those who are going to be placed on this Court, they are experts, and, remember, they are all appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, and, as has been pointed out, they are all removable by the Secretary for Scotland. As for calling them an independent Court in the same way as your Lordships' Appeal Court or the Court of Session is an independent Court, that is really very much the same as saying that a horse chestnut is a chestnut horse.

Now take this proviso. The noble and learned Earl said that he was not himself able to appreciate some of the difficulties of these questions. He said, if I remember aright, that after all it could only be the question of what was the value of a holding of £50 cut out of a farm. The proviso says— Provided that where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which such land forms part, or to any tenant in respect that the land forms part or the whole of his tenancy … Allow me to observe that it is a very important question to a tenant when a bit is cut out of his holding. His whole equipment, his whole stock, the number of those whom he employs, his whole business depends on, and is in proportion to, the size of his tenancy, and it is not such a simple matter, I can assure the noble and learned Earl, as he seems to think. The proviso goes on— or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation … I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Carrington. He knows something now, I think, about taking over sheep stock at a valuation, although he did not a few years ago. The sheep farmers of Scotland in about three months taught him that they at all events understand very well what it is. The noble Earl had to bring in a Bill and commence a retreat as fast as ever he could go from the absurd position which he had taken up and against which he was warned. The question of sheep stock is a question which runs into many thousands of pounds, and cannot be measured by taking land to the extent of forty or fifty pounds. Then the proviso goes on— or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part … That may be an enormous question. Take, for instance, a part of Scotland which is at present in deer forests. You take away a portion of the low ground. That makes the whole of the rest of that forest valueless for the purpose to which it has been hitherto applied. The depreciation that may have taken place in that estate may be measured by thousands of pounds. How anyone can say that is a small question I fail to understand.

After all, all that this turns on is "if the Court are of opinion." But supposing the Court says, "No, we are not of opinion," where then is the tenant farmer, where is the owner of the deer forest? They may whistle for any compensation. They have no right of appeal to anybody, and there they are, simply ruled out. Then, supposing the Land Court are of opinion that damage has been done, they are to require the Board to pay compensation to such amount as they determine. Suppose either the tenant or the landlord thinks that the compensation is entirely insufficient and that he has been very badly treated, is he to have no appeal of any kind or sort? This Land Court is made omnipotent, and I venture to hope that this appeal—I do not know that it is the best appeal, but it is the best I can think of at present and I am perfectly ready to listen to any other proposal—will be given. But, what we will not listen to is a proposal that a reference from these experts to the chairman should be called an appeal. We know perfectly well that a Court of that kind is not likely to be anything more than a mutual admiration society, and I shall certainly take the sense of your Lordships upon this Amendment, because it seems to me that justice cannot be done unless there is some appeal from a Court of this sort. I endorse entirely everything that was said with such force by Lord Halsbury just now. Without an appeal, the whole of the small holdings of Scotland will be under a system comparable to which there is nothing in the civilised world so far as I know. And remember it is not merely with landlords who have not done the improvements that you are dealing, but with those who have. You do not dare say that they have not done their duty. Yet the noble Lord seems to think it right to place all this part of Scotland under a Court consisting of five men who know nothing about land or buildings or farming and who have had no personal experience of these things. I can only say, as an individual, that I should conceive that I was being most unjustly treated if I were placed under a Land Court of this kind and not permitted to have an appeal; and I believe all of your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that there is nothing so hateful or odious in this world as a sense of suffering from injustice.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I think my noble friend opposite has given the very best reason possible why your Lordships' House should pass this Bill in its entirety. He mentioned the fact that when I was first appointed Minister for Agriculture I knew nothing about sheep stock. That was absolutely true, and that only shows how foolish, if I may be permitted to say so, it is to send an Englishman to another country to decide all these questions which Scottish lawyers themselves are unable to decide and on which they give very wrong opinions. May I for one moment bring before the House what the difficulties of an English President are when he is first pitchforked into Scotland and told that he is Minister for Agriculture in that country. He finds himself in a different country, he finds a different land tenure altogether, and he finds people talking a different language which it is extremely difficult to understand. For example, in this Bill you have "landholders," "feuing," "advocates," "writers to the signet," "factors," "crofts" and "statutory tenants" who are yearly tenants although they hold leases. I submit that this is enough to puzzle any Englishman, however anxious he may be to try and do his best.

Are we not here really, after all, straining at the gnat after having swallowed an enormous camel? Do let me remind your Lordships what in your wisdom you have already put upon the Statute Book. In the English Act you said that it was so necessary to get land for poor people that if an English landlord did not choose to give land for small holdings the Minister for Agriculture could take that land compulsorily. He could have it split up and divided amongst small holders, and he had to pay for the land. How was it to be paid for? The price for buying it, or for leasing it, was to be settled—by whom? By a valuer sent down by the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, and that price was absolutely final. Your Lordships passed that; and what has happened in the three or four years during which this has been the law of the land? I have been attacked in this House and told that some very hard cases have occurred. I have challenged noble Lords who made that statement to stand up in their places and substantiate it, but not one has been able to do it. I know it has been said on platforms that hard cases have occurred—very curious statements at times are made on platforms on both sides—but I do not believe there is one single instance of any hardship having been done.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The noble Earl himself paid £50 out of his own pocket to one man.

EARL CARRINGTON

That was on Crown land. Then there is all this terror about the inequity of a Land Court. The noble Marquess opposite, who is an Aberdeenshire landlord, was very eloquent on that subject last night, but there is another Aberdeenshire landlord, the Earl of Kintore, who has small holdings on his estate. Whenever any difficulty arises with regard to the rents he always consents to their being settled by tribunal such as the Land Court.

LORD CLINTON

That tribunal is merely somebody appointed by the landlord and the tenant.

EARL CARRINGTON

Not appointed; agreed to. What is the result of having that Land Court? The tenants are tumbling over one another to get on to his estate. I have a land court on my own estate, and it has answered extremely well. I have had the estate for some forty years, and except in the case of death there have been only twenty-one changes on the estate during the whole of that time. Any man who thinks his rent is too high can go to any respectable valuer he chooses—of course, not to the man he sells his bullocks to—and whatever that valuer says should be the rent is the lent that is fixed.

Let me tell you what, my own experience has been. The first test case that occurred was in the case of a tenant of mine who farmed 1,000 acres. He said that his rent was too high, and he went to a valuer whom he selected himself. The result was that when the award was given his rent was put up £100 a year. That tenant remained on his farm for another fifteen years before he retired, and the result of that action therefore was that lie paid me £1,500 in rent more than he otherwise would have done. I do honestly think that there is a great deal of unnecessary alarm about this Bill, and I hope, not only for the benefit of the poor man, but also for the benefit of the landlord, that your Lordships will in your wisdom allow this Bill to pass, as it will put an end to the dreadful state of emigration which is so deplorable in Scotland, and to a certain extent we hope it will put an end to the dreadful congestion and overcrowding in the towns which is not only a disgrace to our Christianity but to our common civilisation as well.

On Question, whether the words proposed should be inserted?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.
Devonshire, D.	Chilston, V.	Hindlip, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D.	Churchill, V.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
	Colville of Culross, V.	Killanin, L.
Ailsa, M.	Falmouth, V.	Knaresborough, L.
Bath, M.	Halifax, V.	Lawrence, L.
Zetland, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
		Muncaster, L.
	St. Aldwyn, V.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.]		Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E.		St. Levan, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Alverstone, L.	Saltoun, L.
	Balfour, L.	Sandys, L.
Eldon, E.	Barnard, L.	Seaton, L.
Halsbury, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Sempill, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Blythswood, L.	Sinclair, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lovelace, E.
Malmesbury, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)
Mansfield, E.	Clinton, L. [Teller.]
Powis, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Wharncliffe, E.	Elphinstone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Loreburn, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Allendale, V.	Courtney of Penwith, L
Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)	Esher, V.	Haversham, L.
		Herschell, L. [Teller.]
Carrington, E. (L. Privy Seal.)		Pentland, L.
	Armitstead, L.	Reay, L.
Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)	Ashby St. Ledgers, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Boston, L.	Shaw, L.
Craven, E.	Charnwood, L.	Southwark, L.
Liverpool, E. [Teller.]	Colebrooke, L.	Weardale, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments in the name of Lord Balfour are consequential on the one carried last night.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 4, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN

My Amendment in subsection (14)— (14) A new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration otherwise than by agreement who does not satisfy the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him. really depends on the meaning of the word "ability." I take it that ability means that the tenant shall be a fit person to have a small holding, or that he has had some experience in small holdings. But it is also very important that he should have the necessary capital with which to stock the small holding, and I should like to know whether the word "ability" covers that? It is a small matter, I confess, but the capital required on an agricultural farm is far greater than the capital required on a grass farm, and I think the words I suggest would make that quite clear.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 14, after ("him") insert ("and to stock and cultivate the holding without borrowed money").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD PENTLAND

This is the case of a tenant who is put upon a holding by the action of the Board of Agriculture and the decision of the Land Court. The intention of the Bill is to provide full compensation to the landlord for any risks which are incident to this tenant having a holding on his property. If the compensation is not full it is for the House to make it full, so that the landlord's interests are really secured. The Board selects the tenant in default of selection by the landlord, and certainly the risk and responsibility lie upon the Board and they will therefore take good care to see that their interests are protected. For these reasons I do not think the words are necessary, neither do I think they are advisable, because as a matter of fact it is very difficult to know when a tenant has borrowed money or not. Many farmers may be using borrowed money. I submit to the noble Lord that it is very inadvisable to put these words in the Bill; they do not help either party and are limiting words which I think serve no useful purpose.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The Bill says that a new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration otherwise than by agreement who does not satisfy the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him. Obligations to whom? Does that mean to the Board and to the landlord, or only to one of the two? Although I admit that the noble Lord's point may not be a very large one, at the same time we ought to know whether this includes the landlord as well as the Board.

LORD PENTLAND

I think obviously both—on the one hand to the landlord to whom he has to pay rent, and on the other to the Board of Agriculture through whose action he may be the recipient of a loan for his buildings or other such purposes.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

That does not appear from the words as they stand, at all events not clearly. Would the noble Lord have any objection to the words reading "to fulfil the obligations to the Board and to the landlord," or "to all parties," or words of that sort?

LORD PENTLAND

This clause is a long one, but I think the body of the clause makes it perfectly clear what the obligations of the tenant must be from his inherent position as a tenant put upon a holding otherwise than by agreement. But if the noble Lord will allow me to consider before Report whether these words can be usefully added I will be very glad to do so.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Will the noble Lord put down an Amendment?

LORD PENTLAND

If advisable. I will communicate with the noble Earl about it.

LORD SALTOUN

It seems to me that every landlord always ensures that a proposed tenant has capital sufficient to cultivate the land. If the Board confess that they are going to put people of straw on the land—as I gather from the answer of the Secretary for Scotland they intend doing—then the result will be that the land will depreciate altogether and possibly be thrown back on the landlord's hands at some future time, and he will have all the expense and trouble of putting it back into cultivation.

LORD PENTLAND

For all those risks the Bill provides compensation. The Board are responsible for them and have to face them in accepting tenants and preparing the scheme. I can assure the noble Lord that those risks are clearly laid on the Board of Agriculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 15, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

Subsection (16), which I desire to amend, lays down the size of farm in respect of which new holders may not be registered. It protects 150-acre farms, but the definition is, I think, unsatisfactory because it relies upon acreage alone. I suggest that it should be amended by the insertion of the words "or if exceeding one hundred and fifty acres not exceeding one hundred pounds in rent or annual letting value." Acreage alone is a very small guide to the value or importance of any farm. Take a holding of 150 acres of ordinary land worth about £1 or 25s. an acre. That is of some importance; it is quite self-supporting and one upon which a farmer may be expected to do well, to raise good stock, and employ a fair amount of labour. But if you take another holding of 150 acres with perhaps quite a few acres of arable land, and hill or rough pasture in addition, you may easily find that rented at 5s. or under, making a total rent of £37 10s., which brings it really into the category of small holdings; and you may extend that acreage over 150 to really a considerable extent before you get it within the limit. In those cases it would be unreasonable to allow any acreage at all until you get up to a certain limit of value as well as of area. The Amendment applies very largely to the west and particularly to the outer islands where cases of this kind would exist, although actually a 150-acre farm is very rare. If it does exist at all it probably will be quite a small croft, but the hill acreage there is much larger and until you come to one worth a rent of something like £100 it can hardly be regarded as self-supporting. I know that the wish of the noble Lord is as far as possible to make the holdings sufficient to carry a man and a family, and even though the limit which I propose may be something more than a self-supporting holding, yet it certainly does not bear any reduction of importance taken from it for the purpose of another small holding. On a holding of that size, one man may be able to make a living where it is quite certain two men could not possibly thrive, and I should like serious attention to be given to the Amendment because we do think it one of considerable importance. It is one which does not affect the Bill in any way at all, but would do a considerable amount of justice in the case of those who hold poor land over the actual limit of acreage laid down.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 22, after ("acres") insert ("or if exceeding one hundred and fifty acres not exceeding one hundred pounds in rent or annual letting value").—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD PENTLAND

Through the courtesy of noble Lords who are interested in this Amendment I have been made acquainted with their views, and I am willing to accept the Amendment if they will be good enough to substitute the limit of £80 for £100.

THE EARL OF DUNMORE

I am very glad that the noble Lord has gone so far as to accept the principle on which the Amendment is based. This principle was recognised in the Crofters Act, 1886, but has been disregarded by those who promoted this Bill. Under that Act we gave security and fixity of tenure to a certain class of small holder, but I would like to remind your Lordships that that class was a class who were dependent for earning their living not on the land but on some subsidiary employment. This Bill proposes to go further and to extend this class at the expense of those who do occupy economic holdings. The noble Lord has fixed £80 apparently as the smallest rental which a man can pay who is earning his living on the land. I would remind the noble Lord that it is a very hard life for the man who pays £80 a year rent. I should have thought that £100 was a small enough rent. A man who pays £100 a year is a small holder, and he is the very class of small holder that we want to get on the land. I see great danger in removing these men and covering the land with the class of men who will be occupying uneconomic holdings, and who will be dependent on obtaining some subsidiary employment which it may be very difficult to obtain. I would recommend my noble friend to accept the compromise which has been offered, but I do fail to see why the safeguards which were put into the Act of 1886 have not been included in this Bill. The noble Lord talked about the small holders in Denmark and Belgium yesterday. I really fail to see why the man who can earn his living on the land should be at the mercy of any agitation to remove him and should be forced to obtain some other occupation in some other department of life.

LORD CLINTON

I am glad the Secretary for Scotland has met me to some extent. Although it is not exactly what I want, I am glad to see some signs of the softening of the heart of the noble Lord with regard to some of these Amendments. I think we ought to have had the "hundred pounds," but as I cannot get exactly what I want I suppose I must accept what I can get and I am glad to move the Amendment in the new form.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment proposed is in page 10, line 22, after "acres" to insert "or of an annual value as entered in the valuation roll not exceeding eighty pounds."

LORD CLINTON

I would prefer it in this form—"or, if exceeding 150 acres, of an annual value as entered in the valuation roll not exceeding eighty pounds."

LORD PENTLAND

We can put it right on Report.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

I beg to move the next Amendment in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 27, after ("farm") insert ("not being a farm wholly or mainly pastoral").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN

This Amendment also is of some importance. It is to alter the date in paragraph (b) of subsection (16) from 1906 to the time when the Bill actually comes into force. It is a very unusual thing to legislate for what has taken place during past years, and I cannot see why this Bill should be made retrospective in this way. Many engagements have been entered into quite bona fide between landlords and tenants during the last six years, and it seems a great pity to disturb them. I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment, otherwise I shall advise the House to divide on it.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 32, leave out ("six") and insert ("eleven").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD PENTLAND

The ground upon which this was retained in the Bill was that on the introduction of this Bill on the earlier occasions frill notice was given to everybody of this legislation. But I am quite aware of the opinion that is likely to be entertained by the House on the matter, and I do not propose to divide against the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments by Lord Balfour are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 6, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 11, line 8, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

Subsection (19) of Clause 7 gives power to any member of the Land Court, or anybody authorised by them to "enter upon and inspect any lands or buildings at all reasonable hours on any lawful day." I propose to add the words "after due notice has been given to the owner and occupier of such lands or buildings." The object is not only to enable the owner or occupier, if he wishes to do so, to state to the gentleman who values the land that he has an objection to the land being taken, but also to ensure that the land is properly valued. I know in Ireland it has been sometimes the case for the valuer not to go on the land at all, or turn a single sod, and it has been stated also that land has been valued in Ireland when under a foot of snow.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 10, after ("day") insert ("after due notice has been given to the owner and occupier of such lands or buildings").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

LORD PENTLAND

I understand that the noble Lord wishes this inserted as a protection that the member of the Land Court or the official of the Board should do his duty, and with any such precaution I have every sympathy. But I want to put it to the noble Lord that it makes this business very elaborate. The words in the Bill are that they are to go on any lawful day and at all reasonable hours. The officers of local authorities, sanitary authorities, and such like, have no similar obligation imposed upon them. The Amendment would also make necessary the sending of notices to the landlord who may be abroad, although I suppose it might be received by his representative.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I think it reasonable to give a man notice nowadays that you are going to inspect his property.

LORD PENTLAND

I have inferred that I shall not oppose the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions regulating loans to landholders.

8.—(1) The agreement for any assistance given to a landholder by way of loan under the immediately preceding section shall be recorded in the Landholders' Holdings Book, and, as recorded, shall have the effect of transferring to the Board all rights of the landholder and his statutory successors to compensation for permanent improvements up to the amount of any outstanding liability owing to the Board; provided that, the amount of such compensation when claimed shall in such case in the event of dispute be assessed by the Land Court, and provided further that any amount due to the Board from a landlord under this section may, if the Board on the application of the landlord so determine, be deemed to be a loan to the landlord (secured on the holding and on any buildings thereon) within the meaning of section six of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, to which the provisions of that section shall apply.

(2) In the event of breach by a landholder of the conditions of repayment of any loan under the immediately preceding section the Land Court may, on the application of the Board, and after consideration of any objections stated by the landlord, make an order for the removal of the landholder from the holding as if he had broken a statutory condition, and for the assignation of the holding to some one person (being an applicant therefor) subject to such conditions as they see fit, and such person shall thereupon succeed to the holding of the landholder and shall be deemed to be his statutory successor.

(3) All moneys received for payment of interest or repayment of principal or otherwise in respect of any loan made by the Board under the immediately preceding section shall be paid to the fund out of which the loan was made.

(4) The Land Court shall, on the application of the Board or of the landlord or the landholder, append to their order fixing a fair rent for a holding a record specifying the condition of the cultivation of the holding, and of the buildings and other permanent improvements thereon, and by whom such permanent improvements have been executed or paid for.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendments by Lord Balfour in this clause are all consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 14, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 11, line 17, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 11, line 20, leave out ("Board") and insert) ("Department")

Page 11, line 21, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 11, line 29, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 11, line 39, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 12, line 1, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Loans for buildings.

9. The Board may, where they are of opinion that assistance should be provided for the improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings of landholders or cottars, provide such assistance by way of loan, subject to the like conditions and incidents as loans made under section seven, and if made to a landholder, subject to the provisions of section eight of this Act.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 7, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Additional statutory conditions.

10. The following conditions are hereby prescribed as statutory conditions additional to or in modification of those prescribed in section one of the Act of 1886:—

1. (1) The landholder shall, by himself or his family, with or without hired labour, cultivate his holding, without prejudice to the right (which is hereby conferred upon him) to make such use thereof for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations as in case of dispute the Land Court may find to be reasonable and not inconsistent with the cultivation of the holding; provided that the expression "cultivate" in this subsection shall include the use of a holding for horticulture or for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like:
2. (2) The expression "passing of this Act" in subsection four of section one of the Act of 1886 shall, in the application of that subsection to landholders other than existing crofters and the statutory successors of existing crofters, be construed as meaning the date at which the Landholders Acts first applied to the holding: Provided always that nothing in the said subsection shall be construed as debarring a landholder from subletting his dwelling-house to holiday visitors; and provided further that the provision as to dwelling-houses in the said subsection shall not apply to a new holder, but a new holder and his statutory successors shall not, without the consent in writing of the landlord and the Board erect or suffer to be erected on the holding more than one dwelling-house:
3. (3) Nothing in subsection seven of section one of the Act of 1886 shall be construed as precluding a landholder from recovering any compensation for damage by game which under section nine of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, is recoverable by a tenant, and the last-mentioned section shall apply accordingly with the substitution of the Land Court for arbitration.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 1, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Present rent.

13. The rent payable by a landholder as one of the statutory conditions shall be the present rent, that is to say, the yearly rent, including money and any prestations other than money,—

1. (a) In the ease of existing crofters, payable for the year current at the passing of the Act of 1886, or, where the rent so payable has been altered in terms of that Act, payable for the year current at the commencement of this Act;
2. (b) In the case of existing yearly tenants, payable for the year current at the commencement of this Act; and
3. (c) In the case of qualified leaseholders or statutory small tenants becoming land holders, and in the case of new holders, an in the case of landholders whose holdings are enlarged, payable or fixed in respect of the last year of the lease, or at the date of registration, or at the date of enlargement, as the ease may be:

in each case unless and until the present rent is altered in manner provided by the Landholders Acts.

LORD PENTLAND moved to amend paragraph (c), after the word "lease" ["payable or fixed in respect of the last year of the lease"], by inserting the words "or tenancy."

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 3, after ("lease") insert ("or tenancy").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Amendment of law as to enlargement of holdings.

16.—(1) The provisions of the Act of 1886, relative to the enlargement of holdings, are hereby extended to an application for enlargement of a holding by a single landholder or two or more landholders, and shall apply in the case of an application by a single landholder as nearly as may be in the same manlier and to the same effect as in the case of an application by two or more landholders:

Provided that all applications for enlargement under section eleven of the Act of 1886 shall he made to the Board, and subsections seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen of the section of this Act relative to the constitution of new holdings shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as fully for the purpose of applications for enlargement as for the purpose of the constitution of new holdings and the expressions "application" and "applicants," where occurring in section twelve or section twenty-one of the Act of 1886, shall be construed as meaning an application from the Board under subsection nine aforesaid and the persons referred to in such application.

(2) Section thirteen of the Act of 1886 with the exception of subsection (3) (e) thereof shall cease to have effect, provided that land shall not be deemed available land for the enlargement of a holding unless it is Lind in respect of which a person would be admissible to registration as a new holder under this Act, and, if arable land, unless it lies contiguous or near to land already in the occupancy of the landholder making the application; and provided further that a holding shall not be enlarged so that the present rent or acreage thereof shall exceed the present rent or acreage competent for a new holding under this Act.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The two Amendments by Lord Balfour are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 14, line 32, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 14, line40, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 6, after ("holding") insert ("otherwise than by agreement").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 7, after ("registration") insert ("otherwise than by agreement").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 7, after ("registration") insert ("otherwise than by agreement").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 11, leave out ("present") twice occurring.—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Amendment of law as to vacant holdings.

17. Where, by reason of renunciation, removal, failure of a statutory successor, or otherwise, a holding has at any time ceased or is about to cease to be held by a landholder, the landlord shall forthwith intimate the fact in writing to the Board, and shall not, if the Land Court on their application after hearing the landlord so deter- mine, and during such period and subject to such conditions (which shall include payment of compensation to the landlord by the Board to such amount as may be agreed, or as, in case of dispute, may be determined by the Land Court, in respect of any loss arising out of such determination) as the Land Court may prescribe, be entitled without the consent of the Board to let the holding otherwise than to a neighbouring landholder for the enlargement of his holding, or to a new holder:

Provided that where, under the provisions of the Landholders Acts, the holding was, otherwise than by agreement, constituted as a new holding or enlarged, it shall be the ditty of the Land Court, upon an application by the landlord, after hearing the Board, to assess any damage or injury done by the constitution or enlargement of the holding, as the case may be, to the landlord through non-payment of rent in respect of the holding, or depreciation in the letting value of the land comprised in the holding, or through the imposition of liabilities in respect of or the payment of compensation for permanent improvements thereon, and to require the Board to pay the landlord compensation in respect of such damage or injury to such amount as the Land Court determine, but nothing in this proviso contained shall apply to the case of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Balfour's Amendments to this clause are all consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 16, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department");

Page 15, line 20, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 15, line 24, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 15, line 31, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 15, line 37, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The object of my Amendment is to apply to Clause 17 the appeal which your Lordships passed just now.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 39, after ("determine") insert ("subject to the like procedure and right of appeal as provided in subsection (11) of section seven of this Act").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD PENTLAND

I cannot agree with the noble Earl, but I can assure him that, so far as I know, the words carry out his object.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Amendment of law as to renunciation of holdings.

18. Section seven of the Act of 1886 shall be amended by the insertion at the end thereof of the following words:—

Provided that such notice shall not, without the consent of the Land Court, be effective unless, within two months from the date of notice, the landlord or the landholder intimates the same in writing to the Board, and provided further that except by agreement with the Board the landholder shall not without the like consent be entitled to renounce his tenancy so long as any liability owing by him to the Board is not wholly discharged.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendments standing in the name of Lord Balfour are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 6, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 16, line 7, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 16, line 9, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Declaration of law as to resumption of holdings.

19. Without prejudice to the generality of the power to authorise resumption by the landlord for some reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, conferred by section two of the Act of 1886, the feuing of land, or the occupation of a holding, being his only landed estate, by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon, shall respectively be deemed a reasonable purpose as aforesaid.

LORD SALTOUN

My Amendments to this clause are really drafting.

LORD PENTLAND

I accept both.

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 14, after ("occupation") insert ("by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon")

Page 16, line 15, leave out ("by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon").—(Lord Salton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Arrears of rent to be set off against compensation for improvements.

23. If a landholder either renounces or is removed from his holding the landlord shall be entitled to set off all rent due or to become duo against any sum found to be due to the landholder or to the Board for improvements made on the holding.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 10, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Amendment of law at to regulation of common grazings, &c.

24.—(1) The Land Court may prescribe such regulations as to the exercise of pasture, grazing or other rights held or to be held in common under the Landholders Acts as they think expedient.

(2) The Land Court shall cause any proceeding under the immediately preceding subsection to be intimated to any person or persons, whether landholders or not, using or claiming to use the pasture or grazing to which the proceeding relates, and shall hear such person or persons on his or their application, and make such inquiry as they may deem necessary, and may make applicable to such person or persons any regulations prescribed under such proceeding: Provided that such regulations may contain provision for the removal by any person prescribed in the regulations of any stock placed on the common pasture or grazing in contravention of the regulations.

(3) Any person committing a breach of any regulations prescribed under this section or an infringement of any scheme drawn up by the Crofters Commission or the Land Court, as the case may be, under the powers conferred by section twelve of the Act of 1880, shall be liable on conviction before the Sheriff under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding five shillings for each day during which such offence shall have been continued after written warning from the committee or from the Land Court, and any such penalty shall be recoverable by imprisonment in terms of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.

(4) The Land Court may suspend or remove members of a committee under the Act of 1891 as amended, if satisfied that they are not properly carrying out the regulations respecting a common pasture or grazing, and may appoint or provide for the appointment of other persons (whether landholders or not) in their place. Where those interested in a common pasture or grazing decline to act on such a committee, the Land Court may appoint any person or persons in the neighbourhood, whether landholders or not, with the powers and duties of such a committee. Where the Land Court are satisfied that in lieu of such a committee a grazings constable should be appointed or elected for any township or group of townships or persons interested, they may make provision accordingly, and any regulations making such provision shall be deemed to be regulations prescribed under this section, and the grazings constable may enforce such regulations and shall be paid by assessment upon those using the pasture or grazing in manner provided by the Land Court, but not in excess of sixpence in the pound of rent.

The words "not being less than three or more than five," occurring in section two of the Act of 1891, are hereby repealed.

(5) The Land Court may, on the application of the landlord, or landlords, or any landholder, and for such period and on such conditions as they consider equitable, apportion a common grazing into separate parts for the exclusive use of the several townships or persons interested, either as arable ground or as pasture, if satisfied that such apportionment is for the good of the estate or estates, and of the holdings or tenancies concerned.

(6) The Land Court may, on the application of the landlord, or landlords, or any landholder, apportion lands held runrig among the holders thereof in such manner as appears to them in the circumstances of each case to be just and expedient.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Might I ask, on the second line of Clause 24, what "grazing or other rights" are? Those words were inserted at quite a late stage in the other House.

LORD PENTLAND

These words refer to other rights such as those of seaware and peat cutting, which are grouped with grazing rights in the Crofters Acts. I think the words are quite proper here, and we should also insert them in line 24, which I propose as a consequential Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

That is quite satisfactory.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 24, after ("grazing") insert ("or other rights").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

Jurisdiction of Land Court.

25.—(1) The Land Court shall be a body corporate with a common seal. Judicial notice shall be taken by all courts of justice of the corporate seal of the Land Court, and any order or other instrument purporting to be signed with it shall be received as evidence without further proof. All orders and determinations of the Land Court shall be in writing.

(2) For the purposes of the Landholders Acts the Land Court shall have full power and jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters, whether of law or fact, and no other Court shall review the orders or determinations of the Land Court, subject always to the provisions of section seven of this Act: Provided that the Land Court may if they think fit, and shall on the request of any party unless they consider that such request is frivolous or vexatious, state a special case on any question of law arising in any proceedings pending before them, for the opinion of either division of the Court of Session, who are hereby authorized finally to determine the same.

(3)The Land Court may without prejudice to any provision contained in section seven of this Act ascertain the facts in any case by hearing parties and examining witnesses, or by means of affidavits, or by such other mode of inquiry as they may deem appropriate, and may require the production of all books, papers, plans, and documents relating to the case, and without prejudice to the provisions of section twenty-four of the Act of 1880 they may summon and examine on oath such witnesses as they think fit to call or allow to appear before them. They may, when sitting in open court, report in writing to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills any person who has been guilty of contempt of court; and the Lord Ordinary may punish such person as if the contempt had been committed in his own Court.

(4) The Land Court may determine the amount of the expenses in any proceedings before the Court and the proportion to be borne by the different parties.

(5) Three members of the Land Court shall be a quorum: Provided that it shall be lawful for the Land Court to delegate such of their powers as they think expedient to any one member or to any two members of the Court, with or without the assistance of one or m ore land valuers, assessors, or other skilled persons, and from time to time to revoke, alter, or modify any such delegation of powers; but any order or determination arrived at under such delegation shall be subject to review upon appeal by three or more members of the Court (including where such court of review consists of three members not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination) sitting together.

(6) An order of the Land Court may be presented to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff, if satisfied that the order has been duly recorded, shall pronounce decree in conformity with such order on which execution and diligence shall proceed.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

I have an Amendment to omit from subsection (2) the words" and no other Court shall review the orders or determinations of the Land Court, subject always to the provisions of section seven of this Act: Provided that." I do not think it is necessary to move that now, because the House has accepted the Amendment of Lord Camperdown.

LORD PENTLAND

Yes I think the noble Earl's Amendment need not be moved, as the appeal has been put in. But I suggest that after the words "section seven" in line 5 the words "or seventeen" should be put in.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

Yes.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Would it not be better to say "and no other Court save as hereinbefore mentioned"?

LORD PENTLAND

The appeal has gone in on Clause 7, and so you have got here "subject to the provisions of Clause 7." If the noble Earl agrees to also put in "section seventeen." to which the appeal has been applied, I think his purpose would be served.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Quite so.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 5, after ("seven") insert ("or seventeen ").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Camperdown when he dealt with appeals on questions of fact, and also to the speeches of Lord Halsbury and the Lord Chancellor in reference to appeals on questions of law. I consider that as the Bill now stands with regard to appeals on questions of law it is very unfair. It provides that the Land Court may, if they think fit, and shall on the request of any party, unless the Land Court consider that such request is frivolous or vexatious, state a special case. Surely it is not fair to make the Land Court the judge in its own case; some other tribunal surely should decide whether the request is frivolous or vexatious. I suggest the words should run in this way, "and shall on the request of any party, if a Judge of the Court of Session certifies that such request is not frivolous or vexatious." The parties would then apply to the Judge of the Court of Session and he would give the certificate if he thought it ought to be given, and the appeal would go on. This is a matter of real importance, because surely on all points of law which are not frivolous or vexatious there ought to be an appeal; in fact, the Lord Chancellor invited us to suggest any reasonable Amendment to this proposal. I beg to move those words.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 7, omit the words ("unless they consider") and insert ("if a Judge of the Court of Session certifies ").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

LORD PENTLAND

I am entirely in agreement with what the Lord Chancellor said, and am quite willing to do my best to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite in this respect. But this proposal of the noble Viscount's, which he was good enough to hand across to me, seems to make a very important change, and I should like time to consider whether we could not meet those opposite to us in this matter in some way which would be satisfactory to them and at the same time avoid practically putting the right of appeal in these circumstances in the hands of a Judge of the Court of Session. I think the importance of the subject justifies my request, and if the noble Viscount will give me time to consider this until the Report stage I shall be very glad to do my best to meet him in the matter; and if he would put down the Amendment in his name it will (insure that the matter would not be passed over without discussion.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I am quite willing to accept that, if my noble friends from Scotland are willing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 24, after ("Court") insert ("Provided that when the chairman is so sitting, he shall have the same power as the Lord Ordinary to punish contempt of Court").—(Lord Pentland.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Will the noble Lord tell us exactly what the powers are?

LORD PENTLAND

The powers of the Lord Ordinary.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to know exactly what powers over the liberty of the subject we are giving the chairman of the Land Court. Is he to be allowed to commit an individual without notice to prison?

LORD PENTLAND

If the noble Lord wishes, the matter may stand over until Report.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am inclined to make that request.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 39, after ("together") insert ("one of whom shall be the chairman of the Land Court").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Supplementary provisions and restrictions.

26.—(1) For the purposes of the Landholders Acts a holding shall be deemed to include any right in pasture or grazing land held or to be held by the tenant or landholder whether alone or in common with others, and the site of any dwelling-house erected or to be erected on the holding or held or to be held therewith, and of any offices or other conveniences connected with such dwelling-house.

(2) A person shall not be admissible to registration as a new holder under this Act in respect of land belonging to more than one landlord or in respect of more than one holding and shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder in respect thereof unless such land or holdings have been worked as one holding.

(3) A person shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder under this Act in respect of—

1. (a) Any land the present rent of which within the meaning of this Act exceeds fifty pounds in money, unless such land (exclusive of any common pasture, or grazing, held or to be held therewith) does not exceed fifty acres (but without prejudice to the power of the Land Court, in determining from time to time a fair rent, to fix a rent exceeding fifty pounds); or
2. (b) Any land being garden ground only, appurtenant to a house; or
3. (c) Any land being a market garden within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; or
4. (d) Any land being or forming part of any glebe, or any small holding under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, or any allotment under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, or the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; or
5. (e) Any land that is not a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; or
6. (f) Any land being woodland, or being or forming part of the home farm of any estate, or of any policy or park, or of any pleasure ground or other land used for the amenity or convenience of any residence or farm-steading; or being permanent grass park held for the purposes of a business or calling not primarily agricultural or pastoral, including that of butcher, cattle dealer, and the like; or
7. (g) Any land bonâ fide held and used for purposes of public recreation; or
8. (h) Any land acquired whether compulsorily or by agreement for any undertaking of a public nature, under the authority of any Act of Parliament or any order having the force of an Act of Parliament.

(4) A person shall not be admissible to registration as a new holder under this Act in respect of any land referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d), or, except by agreement, in respect of any land referred to in paragraphs (e), (f), (g), or (h) of the immediately preceding subsection.

(5) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent the registration of a new holder or the enlargement of a holding (whether by agreement or otherwise in either case) in respect of land comprised in a deer forest or otherwise kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes, but subject always to the provisions of section seven and section sixteen of this Act.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection one of this section, the holding of any existing yearly tenant or qualified leaseholder within the meaning of this Act shall not for the purposes of the Landholders Acts be deemed to include any lands or heritages at the commencement of this Act forming part of such holding and occupied by a sub-tenant of such existing yearly tenant or qualified leaseholder, whether paying rent or not.

(7) A person shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder under this Act in respect of a holding referred to in section thirty-three of the Act of 1886, but nothing in that section shall operate to prevent the registration of a new holder by agreement in respect of a holding referred to therein, or the application of the Landholders Acts to such new holder and his statutory successors in respect of the holding. For the word "nor" where last occurring in that section the word "or" is hereby substituted.

(8) The provisions of section two of this Act shall extend to and include joint tenants being existing crofters, existing yearly tenants, or qualified leaseholders; but not more than one person shall be registered as a new holder in respect of any holding, and (without prejudice to the continuance of a joint tenancy through statutory successors) where at any time after the commencement of this Act a holding is held by a single landholder, or a holding which has been held in joint tenancy ceases to be so held, it shall not be competent for more than one person to be a landholder in respect of such holding.

(9) Except so far as may be inconsistent with any express provision of this Act the tenancy of a landholder under the Landholders Acts shall, in the case of every existing crofter, be deemed to be in all respects a continuance of his tenancy as a crofter under the Crofters Acts, and all contracts and other deeds and documents shall be read and construed accordingly.

(10) A person shall not be subject to the provisions of this Act regarding statutory small tenants who in terms of this section would be disqualified from being an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I should like to ask a question on this clause. If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) (a) you will see the words—"Any land the present rent of which within the meaning of this Act exceeds fifty pounds in money, unless such land (exclusive of any common pasture, or grazing, held or to be held therewith) does not exceed fifty acres." I apprehend that the rent limit which the Bill proposes to put is £50, but I would ask the noble Lord to consider this point. I can imagine fifty acres in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh or Glasgow, for example, being held at a rent of £200. Surely the intention of the Bill, as I understand it at present, is really to limit it to a rent of £50. The importance of the point will be seen later when Lord Balfour moves his Amendment with regard to land within burghs.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Amendment is really in the phraseology of the Government itself, and this subsection which I propose to reinsert has been in the Bill at every stage during the whole of its history until the last stage in another place, where it was dropped, as far as I can make out, practically without any public reason being given. I have searched the Parliamentary Reports, and I cannot find the reason why this important subsection was dropped at the last moment. The point is this, that agricultural land in burghs is put to various uses. If it is put to the use of a market garden it is excluded under the Bill as it stands. If it is put to the use of a dairy farm it is not excluded. A great part of land which is in this sort of farming use is just the sort of land which is getting ready for feuing, and for the erection of buildings and houses if the burgh is extended. There is a great deal of care now taken in having the extension of burghs properly planned out before they are proceeded with, and the work done by town planning societies and societies of that class will be seriously interfered with if this subsection is not inserted. As I have said, this is exactly the land which is required, especially for workmen's houses, and there is, to their credit be it said, a distinct movement amongst those owning land round burghs, especially in the West of Scotland, to favour these town planning societies, and to give them tracts of land at moderate prices, certainly at less than their absolute market value. I am sure we are all agreed that as far as possible this class of workmen's houses should be put up as separate cottages, or semi-detached cottages, rather than in tenements, and the more expensive you make the land the more likely you are to get tenements than cottages.

The reason why, if this Amendment is not inserted, the land will be made more expensive is this. You are going by this Bill to give to the tenant of this class of land a right which he does not now possess, and if, when he has got that right, having paid nothing for it, the landlord has to resume possession, he will have to buy back from the tenant the right which has been given to him by this Bill. That will make the land more expensive, and not for the benefit of the landlord but for the benefit of the tenant to whom you are giving this new right. The Convention of Royal Burghs, who are certainly not interested as landlords, have presented a Petition with regard to this clause, in which they say— Your petitioners beg to point out that the Bill will be a serious encroachment on the Town Planning Act, and create impediments to the proper carrying out of the provisions of that Act for the laying out of towns arising under the town planning scheme. The Bill is also within burghs bound to create a multiplication of holdings to be used for purposes inconsistent with the amenities of public health. In the Petition of the Corporation of the Royal Burgh of Dunfermline there is a clause to exactly the same effect. It says— During the present Session of Parliament a large addition to the area of the City of Dunfermline has been made by a private Bill, and it now extends to Rosyth. There is a large tract of agricultural land which is now within the burgh which if this provision is not excluded will come under the provisions of this Bill for compensation purposes, and the operations of those who are working along with and in the interests of the Government at Rosyth will be seriously impeded. I do not think I need elaborate that point further. I have had many letters on the subject.

There is another reason why I am anxious that this Amendment should be inserted. If it is not inserted and the clause relating to statutory tenants remains as it is, it applies to Section 2 of the Crofters Act of 1886, and makes it applicable to the resumption of land by the proprietor. That section, excellent to the crofter, is perfectly inconsistent with the circumstances of burghs. In the larger burghs of Scotland there are no crofters, and there are certainly none in such places as Greenock, and Port Glasgow, and Dunfermline. If Section 2 is the only power on the resumption you will find the power the landlord will have is only for roads the construction of which the proprietor has to make practicable for carriages from the croft or crofts to the high road or the seashore. Those are the words. It makes absolute nonsense of the provisions of this Bill if you are to apply that as the power of resumption in the case of statutory tenants. Statutory tenants are put in the position of getting this right within burghs, There are no crofters, and no necessity for roads, and yet, as I understand it, the only purpose for which the landlord can resume is for making roads for the crofters to the seashore. I am pretty confident I am right about that. It has been put before me in a carefully-written document by a skilled lawyer, but I think upon the broad general ground that I have given it would be much wiser to reinsert this subsection, which as I have said was only deleted at very short notice on the last stage of the Bill in another place.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 24, after ("or") insert: ("(c) Any land within the parliamentary, police, or municipal boundary of any burgh or police burgh; or").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I wish to confirm every word that has fallen from the noble Lord. With regard to the last remark that he made, that this Section 2 of the Act of 1886 as amended by this Bill is insufficient by itself to give the rights which I believe the Bill intends to give to the landlords, I quite agree with him. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 19 of this Bill he will see that it gives a larger power of resumption for feuing, and I think that is probably what he wishes to do. This exemption of land within burghs existed in every Bill before, and existed in this Bill right up to the Third Reading in the other House. The burghs were under the impression that their land was exempted, and they were very much surprised when they found on Third Reading that this had been changed. I presented two Petitions yesterday—Lord Balfour referred to them—from the Convention of Royal Burghs and also from Dunfermline, pointing out how this inclusion would interfere with the burghs. I have also a Petition from the Provost and magistrates of Greenock to the same effect. This proposal might conceivably also have some hardship on these small holders themselves, because they might receive notice at once to quit in order to prevent their continuing and becoming statutory tenants under the Act. I feel sure there is a very good case for many reasons for the exclusion of lands within burghs.

LORD PENTLAND

My Lords, the general case for this Amendment has undoubtedly been stated very forcibly by the noble Lords who have addressed the House, and it is the case, as they have stated, that this alteration in the Bill was made at a somewhat late stage. Obviously the inclusion of burgh land may cause difficulties, especially in populous and growing burghs, in regard to the resumption of land. On the other hand, there are burghs in Scotland remote from these tendencies to development which find themselves with a comparatively large acreage of land within their boundaries, and which desire the benefits which this Bill offers. These considerations had to be balanced one against another, but my inclination is to think that the least difficult course is the course suggested by the noble Lord, and I propose, therefore, not to oppose his insertion of these words.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 17, at end of line insert ("as the case may be").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I put down the Amendment to leave out subsection (10) for the reason that I did not understand it. I need not take up the time of the House, because I have since learnt that it is a subsection which should stand. Therefore I do not move the Amendment.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28:

Transfer of powers and duties. 60 & 61 Vict. c. 53.

28. From and after the date of the commencement of this Act the Crofters Commission established by section seventeen of the Act of 1886, and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners established by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall cease to exist, and all the powers and duties vested in or imposed on the Crofters Commission by any Act of Parliament in force at such date shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be vested in, transferred to, and imposed on the Land Court, and all the powers and duties vested in or imposed on the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall, subject as aforesaid, be vested in, transferred to, and imposed on the Board, and except as otherwise provided by this Act all such powers and duties shall be exercised and performed by the Land Court or the Board, as the case may be, as nearly as may be in like manner and subject to the same conditions, liabilities, and incidents respectively as such powers and duties might before such date have been exercised and performed by such Commission or Commissioners respectively, and in the construction and for the purposes of any Act of Parliament, contract, or other deed, passed, entered into, or executed, or of any action or proceeding raised before such date, the name of the Land Court or the Board, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be substituted for such Commission or Commissioners respectively.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from the beginning of Clause 28 the words "and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners established by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the others standing in my name are really for the purpose of carrying out the decision come to by the Committee yesterday. I think they are right. I cannot, of course, expect the noble Lord to agree that they are sound on the merits, but I think he will agree that they are consequential to what the Committee did yesterday.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 26, leave out from ("1886") to ("shall") in line 28.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD LOVAT

Might I ask, with all deference, whether Lord Balfour's Amendments to Clause 28 are really consequential. I think the real consequential Amendment is one that I have just handed to the Lord Chairman, that the word "Board" in line 35 should be changed to "Department," and so throughout Clauses 28, 29 and 30. There is a difference of opinion on this side of the House as to exactly where the Congested Districts Board should go, and I think a good many Peers consider it advisable that the powers of the Congested Districts Board should be transferred to the Department of the Board of Agriculture to be established in Scotland under Lord Balfour's Amendment inserted yesterday. A certain number of Peers on this side consider that to that Scottish Department of the Board of Agriculture the duties of the Congested Districts Board should be allocated. I do not know that it is necessary to go into the reasons why we think so, because I gave them fully last night. If any Peer wishes to inform himself as to the duties of the Congested Districts Board he will see them set out on page 1 of their Report for last year. Among other duties are the aiding and development of agriculture, the aiding of the cultivation of seed potatoes, migration, crofting, fishing, and so on. I suggest that the position Lord Balfour has taken up in this matter is not a correct one.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The actual Amendment before the House is to leave out from "1886" in line 26, to "shall" in line 28. There was no qualification of that.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If my Amendment is carried the noble Lord is quite right that it would prejudice the Amendment he has put down. I cannot pretend to take up the position of being a defender of the Bill. The noble Lord would probably not accept me as an advocate for it, but even he will probably agree with me that if the policy of having a Scottish Department of the London Board of Agriculture is to be carried out it would be additionally disagreeable to him that the Congested Districts Board should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Secretary for Scotland to that of the Board of Agriculture. I am satisfied from my experience that it could not be satisfactorily so carried on. I am certain that the President of the Board of Agriculture in London could not get touch of all the circumstances with which the Congested Districts Board have to deal. I quite admit, of course, that the money matter must be arranged, and I did not put down any Amendment upon that point with my other Amendments because I thought it was wiser to wait and see what view the House took of the proposal. At a subsequent stage of the Bill it will be necessary to face that question if the policy I ventured to advocate the other day were carried out. Clearly the Congested Districts Board must be given back its money. Whether we can do that in this House without a breach of privilege is a question on which, of course, the authorities must be consulted. There are two ways of doing it, either that this House should do it so as to send down a complete scheme as altered to another place, or that we should not touch the question of money but leave the matter to be discussed and, as I suppose it will be, decided in another place. Personally I propose to put down the Amendment necessary and see what argument is used against it. But so far as what the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, suggested goes, I am bound to say I personally am entirely unable to advocate the idea of transferring the work of the Congested Districts Board to a Board with its headquarters in London.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

With regard to the point of finance I do not think, as far as I am able to judge, that there would be any power to apply any portion of the £200,000 to the Congested Districts Board. The proposal of the Bill is to abolish the Congested Districts Board, and if this Amendment were carried the effect of it, of course, would be to continue the Congested Districts Board, and at present there seems to be no financial means of paying that Board. But, apart from that question, I think I said last night that Lord Balfour's proposal with regard to the Congested Districts Board appeared to me to create a situation which did not seem altogether clear or satisfactory. I have not the same administrative experience as Lord Balfour, but I do not see why the duties of the Congested Districts Board should not be discharged by this Scottish Department which is to be created in Edinburgh. Lord Lovat is much better acquainted with the Highlands than I am, but the duties which are now discharged by the Congested Districts Board would be assigned to the Scottish branch. What are their duties? The duty which the Bill imposes upon them is to perform the various preliminary stages with regard to constituting new holdings. I do not see why the officers of the branch should not be able to constitute an Agricultural Commissioner, or whatever you like to call him, and why he should not report to the Land Court just as much as a Commissioner of the Agricultural Board. I do not see why he should not be able to go to various parts of the country, as is now proposed, and see whether there is a demand for small holdings, and, if it cannot be arranged otherwise, why he should not propose to the Land Court that they should make an order for that purpose. Then there is the work of the Congested Districts Board in the Highland district. I do not see why the Department could not do that work just as well as the present Congested Districts Board car, and I am not altogether certain whether the Congested Districts Board is supposed to have been so very successful in the Western Highlands. There are certainly instances which one could quote with regard to that. Perhaps Lord Lovat will correct me if I am wrong, but the Congested Districts Board are said very frequently to have rather spoiled the breeds of horses and cattle, and so on, and by no means to have improved them by the animals which they have brought in. Is that so?

LORD LOVAT

I should not like absolutely to say so, but I do say that over certain questions with regard to horse breeding, and certainly over questions such as scab amongst sheep, we in Inverness-shire have had a certain amount of dealings with the congested districts there. There are only about 700 tenants, but for the last ten years I think they have been responsible for half the scab in Inverness-shire. Perhaps I am exaggerating that point a little; but certainly to my own knowledge in a good many years they have had more scab finings in the congested area than in the whole of the rest of Inverness-shire put together.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Lord Lovat is a very much better authority on these matters than I am, and therefore I do not think I need trouble your Lordships further. But it seems to me that if you do not accept Lord Balfour's Amendment the result will simply be that the duties which are now discharged by the Congested Districts Board will be handed over to the Scottish Department of the Board of Agriculture.

LORD CLINTON

This is too important a matter to be decided on the question of whether there is more sheep scab in one part of Scotland than in another. But the difficulty I have in supporting the Amendment of my noble friend behind me is this. Although it is quite true that the Scottish Department in Edinburgh might of themselves be quite a proper body to carry out the work of the Congested Districts Board, there is a real difficulty in the fact that the Minister responsible for that Board would be resident in London. The system of agriculture in the Western Highlands is very largely a different one, and that is one of the few matters that I do not think it would be desirable to place in the hands of a Minister for Agriculture resident in London.

LORD PENTLAND

Perhaps it would be convenient for me to say a word on this question. Lord Camperdown and Lord Lovat, as I understand, made an attack upon the Congested Districts Board with regard to the sheep scab in Inverness-shire. As they both know, the question of sheep scab is a matter for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in London, and the Congested Districts Board have nothing whatever to do with the administration in that respect except on their own properties. It is not unnatural, I think, that the noble Lord should hesitate to transfer the duties of the Congested Districts Board to a Minister in London, because if I mistake not he was the author of the Act of 1897 which established that Board. If the then Government had considered it advisable to put them under the President of the Board of Agriculture it was perfectly free for them to take that course. I put aside for the moment the question of privilege. After all, it seems to me that the differences on this point which have been disclosed by the speeches of noble Lords opposite are differences which concern them in the first place, and not His Majesty's Government. They have to face a dilemma. They must either by their action of last night remove the administration of the Congested Districts Board to London, or take the other course. I think I may say, in passing, that the noble Lord's repugnance to transfer the administration of agriculture in seven of the counties of Scotland has, I think, an indirect bearing upon the policy which he supports. It throws a certain amount of light on the policy which he supports for the rest of Scotland. That is one horn of the dilemma. The other horn is this, that you may have throughout the congested area the Secretary for Scotland with the powers of the Congested Districts Board to help agriculture and with even these powers to create small holdings, and you leave in the very same counties his colleague the President of the Board of Agriculture responsible for the creation of holdings on a different system. Could anything be more likely to lead to waste, to over-lapping, and to friction? I cannot think that any responsible Government could possibly lend its authority to such a proposal. But, as I say, while I am very ready to give any help that I can in elucidating the difficulties which noble Lords opposite have to face, I profoundly regret the course on which they have embarked, and I think it is bound to lead them into greater difficulties as the discussion of this Bill goes on.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 31, leave out from ("Court") to ("and") in line 35.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LOVAT

I move that the word "Department" be substituted for the word "Board."

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It makes it absolutely unworkable if that is done. As the noble Lord opposite has said, the Congested Districts Board must be either under the Secretary for Scotland, as it is now, or it must go to the Department in London. The object of the noble Lord will not be attained by merely putting in the word "Department" here. There would have to be a great many other consequential Amendments, and I venture to suggest to him most respectfully, if that is his wish that he should look through the whole Bill and come back on a subsequent occasion with the Amendments.

LOUD LOVAT

There is a misunderstanding. I understood that what had been put just now was my Amendment. If Lord Balfour's Amendment has been carried, I did not gather it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is perfectly plain. We are now on the question whether the Amendment to put "Department" instead of "Board" in this clause is to be carried by the Committee, or whether the whole of my Amendments, which are consistent, leaving the Congested Districts Board as it is now, is to be the policy to be followed.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to make this Amendment the words struck out just now should have stayed in, and the noble Lord should have challenged the question when I put it to your Lordships.

LORD LOVAT

I misunderstood what was being put from the Chair.

Amendments moved—

Page 22, line 37, leave out ("or the Board ")

Page 22, line 41, leave out ("or Commissioners respectively ")

Page 23, line 3, leave out ("or the Board as the case may be")

Page 23, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("or Commissioners respectively").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Transfer of property.

29. All property belonging to, or vested in, or held in trust for the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners shall, from and after the commencement of this Act pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the Board, subject to all debts and liabilities affecting the same, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, shall be held by the Board for the purposes for which it is now held or would have been held if this Act had not passed.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have communicated with the noble Lord opposite about this clause, and it is quite clear if the policy adopted by the Committee yesterday be followed the logical conclusion is that this clause will be omitted altogether. I am in the noble Lord's hands as to whether it is more convenient to him that the Bill should be reprinted for the next stage with this clause, or whether I should now move its deletion. Personally I should have thought it would be better to make the scheme such as I have suggested as complete as possible in the Bill. It would save confusion; but if the noble Lord prefers to postpone it till the Report stage I am in his hands.

LORD PENTLAND

Clause 29, which we are now on, is to dispose of the property vested in the Congested Districts Commissioners. I understand the noble Lord wishes to preserve the Commissioners, and therefore he does not wish their property to be transferred to anybody. The course which is found most convenient should be adopted. It is all the same.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 29.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30:

Transfer of officers.

30. Such of the persons employed by the Crofters Commission as the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine shall, from and after the commencement of this Act, be attached to and be officers of the Land Court, and such of the persons employed by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners as the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine shall, from and after the commencement of this Act, be attached to and be officers of the Board; and (without prejudice to any existing rights) persons so transferred shall thereafter, if in the case of any of such persons the Teasury so determine, be permanent civil servants of the Crown within the meaning of section seventeen of the Superannuation Act, 1859: Provided that any officer of the Congested Districts Board in office at the commencement of this Act who may not be appointed an officer of the Board shall receive such compensation as the Treasury may determine.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to delete the words "and such of the persons employed by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners as the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine shall, from and after the commencement of this Act, be attached to and be officers of the Board."

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 16, leave out from ("Court") to the second ("and") in line 20.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit the proviso at the end of the clause, "Provided that any officer of the Congested Districts Board in office at the commencement of this Act who may not be appointed an officer of the Board shall receive such compensation as the Treasury may determine."

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 25, leave out from ("1859") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Definitions.

31.—(1) In this Act—

• The expression "Act of 1886" means the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886:
• The expression "Act of 1887" means the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1887:
• The expression "Act of 1891" means the Crofters Common Grazings Regulation Act, 1891:
• The expression "Act of 1908" means the Crofters Common Grazings Regulation Act, 1908:
• The expression "Crofters Acts" means the Act of 1880, the Act of 1887, the Act of 1891, and the Act of 1908:
• The expression "statutory successor" means any person who in terms of the Landholders Acts as the case may be has succeeded or may succeed to a holding whether as heir-at-law or legatee of his immediate predecessor being a crofter or landholder in occupation of the holding:
• The expression "termination of the lease" means the expiration of the lease through the running out of the stipulated term of endurance or through the parties, or either of them, exercising their right to take advantage of a break stipulated for in the lease or through any agreement between the parties being made, or other circumstances arising whereby the lease is terminated.

(2) In the Crofters Acts, the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, the expression "holding" shall be substituted for the expression "croft," and the expression "crafting parish" shall be construed as meaning a parish to which the Crofters Acts applied at the commencement of this Act.

(3) In the Act of 1886 (except in the case of references to the passing or the title thereof and except in section thirty-two thereof) the expression "this Act" or "the Act" shall be construed as meaning the Landholders Acts.

(4) In section two of the Act of 1887 the expression "principal Act" where first occurring shall be construed as meaning the Landholders Acts, and the expression "the Crofters Holdings Act, 1886," shall be construed as meaning the Act of 1886 or this Act, as the case may be.

(5) If not inconsistent with the context, references in any Act of Parliament to a crofter shall be construed as references to a landholder within the meaning of this Act. Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act the expression "lessee" in section four of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, shall include a landholder in the same way and to the same effect as if a landholder were a lessee holding under a lease or agreement the stipulated duration of which is twenty-one years or under from the date of entry under the same.

LORD PENTLAND

I move to divide subsection (5), and to commence a new subsection—subsection (6)—with the words "Notwithstanding anything contained," &c.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("(6)").— (Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Provisions as to statutory small tenants.

32. With respect to statutory small tenants the following provisions shall have effect:—

1. (1) A statutory small tenant means and includes a tenant from year to year, or leaseholder, not otherwise disqualified in terms of this Act, in regard to whom section two of this Act provides that he shall not be held an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and the successors of such tenant or leaseholder in the holding, being his heirs, legatees (if bequest is permissible in law), or assignees (if assignation be permitted by the lease):
2. (2) Except so far as expressly applied by this Act, the Landholders Acts shall not apply to statutory small tenants:
3. (3) A holding which is or has been held by a statutory small tenant shall not be merged in or amalgamated with any other holding as defined in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, except with the sanction of the Board:
4. (4) Except in any case where the landlord satisfies the Land Court that there is reasonable ground of objection to a statutory small tenant (hereinafter in this section referred to as the tenant) and the Land Court find accordingly, the tenant for the time being shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled on any determination of the tenancy to a renewal thereof on the terms and conditions hereinafter specified:
5. (5) Except so far as varied by this section, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, shall apply in the case of the tenancy of a statutory small tenant in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease, and for the purposes of those Acts and otherwise the tenancy, as renewed from time to time, shall be deemed to be a lease current for the period of renewal:
6. (6) Subject to the provisions of the last-mentioned Acts and of this section, the landlord and the tenant may agree upon the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy:
7. (7) Failing agreement, the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Land Court to fix an equitable rent or to fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed, and the Land Court may thereafter determine the rent to be paid by the tenant or the period of renewal, or both, as the case may be:
8. (8) In determining the rent the Land Court shall, so far as practicable, act on their own knowledge and experience, taking into consideration all the circumstances 630 of the case, holding, and district, including the rent at which the holding has been let, the proposed conditions of the renewed tenacy, the improvements made by the landlord and tenant respectively, and the then condition and value of such improvements; and shall fix as the rent to be paid by the tenant the rent which, in their opinion, would be an equitable rent for the holding between the landlord and the tenant as a willing lessor and a willing lessee: Provided that they shall allow no rent in respect of any improvements made by or or at the expense of the tenant or any predecessor in title for which he or his predecessor, as the case may be, has not received payment or fair consideration from the landlord or his predecessor:
9. (9) Subject as aforesaid, the terms and conditions of the renewed tenancy shall (except so far as agreed to be varied) be those of the determining tenancy, in the same way and to the same effect, as nearly as may be, as if the tenancy had been continued for the full period of renewal under tacit relocation, and the tenant shall be entitled, if he so desires, to a renewal on those terms and conditions:
10. (10) The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) 1908 and 1910, as applied by this section, shall be varied as follows (that is to say):—
• In the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Land Court shall be substituted for the Board, and where in terms of that schedule a person is nominated as arbiter by the Land Court his remuneration shall be paid by the Land Court:
11. (11) In the event of the landlord at any time failing to provide or maintain the buildings and permanent improvements suitable to the holding, in so far as the tenant is not required at common law or by express agreement in writing to do so, it shall be lawful for the tenant to apply to the Land Court to so find and declare, and if the Land Court after hearing parties (if thy desire to be heard) shall so find and declare, the tenant shall as from the date specified in the finding become a landholder, and the definition of landholder in this Act shall include such tenant and his successors in the holding, being his heirs or legatees:
12. (12) It shall be lawful for the Board to provide model forms of agreements for optional use by landlords and tenants under this section, provided that nothing herein contained shall make the use of any such form compulsory:
13. (13) In the event of any dispute arising as to whether a person is a statutory small tenant within the meaning of this Act, it shall be competent for the Land Court to determine such question summarily:
14. (14) Section two (as amended by this Act), subsection four of section six, and section twenty of the Act of 1886, section two of the Act of 1887 down to the word "summarily" and subsection nineteen of section seven, subsection four of section 631 eight, section twelve, section twenty-five, and subsection one of section twenty-six of this Act shall, with the substitution of "statutory small tenant" for "landholder," and "equitable rent" for "fair rent," and with any other necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of the Landholders Acts.

LORD CLINTON moved an Amendment in subsection (1), after the word "legatees" ["and the successors of such tenant or leaseholder in the holding, being his heirs, legatees"], to insert "as defined in Section 16 of the Act of 1886." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment to draw attention to the fact that the word "legatee" in this subsection has been given a wider sense than it has been given in the remainder of the measure. Under the Crofters Act and under the first part of this Landholders Bill, the word "legatee" means the wife or any person who, failing nearer heirs, succeeds in case of intestacy. There is no qualification of the word "legatee" in this subsection, and consequently there will be a power of bequest without any limit at all. When the Bill was first introduced in another place, and, I think, even after it got into Committee, the qualification of the Crofters Act was done away with, and the same wide signification was given to "legatee" as is given in this subsection. For reasons which seemed good in another place they reversed that; they limited the significance of "legatee"; and I am suggesting to the noble Lord that by omission they did not continue that limitation to this subsection. If that is the case, I need not trouble your Lordships with any further argument in the matter; but, if not, I must say a word or two more upon it.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 5, after ("legatees") insert ("as defined in section sixteen of the Act of 1886").—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD PENTLAND

If it is any convenience to the noble Lord I will state the position of the Government, and it will perhaps save time. The truth is that in dealing with landholders we applied the terms of the Crofters Act. In dealing with statutory small tenants, who are only the tenants of landlords and for whom the landlords make their improvements, it was part of the proposal that these tenants should be left in all particulars under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Therefore the power of bequest was left as under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Now the noble Lord wishes to import the Crofters Act power of bequest as superior to the Agricultural Holdings Act power of bequest. In the Crofters Act it is a more limited power of bequest. I am not able to say, and I do not suppose the noble Lord is, whether he speaks with authority—that is to say, as representing those who have come to this agreement—but I have no objection to accepting these words on the condition that I am not to be bound by them at a later stage if it should turn out to be the fact that those who came to this agreement in this matter prefer the words as they are now in the Bill.

LORD CLINTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. I need only point out that I am not, as he says, doing away with anything in the Agricultural Holdings Act by putting in these words. While the Agricultural Holdings Act, it is true, gives to a tenant an unlimited right of bequest as far as his existing lease is concerned, this Bill goes a great deal further; it nominates these people as successors of the tenants, and by the succession they become tenants, and under a further subsection—I think subsection (4)—they are entitled on the determination of the lease to a renewal. So that whereas the Small Holdings Act gives to the tenant an unlimited right of bequest for the remaining years of a terminable period, this subsection gives to the tenant an unlimited right of bequest of his holding for periods which are continuously renewable. The extension is a very great one. But as the noble Lord is willing to accept my words I will not bother further about the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

I move to omit from the same subsection the words "if bequest is permissible in law." I do not really know what these words mean. I presume they refer to the Holdings Act, but they seem to me unnecessary.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 6, leave out ("if request is permissible in law").—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD PENTLAND

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 15, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved to delete from subsection (7) the words "apply to the Land Court to fix an equitable rent or to fix the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed, and the Land Court may thereafter determine the rent to be paid by the tenant or the period of renewal, or both, as the case may be," and to insert in their place the words "have an equitable Tent or the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by this section."

The noble Lord said: This opens up the question of the Land Court on a point which I endeavoured expressly to reserve when we were discussing the question of an appeal. We have in the former part of this Bill accepted the Land Court as a part of the proposal of the crofting system, but we are now dealing with tenants who are altogether outside the crofter system. Their position is entirely different, because they are ordinary tenants on an estate who have no right of ownership. Now we say no ground can be shown for extending the crofter system of valuation to a non-crofter body of tenants. We have obtained in the former case a right of appeal in certain circumstances, but that right of appeal cannot apply here, because this part of the section will only apply to revaluation, to resettling small farms which will be in all probability infinitesimal in amount, but which, if spread over an aggregate may be of very considerable importance to a man owning a large number of holdings. But it is almost impossible to imagine that in any single case you will get a demand for a reduction of rent even amounting to £400, and I say the former Amendment as to giving an appeal cannot apply at all to this part of the section.

When we are dealing with small matters of land valuation of this kind it is as important as in great matters to have it carried out by somebody who is thoroughly acquainted with the land with which he deals. We want, in the first place, to have a certainty that this valuation shall not be carried out by a central body sitting in Edinburgh, who, however competent and free from politics they may be, will not know the small details of land in many parts of Scotland. Consequently we propose that the system in the Schedule to the Small Holdings Act of 1908 should be adopted, and that, instead of this valuation taking place by the Land Court, it should be by valuers mutually appointed, and, failing agreement, by the Board. In that way we get a form of valuation to which we are accustomed and which has been very successful in Scotland, and the decisions of which are accepted without any dispute. In almost every case that I know of—and I have been connected with hundreds of cases of valuation under the Agricultural Holdings Act—the valuer is agreed on by the parties, and we have never had to go further to get one appointed.

Now, we get two great points if we accept this valuation. The parties themselves will be satisfied with the valuers, having helped to appoint them and we get for certain a local man acquainted with the nature of the soil, one who knows the district and is competent to decide this very critical question as to whether a croft is worth £10 or 10 guineas. There may be cases in which the question of rent resolves itself into the case of a pound or two; they will be all, I think, very small cases. I regard this as of really great importance. I am not now grumbling at the question of revaluation at all. I have no objection to revaluation on principle, but I object to it being compulsory, because I do think that that will lead to considerable trouble in estate management, and probably to a good deal of friction; but I am quite certain none of us have any desire to overtax our tenants, and it is desirable that there should be a revaluation of estates to avoid their being over-rented. I could accept that at once, provided we could get a tribunal to value which we could consider to be a fair and reasonable one. The noble Lord knows exactly our case under the Land Court, and I will not trouble to repeat it. But whether the Land Court could be a fair system or not we are certain that this can be and is a fair system. It is one which has been well tried, and which we have been quite ready to adopt.

It has been my misfortune to have to argue this point on almost every occasion in this House when questions of agricultural holdings have come up either in England or Scotland, and I am always met with the objection that arbitration may be very satisfactory in form but that it is very expensive and very slow. I am quite certain that those who raise these objections have in their view a fully fledged system of valuation, where you have the whole panoply of a Court of Law, where you have counsel engaged, where you have expert witnesses and everything else. We want none of these things. We do not like Courts of Law—we are afraid of gentlemen in wigs—but we do want adhered to the system to which we are accustomed of one or two men going on the land themselves and settling on the spot immediately and summarily what the rent of the land should be.

There is one other point on which I want to add a word. Under the Small Holdings Act the valuer is appointed mutually, and, failing agreement, by the Board. Now in so far as that valuation under the Small Holdings Act is applicable to this section—and it is applicable for the purpose of settling matters of compensation between outgoing and incoming tenants—it has been amended, and the person or body which will appoint the arbiter, failing agreement, is now no longer to be the Board but it is to be the Land Court. In many respects, of course, I should have preferred that it should have been the Board, but as it is apparently the wish of the Government that the Land Court should take its place, then I am quite willing, even in regard to this arrangement, that the final appointment of the arbiter, failing agreement, should be the Land Court.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 37, leave out from ("may") to the end of subsection (7) and insert ("have an equitable rent or the period for which the tenancy is to be renewed determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by this section").—(Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I wish to say only a single word in support of what has fallen from my noble friend. So far as new holdings are concerned, we have reluctantly, I admit, conferred upon the Court the right of fixing the rent, and so on. The noble Lord's Amendment refers solely to existing tenants, and he proposes that in their case the simple form of readjusting the rent which has hitherto been followed should be continued. As to that being the cheapest and easiest way, I do not think there will be two opinions, on this side of the House at any rate. But further than that, with regard to the present tenants you accepted the Act of 1908 for everything almost except this question of rent, and you accepted it for compensation. You find the Act referred to several times in the course of the section, and really this question of rent is the only question which remains. The system of agreeing on an arbiter has been, I believe, in general use in Scotland and has proved a success. Why with regard to these present tenants should not you continue it? The result otherwise, if they do not agree, will be that one arbiter will be appointed by the Court. The noble Lord can hardly object to this proposal; at least it seems to me to fall in with the general scheme.

LORD PENTLAND

May I point out that in subsection (7) of this clause the words at the beginning are "Failing agreement." Therefore it is quite open to the landlord and the tenant to come to agreement in the first place in the matter of rent. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that this system which he proposes as a substitution for the system in the Bill will necessarily be a cheaper system. So far as experience goes of the fixing of rents by the Crofter Commission, the cost to the tenant, or to the landlord, is not greater but less than the cost of employing even the system of a single arbiter. But, apart from these points, there are two reasons why I am sorry to say I cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place, the noble Lord founded his argument partly on the ground of the Court being incompetent—[LORD CLINTON: No, no.] Forgive me—that it would not have the local knowledge necessary; that it would be a Court sitting in Edinburgh, and so forth. But, on the contrary, not only will this Court of itself, I hope, have an adequate knowledge to enable it to discharge its duty, but it will have full power to appoint for itself assistant valuers, assessors, and the like, to give to it the support of any particular local knowledge required for the decision of any particular set of cases. Then if security of tenure is to be given, surely it must be admitted that the security which tenure requires in cases of dispute is an impartial and independent tribunal to fix a fair rent. That tribunal we have secured by the Bill. So much for the merits. I do not enter into any legal argument upon the merits, but there is a second reason why I am debarred from accepting this Amendment and those consequential upon it. It is this, that this clause has been the subject of what has been described this afternoon by the noble Lord opposite as something in the nature of an agreement. To that agreement a representative of the Government was a party. I do not know how far noble Lords opposite are bound by the terms of that agreement. I say I do not know, and I make no complaint. But I say for myself that I am bound, and for that reason as well as on the merits I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have heard the reply of the noble Lord with the greatest possible disappointment. I am bound to say that if this Amendment or anything like it could have been accepted it would have gone further than any other Amendment suggested to remove difficulties about this whole policy of including statutory tenants. What was the main argument of the Lord Chancellor against the Appeal Court? It was the same argument that was put before the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate against another proposal for an appeal. The Lord Advocate's words were these— Ever since 1845 questions involving large sums of compensation for land taken have been confided with quite satisfactory results to the judgment of a single arbiter, and in the long run in 99 cases out of 100 the judgment of the umpire as between the two arbiters has sufficed to decide the question without there being any power of appeal or right of review. That is our case. We are not allowed by the Bill to appoint the man into whose power the whole of our property is delivered. If we had the power of appointing or agreeing upon the arbiter, or, if we do not agree upon the arbiter, of having the arbiter appointed by an independent person, a great deal of our objection to this particular procedure would at once fall to the ground.

The noble Lord talks about the adequate knowledge of the tribunal which he is to set up. I believe he will do his best to make it an impartial tribunal, but it is the adequate knowledge that they will think they possess to decide everything that we are afraid of. The adequate knowledge of one part of the country is not adequate for another part. When you go to arbitration you both take care to select somebody who knows the circumstances of the particular district, even almost of the particular parish part of which is the subject of the arbitration. It is because we value that power that we are anxious to go as far as possible—at least I am—to meet this proposal to set up a class of statutory small tenants. As it stands in the Bill I say, without fear of contradiction, that it is the most violent and uncalled-for invasion of the just rights of private property that Parliament has ever been called upon to sanction. If we had this power of arbitration instead of the Land Court, over whom we have no control, probably a great deal of my difficulty would be removed, because it would not then matter about the size of the holding or the district of it. I am quite willing to agree that the landlord and tenant may not always be able to solve the question of what is a fair rent, and I will go so far in agreement with the noble Lord as to say that the small holder is at a special disadvantage, and therefore I would be willing, and I think all landlords who value their character as good landlords would be willing, to have a really independent and impartial tribunal to help them. I have heard with profound regret the refusal to accept this proposal.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

The next Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 26, line 4, leave out ("Land Court") and insert ("arbiter")

Page 26, line 5, leave out ("their") and insert ("his")

Page 26, line 13, leave out ("their") and insert ("his").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 16, leave out ("they") and insert ("he").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved to amend the provision in subsection (10), which ran— In the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Land Court shall be substituted for the Board, and where in terms of that Schedule a person is nominated as arbiter by the Land Court his remuneration shall be paid by the Land Court: by omitting "by the Land Court" ["a person is nominated as arbiter by the Land Court"], and inserting "with the approval of the Land Court, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld." The noble Lord said: By this subsection, failing agreement, the arbiter is to be paid by the Land Court. In effect you say to a landlord and tenant. "If you agree upon the valuer, pay him yourself; if you cannot agree, we will pay him." I am afraid that will be a great inducement in some cases for a tenant to say to the landlord. "No, I cannot agree with you as to the arbiter." I suggest to the noble Lord that that is not a result which should be desired. I do not suppose that he desires it, but I think that he would obtain it under this clause. I am not quite certain why the Land Court should be asked to give its approval to an arbiter who is appointed solely by the two parties, but I wish to follow the line of least resistance, and if the Government are willing to accept the Amendment in those terms I shall be glad.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 37, leave out ("by the Land Court") and insert ("with the approval of the Land Court, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld").—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD PENTLAND

The duty laid on the Board of Agriculture is by this provision laid on the Land Court. That duty ran concurrently with the selection of the arbiter by the Board, and we propose that it shall run concurrently with the selection of the arbiter by the Land Court. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he wishes that the landlord and tenant should have the power of selecting the arbiter, but that the Land Court should pay him. I quite know his reasons, and I do not say they may not have some force; but I am sorry we cannot accept his proposal.

LORD CLINTON

We have already got the power of appointment, and if you are going to remunerate at all you ought to remunerate in all cases. Otherwise the effect of your words will be to prevent the landlord and tenant agreeing, which is the particular point we wish to get.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question is—

LORD CLINTON

I do not want to press anything which I do not consider absolutely essential, and I do not think this is. But I should like the noble Lord to accept it.

LORD PENTLAND

I am sorry I cannot.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CLINTON

moved to omit the words "at any time," at the beginning of subsection (11), and to insert "on the renewal of the tenancy." The noble Lord said: I want to know whether in this subsection it is the intention of the Government to go beyond the Common Law obligation of an owner with regard to his buildings and—

LORD PENTLAND

In the interests of saving the time of the Committee, I wish to say I consider myself bound by the agreement to which allusion has been made. I have considered the three Amendments of the noble Lord and the point that they should run together, and, subject to the noble Lord freeing me from any reproach if action is taken in another place the reverse of that now proposed to-day, I do not offer any opposition to this Amendment.

LORD CLINTON

The noble Lord is entirely without reproach. Our only object is to know whether you wish to go beyond the Common Law obligation. These words are put in merely to bring us back to what we always have considered to be our duties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 39, leave out ("at any time") and insert ("on the renewal of the tenancy")—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

I move the other two Amendments standing in my name.

Amendments moved—

Page 26, line 40, after ("provide") insert ("such buildings as will enable the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the terms of the lease or agreement") and after ("or") insert ("at any time to")

Page 26, line 41, leave out ("suitable to") and insert ("required for the cultivation and reasonable equipment of").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I have an Amendment to subsection (11) of Clause 32. This subsection imposes a special injustice on landlords which is not, I think, intended by the framers of this Bill. As I understand, the object is to create statutory small holdings with equitable rents and not small holdings at a fixed rent which is not equitable. This subsec- tion seems to me to transform the statutory small tenant into the other class without sufficient reason. Perhaps your Lordship will let me give an instance as shortly as I can of what I mean. Supposing a statutory small tenant wishes the landlord to make a certain improvement, say to build a pigsty at a cost of £50, and the landlord does not think it necessary. In that case the small tenant appeals to the Land Court, and if the Land Court thinks the pigsty necessary it follows that the Land Court does not direct the landlord to carry out the improvement, but it says that the statutory small tenant becomes at once a landholder with all the advantages that a landholder has. The subsection runs— In the event of the landlord at any time failing to provide or maintain the buildings and permanent improvements suitable to the holding, in so far as the tenant is not required at common law or by express agreement in writing to do so it shall be lawful for the tenant to apply to the Land Court to so find and declare, and if the Land Court after hearing parties (if they desire to be heard) shall so find and declare, the tenant shall as from the date specified in the finding become a landholder, and the definition of landholder in this Act shall include such tenant and his successors in the holding, being his heirs or legatees. The words which I propose to insert give the landlord an opportunity of carrying out what the Land Court deem to be just and suitable for the holding, and would prevent his statutory small tenant being turned into a small landholder at once because he had refused to carry out some small improvement which he deemed unnecessary but which the tenant thought desirable. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 6, after ("declare") insert ("the Land Court shall give notice to the landlord directing him to provide or maintain such buildings or permanent improvements, and in the event of the landlord failing to comply with such notice within six months of the date thereof").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

LORD PENTLAND

So far as I can judge all parties are better under the Bill as it stands than they would be under the proposal of the noble Lord. This subsection applies to the case of a tenant and landlord not being able to come to an agreement as to the erection of certain buildings or making certain improvements. If they cannot agree they go to the Land Court, which is obliged to hear the parties. Now what are the alternatives? The landlord may consent, in which case they never would have to go to the Land Court. But, on the other hand, he may be unable to carry out the improvements and may wish to say so. Or, again, he may wish to have the opinion of the Land Court upon the dispute which has arisen; or he may possibly refuse. In any case the main interest of all concerned is not to interrupt the cultivation of the holding—that, is, the maintenance of the farm. I do suggest that with the safeguard in the Bill that the Land Court are obliged to hear parties, it is undesirable that in every ease there should be six months interval elapse before anything is done. Both parties may wish to go ahead, and in that case they are debarred by the noble Lord's suggestion. Assuming a fair Land Court, which is the hypothesis upon which I am obliged to argue this question, a Land Court which has no interest that is either for the landlord or for the tenant, I honestly believe that the landlord is better off under the Bill, with the freedom and the discretion of the Land Court as it is at the service of the tenant, than otherwise. He is better off under the Bill. It does not matter one jot to the Land Court whether his tenant becomes a landholder or remains a statutory small tenant. They have no jot or tittle of interest in his falling into one category or into the other. They have simply to decide fairly between the parties and endeavour to give their help judicially.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I rather think the noble Lord has not taken the point of the objection. Lord Oranmore and Browne's objection is this, that if a man is asked to put up, say, a shed, and declines, and the matter is taken to the Land Court and they say, "Yes, the shed is to be put up," then on the mere fact that they so declare the tenant from that date becomes a landholder. What Lord Oranmore objects to is that after the Court has decided that the shed is to be put up no time is given to the landlord in which to put it up, but the tenant becomes ipso facto, owing to the decision, there and then a landholder.

LORD PENTLAND

I quite see the point, but I do not think it meets what I have ventured to observe to the Committee. The landlord may not wish to have this interval, and the tenant may not.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Why not?

LORD PENTLAND

Why not leave it to the discretion of the Land Court to make a fair arrangement as between the parties? The landlord may be glad that the tenant should at once become a landholder. You put it in the discretion of the Land Court to allow such a proceeding. I think, assuming a fair Land Court, that it is better in the interests of both parties, who will both be heard before the Land Court, to leave it to the discretion of the Land Court.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

The landlord would be bound if the Court decided that the alteration was to be made. If the Court stipulates six months it is not very long.

LORD PENTLAND

That leads me to another point. Six months might be a reasonable time in which to carry out certain improvements, but, on the other hand, it might be far too short for the carrying out of other improvements.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I am quite willing to make it such time as the Court shall deem proper.

LORD PENTLAND

That is already within their discretion.

LORD CLINTON

The Amendment is, I think, unnecessary. Now that the clause has been amended at the beginning we are only asking the landlord to carry out an obligation he has entered into. He must carry that out. It was different before, when the tenant might have come down upon him at any moment and asked him for new buildings. Now he has only got to carry out the obligations of the lease, and I do not think you require extra time to be given to the landlord to do so.

LORD SALTOUN

I suggest that my noble friend should withdraw the Amendment.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

In deference to my noble friends I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 11, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PENTLAND

I can explain my next Amendment in a word. There is a provision in the Bill for a croftholders' book. This is to provide a book to register the names of the statutory small tenants.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 21, leave out ("and") and after ("twenty ") insert ("and section twenty-seven").—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 32. The noble Lord said: After what has passed during the discussion of this clause I do not propose to move this Amendment. Obviously if the Amendment proposed by Lord Clinton should get round all the difficulties which are in its way, I say frankly that that Amendment would go very far to remove my objections to the whole question of statutory small tenants. I therefore put in a very earnest plea that, agreement or no agreement, the thing may be fairly considered. I am in perfect agreement with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he is bound to those in another place. If by any negotiation a solution could be found of the question as to setting up statutory small tenants in place of those who are now tenants for a fixed term of years, I can only say that, although it would not go altogether to remove my difficulties, it would go very far indeed to remove any difficulty I have with regard to that question.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

Register of small holdings.

33.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to compile and from time to time to revise a register of small holdings (whether held by landholders or statutory small tenants or not) throughout Scotland, in such form and containing such particulars as may be approved by the Secretary for Scotland.

(2) For the purposes of this section the expression "small holding" means any holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, which either does not exceed fifty acres, or if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value as entered in the valuation roll not exceeding fifty pounds.

(3) Where a landlord and a tenant agree or the Land Court decide that the tenant is a land holder or a statutory small tenant, as the case may be, within the meaning of this Act, it shall be the duty of such landlord and tenant and of the Land Court to communicate such agreement or decision to the Board for the purposes of the small holdings register: Provided that a person shall not be held a landholder or a statutory small tenant by reason only that he is entered as such on the small holdings register.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 27, line 32, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 27, line 30, leave out ("Secretary for Scotland") and insert ("President")

Page 28, line 6, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 28, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("or a statutory small tenant").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The object of my proposed new clause after Clause 35 is simply to make it clear that in future landlords shall have the power of creating voluntary holdings, which they would not have under the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord told us the other night—he was not very certain at first—that this really was the effect of the Bill. I believe that from a legal point of view that is correct, but still we must remember that the Land Court is not to be composed of lawyers. There is to be, one lawyer on it, but that is all; and I think for the information of the landlords and tenants this matter should be made clear. There is really no harm in stating the fact that this right of creating voluntary holdings should hereafter remain. A slight alteration has been suggested to me in the terms of my clause, and with your Lordships' permission I will move it as altered.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 35 insert the following new clause— . Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or in any way affect the right of any owner of land at any time after the commencement of this Act, to constitute and equip a small holding, as defined in subsection (2) of section thirty-three of this Act, and to let such holding to any person at such rent, for such period, and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed on between them, and none of the provisions of this Act shall, except by the joint consent of such owner and such person, apply to such holding).—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.

Clause 38:

Repeal.

38. The Acts specified in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that schedule, and so much of any Act as is inconsistent with this Act is also hereby repealed:

Provided that such repeal so far as relating to lighthouses shall not operate so as to preclude the Board from maintaining or from defraying the expense of maintaining any lighthouse at the passing of this Act mantained by or at the expense of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners, unless and until the expense of such maintenance it by arrangement with the Board (which the Board are hereby empowered to enter into on such terms as may be agreed) undertaken by some other authority.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had an Amendment on the Paper to strike out the words "and so much of any Act as is inconsistent with this Act is also hereby repealed." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings us to the extraordinary provision that "so much of any Act as is inconsistent with this Act is also hereby repealed." I understand that there is one precedent for it, in a small amending Act to the Local Government Board Act of 1908, which proceeded also, I suppose, from the Scottish Office draftsman. I feel a difficulty in regard to this. There is no legal talent available at the moment to guide us as to what this really means. You might just as well say that so much of any Act that the Land Court considers inconsistent shall be repealed. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to adhere to these words, but, if so, I am quite willing to postpone the discussion of them to a subsequent occasion. It seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary provisions and one of the most. far-reaching which could be put into a Bill.

LORD PENTLAND

I am no authority on drafting, but I am advised that it is quite a harmless and usual provision which is contained, if my memory serves me right, in more than one Statute. But if the noble Lord wishes it omitted let him move it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It would probably be inconvenient to move it now. I therefore do not move the first Amendment. The other Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 28, line 30, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Department")

Page 28, line 35, leave out("Board") and insert ("Department".)—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38 (the final clause of the Bill), as amended, agreed to.

The proceedings on the Committee stage having concluded,

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN asked: On what day does the noble Lord propose to take the Report stage?

LORD PENTLAND

Arrangements have been made to take it after the Coal Mines Bill on Wednesday of next week. The time that the Coal Mines Bill will take is at present uncertain.

The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 232.)