, in rising to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to other parts of Scotland,"

said, he was sure every Member interested in this Bill would agree with him in regretting that the right hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) would no longer have the official conduct of the measure. Every Member in that House knew that the right hon. Gentleman took a sincere and a great interest in the crofters; and he was sure there was no Member of the Government who could have striven more conscientiously to make the Bill a thorough-going and useful measure. Though they would no longer have the advantage of his assistance in the Government, they would hope to have his powerful assistance as an independent Member, and he trusted that Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman could not have supported as Secretary for Scotland, he might be able to support as a private Member. The Bill was limited to five counties named in the Bill, and several Members had given Notice of Amendments to extend that provision. He understood that unless the Committee had an Instruction to extend the provision of the Bill it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move any such Amendment in Committee. The only object of this Instruction was that the Committee should have power to entertain these Amendments and to judge them on their merits. He should like to have a definite ruling from the Chair on this subject; and he therefore asked the Speaker whether it would be competent for the Committee to entertain any Amendment which would bring other counties within the scope of the measure unless some such Instruction as this was carried?

On looking at the Bill, I am clearly of opinion that an Instruction of the nature proposed to be moved for by the hon. Member would be distinctly necessary to empower the Committee to do what otherwise they would not be competent to do.

said, that being the case, he hoped that the Government, on the understanding that this Instruction was moved only for the purpose of admitting certain Amendments for discussion, would be able to accede to his Motion. He did not ask the Government to commit themselves to any particular Amendment. He only asked them to give power to the Committee to take the Amendments into consideration. The Bill at present did not proceed on a logical principle. The House was not accustomed to entertain measures for altering the law with respect to particular counties. It had been of late attempted to pass Sunday Closing measures for Durham and Cornwall; but they had never been received with favour by the House. The principle which the House had always gone upon was not to pass measures for particular geographical districts, but to pass measures relating to special conditions of society wherever these conditions might exist; and he asked the House to consider whether it would not be a more logical application of this principle of legislation to say that this Bill should apply to all those districts in Scotland where crofting conditions existed. If this were done, it would render the Bill a much more useful, more satisfactory, and more complete measure. Aberdeen and Perthshire formed as important a part of the Highlands as Inverness, and why should they be excluded from the benefits of the Bill? Why was an unfortunate farmer in one district to be excluded from advantages which a farmer in another was allowed to enjoy? If it was said that the Commissioners only visited certain counties, and only reported on certain counties, then he thought that would be taking advantage of a technicality which would be unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. The Commissioners had power to go into any district they chose, the scope of their Reference being the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. He thought the more the Government would consider this point the more they would see the justice and the expediency of allowing the Committee to be unhampered when deciding on the details of the Bill. The tenure this Bill proposed to establish was beneficial; but some persons doubted whether crofters could really live on their holdings without the aid of some other occupation, like fishing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcudbrightshire had an Amendment which would deal with the fishery question, and it would be good to give to all crofters, who could earn some money by fishing, the privileges of this Bill. Now, in some of the counties to which he had alluded, particularly in Bute, there was every opportunity for allowing a crofter to hold a little land, and also to do a little fishing; and if the whole question was to have a fair trial the House ought, as far as possible, to extend the principle to districts in which it was most probable that the crofting system would succeed. The crofters that would be benefited under this Bill would form a very small class indeed; and it was a very dangerous and invidious thing to create, as this Bill did, a small peasant aristocracy, having privileges that were withheld from all others of their class throughout Scotland—an aristocracy which, by reason of the smallness of their numbers and of the restrictions with which this Bill was hampered, would inevitably die out unless the Bill were extended. He humbly suggested that the only true statesmanlike principle on which the Bill could be carried out would be to say that anyone who could say "I fulfil the conditions of this Bill," might have a right to avail himself of its provisions. He hoped the Instruction would be accepted by the Government; and in Committee hon. Members who had already Notices of Amendments would be able to give ample reasons for asking that the provisions of the Bill should be extended.

said, he gathered from the hon. Gentleman's observations that his object was to get the Government to allow this Instruction to pass, practically without argument, for the purpose of allowing certain Amendments to be moved in Committee, which Mr. Speaker had ruled could not be moved without such an Instruction. He thought that would be a very inconvenient and very unsatisfactory course, because it would be practically pledging this House in Committee to consider a perfectly new matter; one which had never been suggested in debate before in this House, and which had never been discussed in any way throughout the country as a practical question. He thought he was justified in stating broadly and frankly that this idea of dealing with this question as a general question affecting all Scotland was one which had never been discussed by the community, and that there had never been any facts laid before this House, by Report or otherwise, to guide them in the matter. It was an entirely new idea, neither coming from the people in the other districts of Scotland themselves nor suggested by the Report of the Royal Commission. The sole ground for the Commissioners' inquiries, the sole matter with which the Commission after its inquiries dealt, was narrowed down to the consideration of the condition of certain places and districts in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where it was alleged that in consequence of the conditions of the population in the crofter townships there was distress existing. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not suggested—and he would have been surprised if he or anyone who knew anything about Scotland had suggested it—that throughout the districts of Scotland, not embraced in this Bill, there was distress among any population similar to that in the West Highlands and Islands which should call in any way for the intervention of Parliament; and if there was no ground for considering the condition of the people in the West Highlands and Islands as different from that of the people of a similar class in life in other parts of Scotland, then there was no call for proceeding to legislation on the subject at all. He ventured to submit that the only ground for this legislation was that there had been something anomalous in the history of the West Highlands and Islands which led to the distress that now called for Parliamentary interference; and it would need a strong case in a Bill brought in expressly to meet and to carry out a Report of the Royal Commission to justify Parliament in not limiting itself to the somewhat limited, confined, and peculiar areas to which the inquiries of the Commission had been limited, and to extend it practically to the whole of Scotland. He thought the House would demand to know whether, when such proposal was made, there was any ground in the Report or the evidence of the Royal Commission to show that there were other parts of Scotland which were practically in the same position as the West Highlands and Islands? The proposal was a very extraordinary one to come from people who had been parties to the issuing of a Royal Commission, and to the confining of that Commission, to the districts with which it dealt. He presumed they had not learned anything since the Commission was issued which would lead them to the conclusion that they had then been ill-informed as to the general state of Scotland, and that they should have asked for an inquiry with reference to the whole of Scotland. But if they did now think that this matter could not be dealt with finally without dealing with it on the footing that the whole of Scotland should be included, then the proper course would be to move for another inquiry. Instead of that, however, they were asked, on the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for Stafford and some other Members, to proceed on the footing that although there had been no inquiry made or suggested into the state of matters in the rest of Scotland they should proceed now to extend the scope of the operation of the Bill, solely and only because the hon. Member and certain other Gentlemen said that they believed there was other places in which the general historical observations, it might be, or the general features of the country and population resembled to some extent those in the West Highlands and Islands. That would be a very extraordinary instruction to give to the Committee. They were at present dealing with a Bill based on the idea of carrying out the Report of the Royal Commissions. But he was not, as a matter of fact, surprised that some were anxious to go outside the scope of the Bill; because, in his own judgment, the Government had taken an extraordinary course in selecting one isolated item in the Report of the Royal Commission, and proposing to carry it out in one way, and now by an Amendment they had on the Paper proposing to carry it out in an entirely different way. The recommendations and opinions of the Commissioners as to what was required to meet the distress in the Highlands were absolutely ignored by the Government; and not only so, but the main recommendations upon which the Commission declared any legislation that followed would have any real and permanent beneficial effect upon the population of the Highlands had also been ignored down to the present time. It was suggested in the Motion that the Bill should apply in any part of Scotland where it could be ascertained that similar circumstances prevailed to those in the Highlands and Islands. How were these facts to be ascertained? There was only one way, and that was to appoint somebody, after the Bill was passed, to ascertain to what areas of the country it should apply. That would be a strange proceeding. They had always been led to expect in all land legislation that they were reaching a definite point and dealing with exceptional cases; yet whenever one particular case was disposed of—in this instance even before the particular case was disposed of—they discovered that, so far from being exceptional, it was after all general. In this case they had a Motion proposing that all idea of dealing with an exceptional case was out of the question, and that the legislation begun as dealing with an exceptional condition of things was to be extended until it absorbed the whole circuit of the three Kingdoms. In a former debate the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that the Bill ought to be extended to the East of Scotland. He wanted to know from Her Majesty's Government how they were going to proceed with this case. Did they mean to stick by the Bill for dealing with the West Highlands and Islands, or not? He was sure a great many Members would not have allowed the second reading to pass without a division if it had been thought a movement was to be made in Committee to turn it into a Bill having general application. The hon. Member for Stafford said he thought there would be great danger in establishing a small privileged aristocracy in the Highlands and Islands; but was there such a danger in the case of Islands? If that was to be the effect of the Bill, there might be great danger in it. Legislation of this kind was already complete in Ireland. Did the hon. Member consider that great injury had been done in Ireland by establishing there a privileged aristocracy who could turn out their landlords at any time, but who could never be turned out themselves?

What I suggested was that it was dangerous to establish a limited peasant aristocracy in certain limited areas in Scotland. My opinion is that all the persons of that class who fulfilled certain statutory conditions should have the benefit of the legislation just as they had in Ireland.

, resuming, said, that he so understood the hon. Gentleman, and that raised the difficulty in his mind. It was now said that the inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands were not in an exceptional position, and it was proposed by the Bill to place them in one. He differed from that view, and believed that those inhabitants were, to some extent, in an exceptional position. If he had not believed that, he would not have allowed the second reading of the Bill without a division. It was only because the Report of the Royal Commission brought out clearly the distinction to be drawn between these people and the people of other parts of Scotland that legislation was thought desirable and was recommended. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill said that it was one dealing with an exceptional case, and that he did certain things because there was historic proof of the necessity, and refused to do other things because there was no such proof. Were they now to enter upon a vast scheme for dealing with the whole of Scotland? They ought to have a distinct statement from the Government in order that they might know what course to take. Surely it would not be reasonable or right that the scope of the Bill should be extended by a side-wind in the way recommended by the hon. Member.

said, he could only interpret the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford as the expression of a desire that it ought to be in the power of the Committee to extend the Bill to places other than the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; not places other than the enumerated counties, but to places other than the Highlands and Islands. The Bill, as the title declared, was "a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland;" and he would ask the Speaker's ruling, for the information of the House, as to whether it would not be competent under that title, and without any such Instruction as was proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford, for any hon. Member to say, when Clause 16 was reached—"Here is a place which falls within the category of Highlands and Islands," and to move the addition to that place without any formal Motion? He believed it would be competent; and, therefore, he could only interpret the Motion as wishing to extend the Bill to parts of Scotland other than the Highlands and Islands. In a Bill with such a title, brought in upon the Report of a Commission directed to inquire into the condition of the crofters and cottars of the Highlands and Islands, it would not be right to go further, and the Government would strongly resist any proposal to do so.

The question asked me by the hon. Member for Stafford was whether I should think an Instruction was necessary if the scope of a Bill, the title of which implied that it was limited to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, were proposed to be extended to the whole of Scotland? I said I had no doubt that, in that case, an Instruction would be necessary. I do not think, however, that it would be necessary for the House to give an Instruction to empower the Committee to include adjoining Highland counties in the Bill.

said, that Aberdeenshire had a larger interest in this Bill than any other county in Scotland. It had nearly 12,000 agricultural holdings, or one-sixth part of the agricultural holdings of Scotland, and a larger number of holdings of the sizes enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill than any other county. Accepting, however, the Speaker's ruling, he hoped he and his hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) would be able to show the Committee that there were good reasons for including Aberdeenshire in the Bill.

said, he had intended to second the Motion; but after the statement of the Lord Advocate he would ask the hon. Member for Stafford to withdraw it. In Committee they would be able to discuss whether neighbouring counties and islands, such as Arran, should be included in the scope of the measure.

said, he could not agree with the request of the hon. Member. On the contrary, he thought the House should express an opinion on this subject. Although he apprehended that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) did not know much about the feelings of the crofters, yet other Members had definite information on the subject; and he could assure the House that there was a strong desire on the part of the crofter farmers throughout Scotland to have the provisions of the Bill extended to the whole of that country. The claims which the crofters had in other parts of Scotland were no less strong than in the Highlands. The crofters in the Lowlands had done much more to improve their holdings than the crofters in the Western Islands and Highlands. Large tracts of land had been reclaimed entirely at the expense and with the labour of the Lowland crofters, who now occupied it. Many of these crofters had settled on a piece of moorland which they had obtained at a nominal rent, but still a higher rent than it brought in previously. After occupying that piece of land for, probably, a term of 19 years, the rent was raised to the actual value, and in many cases more than the value, of the holdings, the increase of rent being due to the improvements carried out by the tenants. That was a case which demanded the serious and earnest consideration of the House. Considering the fall in agricultural produce in the last two or three years, the condition of these crofters was very pitiable indeed. The tenants agreed, under pressure of necessity, to pay exorbitant rents for their holdings—rents which, even with the greatest industry, and with prices much higher than they were at present, they were barely able to pay. But now that the prices of agricultural produce had fallen so much they were actually being deprived of what little they had saved. The condition of many parts of Scotland was, therefore, very serious indeed. He appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to look back to the legislation of the last few years, and ask themselves whether the great trouble and difficulty which had arisen in Ireland, and also in the Western Highlands of Scotland, was not because Parliament had not dealt soon enough with the question of the land? As he had heard it well expressed, Parliament had always refused to do anything so long as people were quiet. It was not until the people of Ireland had created some disturbance that Parliament listened to their demands; and now, again, it was not until the crofters of Scotland had become troublesome that their demands were, to some extent, being acceded to. But the urgency for dealing with smaller tenants throughout the other parts of Scotland was not less great than the case of the Western Highlands. He, therefore, asked the House, as earnestly as he possibly could, to deal with this question while there was time, and before more serious difficulty arose? Anyone who considered the subject required little further evidence. Within the past two or three years the prices of agricultural produce had fallen by more than the amount of the rent. The consequence was that if a tenant now paid his rent he had to pay it out of his capital. If some steps were immediately taken to secure to the tenant a fair rent and security of tenure, he thought it would stimulate the tenants throughout Scotland very much to renewed exertions, and perhaps enable them to make the rent out of the land even in the face of all the difficulties under which they now laboured. For these reasons, he hoped the House would consent to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Stafford. He thought it would be a wise and prudent measure to extend the provisions of this Bill to the whole of Scotland. He assured the House that there was the greatest possible necessity and urgency for it, and that the farmers of Scotland really expected some practical measure from this Parliament. That was the hope held out to them during the last General Election; and he was sure that extreme disappointment would be felt if the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford was not adopted by the House. He submitted that it was the duty of every hon. Gentleman in the House representing a Scotch agricultural constituency to support the Motion.

said, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Stafford not to press his Motion. He was as anxious as anyone that all persons who could reasonably be brought within the scope of the measure should derive the benefit of this legislation. He was afraid, however, that the hon. Member, and those who supported him, were asking the House to take on board a small boat more passengers than it was capable of carrying, and there was a danger of the craft being swamped. If the Motion were adopted, it was very likely that, instead of a certain amount of relief being granted to the crofters of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, between the two stools they would fall to the ground and get nothing. The proposed Instruction would so enlarge the scope of the measure that it would be impossible to pass the Bill with ease and rapidity.

said, he thought the Government might have accepted this Motion, deferring the discussion of its scope until they reached Committee. There was a strong and earnest desire on the part of many agriculturists in different parts of Scotland to be included in the Bill. His own constituency included a very large number of small holders under exactly the same conditions as the crofters in the West of Scotland, and they were all naturally very desirous to come within the scope of the Bill. The House had been told that there was practically no distress in other parts of Scotland. He begged emphatically to contradict that statement, because everyone knew perfectly well that there did exist distress of a very deep and serious character. That distress had been quietly borne. Those who endured it were an industrious and long-suffering people, carrying out their obligations willingly and manfully, and paying their rents up to the very last moment. Surely, then, the provisions of the Bill should be extended to them. At any rate, he hoped the discussions which might take place later on would result in placing Aberdeenshire within the scope of the Bill.

, while admitting that distress prevailed amongst the agricultural population of Scotland generally, still he felt bound to say he never saw a Bill which was less suited to mitigate or improve the condition of the agricultural classes in what he might call the farming parts of Scotland. Liberals had for years been urging the necessity of what had been called free trade in land, and that was what he believed they were determined in a great measure to stick to. There was this great difference between the land with which the Bill dealt and that with which English Members and Scottish Members were familiar—within the more flourishing parts of Scotland, in these parts the dealing with land was a trade. People went into it in a business way, and made bargains. Then there was the other state of things with which they became very familiar in dealing with Ireland—the case of squatters, who were not on the land by virtue of any bargain at all, but whose ancestors had been there time out of mind—mere squatters on the land, hardly to be dignified with the name of farmers. He was certain that persons of that sort would not, in his part of Scotland, be called farmers. This Bill was intended to deal with the conditions of a limited population—about 40,000—in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland. This legislation was accordingly proposed simply to mitigate the distress and the difficulties under which those 40,000 families were labouring. To propose that it would be politic, or useful, or beneficial, in any degree whatever, to extend to the whole of Scotland certain provisions intended to meet the difficulties of the 40,000 was to make a very grave mistake. He protested against anything of the kind being done, and was very glad the Lord Advocate had shown his determination not to apply the provisions of a Bill which they hoped would do good, where they could be properly applied, to cases which could never have entered into the calculations of those who had advocated the measure.

, in supporting the Motion, said, he could point to a county in the South of Scotland—Wigtownshire, to which the Bill might be appropriately extended—where there were crofters in precisely the same condition as those described by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. In that county there were three groups of crofters, one of which was considered so important that, some years ago, The Scotsman sent down a special commission to inquire into their condition. These people had improved their land, and done their best with it; yet they were in a very destitute condition indeed.

, in rising to move—

"That no Bill will suffice to amend the tenure of land in the Highlands and Islands which does not afford some pecuniary assistance towards that object in certain parts of the Country,"

said, that he was one of the last men in the House to make great demands upon the Treasury, or to ask the Government to be extravagant; but this was a peculiar case. It was his own belief, and that of nearly all who knew the country, that the condition of the inhabitants of the more impoverished parts of Scotland could not really be improved without the expenditure of money. That was the reason why he, a purist in financial matters, ventured to propose this Motion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was appalled at the proposals which were made in connection with this Bill, it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was a very young and innocent Chancellor of the Exchequer; because there was really no need to be appalled at the very moderate demands which were made on behalf of the crofters, especially when they considered what had been done for Ireland. No later than the end of last Session a sum of £5,000,000 was voted by Parliament to improve the condition of the Irish land tenants; and he contended that this was a case in which it was right and proper that the Government should give, in some shape, pecuniary assistance. He was glad to know that the Government proposed to give an advance of money towards the improvement of the fishing industry on the West Coast of Scotland; but he could not help feeling that if the Government limited these advances to the fishing industry, they were not fulfilling the objects of the Bill. The main object of the Bill was to improve the tenure of land in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and he hoped the Government were prepared to do something to promote that object by means of pecuniary assistance. It was the evictor's cry to drive the crofter to the sea; and the Bill would play into the evictor's hand, by making loans to fishermen, and not to crofters, for the improvement of their farms. The poverty of the people proposed to be benefited by the Bill was notorious. They were not small farmers, but a congested, impoverished, squeezed-out race. He did not advocate emigration; but he was convinced that the object of the Bill could never be effected without a considerable amount of migration. If they wanted to benefit these people, they must do something to migrate them to those parts of Scotland from which their ancestors were expelled; and, for that purpose, it was absolutely necessary that some pecuniary assistance should be given to them. He also asked that the Government would consent to make an advance of money to the Highland landlords, on terms at least as favourable as those on which they had advanced money to the Irish landlords—namely, at 3¼ per cent. He believed, if sufficient encouragement was given to the landlords in the way of advances, that many of them would avail themselves of these advances to settle the crofters on the land under more improved conditions than those they now occupied. He could not understand the reason of this excessive stinginess on the part of the Government. They spent millions of money on unnecessary expeditions to foreign countries, and yet they grudged a few thousands for the benefit of their people at home. If the people only happened to be black, the Government did not care how much money they expended upon them, as in the case of the Bechuanas they had voted last year £100,000 to prevent their eviction by the Boers, and this year £100,000 was again on the Estimates for the same purpose. The Bechuanas numbered about 30,000 people, and the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland numbered something like 300,000; yet the Government refused to grant them any money which would add to their prosperity. He thought the crofters were worth quite as much as the Bechuanas. He could not understand why the Government should pour out so much money on these distant objects, and refuse to give any money to keep alive the magnificent race of people in the Highlands and Islands. At the present moment Scotland, owing to the large tax on whisky, was contributing to the national Exchequer £1,800,000 a-year more taxation than was its fair share; and he only asked that something should be returned to Scotland in this special and necessary case, in order to preserve these people in the Highlands and Islands. Unless something was done in the direction he had indicated, he believed the Bill would really be impracticable. Unless the Government were prepared to make some further concession, the Bill was almost an imposture.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he thought there could be little doubt that the more this Bill was examined and discussed the less favourable was the opinion entertained regarding it. He did not think that night's discussion, or that on a former occasion, was calculated to satisfy any one section of the House. They had heard a great deal against the Bill from various quarters, notably from the other side; and now they had an Amendment asking the Government to grant more pecuniary assistance to the crofter populations. He thought that, unless they did give more pecuniary assistance in various ways, this Bill, although it had high-sounding phrases, such as fixity of tenure and fair rents—terms which had hitherto been unknown on the Scottish Statute Book—would do little to satisfy the people interested in it. They had had, practically, a great deal of fixity of tenure for many years, and it was not the case that Highland landlords had wantonly evicted tenants; and when he moved for certain Returns the other day, and which were not granted, owing to the time it would take to collect them, he did so, believing that they would throw light on the subject, and would discover that the leniency and the good treatment evinced by Scottish landlords generally, were, on the whole, of the most satisfactory description, and reflected most favourably on those in the more northerly Highlands and Islands, who certainly had not too much of this world's wealth in their pockets. Now, in his opinion, the only satisfactory conclusion was to afford some aid towards the development of those natural resources which they found on the Western Coast of Scotland, and the most important of these was the fishing industry. He was aware that the late Secretary for Scotland had inserted clauses, giving the Fishery Board certain powers in order to spend money on those populations, and enable them to equip vessels; but the Bill entirely ignored that; and, remembering how very strong were the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the point, he thought it was strange that those recommendations had been left out, and this pecuniary assistance refused. Again, he found there was nothing in the way of assisting these populations to better harbours. That, no doubt, was a wider question. The Royal Commission had also laid great stress on the necessity for increased postal and telegraphic communication, without which the people in the Western Highlands found it impossible to get information regarding the markets in good time. He thought the Government might spend some money in endeavouring to give better internal communication, both as to railway and postal and telegraphic communication. In that way thousands and tens of thousands of tons of fish might be brought to a given point, and be upon the Southern markets in the course of a very few hours. He believed that, if a project which he would have liked to bring before the House, but which had been ruled by Mr. Speaker not to be in Order, could have been brought forward and inserted in the Bill it would have been the making of thousands of industrious people who, not having enough land to cultivate profitably, would have fished to a much larger extent than at present; and would have had the very best market in which to dispose of their produce. On the East Coast large sums had been given, and had led to great prosperity among the fishing population. On the West Coast they had had very little assistance. On the East Coast there was an enormous fishing population, 27,000 men being employed in the industry, while there were comparatively few on the West. On the East Coast they had boats and gear belonging to fishermen amounting in value to £1,111,000. On the West Coast, where they had no means of communication, and were stinted for want of money in developing the natural resources, they had only £118,600 worth of boats, gear, and tackle. They had 2,000 miles of coast on the West, and it was admitted that the fisheries on the West were practically undeveloped. So important, then, would it be for the crofting and seafaring population there to have the assistance now asked. It would help them to eke out their livelihood by gaining a bonus in fishing. At present they went West, East, North, and South to the fishing. They need not go East, North, and South if they had facilities given them at home. Unless they gave such facilities, what would be the value to them of this Bill—a Bill which gave them a few acres without money to stock them, and with only the assurance that they would have them for 15 years at a fair rent, if they paid that rent? What was wanted was to give them profitable employment, and to assist that employment in the best possible way. The land was naturally poor, but the sea was rich. They required better harbours, especially in the Lews, and better communication between the Islands and the mainland; and if the House would assent to this Motion, they would at once see the great advantages of promoting works of that kind. The Railway Companies themselves would find it a profitable thing to carry the fish over their lines, and the whole population would be benefited by increased supplies of fish. He hoped that the House would give a favourable answer to the Motion of the hon. Member, and that it would also consider the further suggestions he had ventured to submit.

said, he hoped they might be allowed to go on with the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would not press a Motion to a division, which, if carried, would be fatal to the Bill. ["No, no!"] But yes. If the Motion was carried the Bill could not go on that night, nor any other night, unless the Government proposed to introduce money clauses into the Bill. He asked, whether the hon. Gentleman who desired to see this Bill passed were prepared to take such a course? The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was like a good many Free Traders; they believed in Free Trade for everything, except the particular one in which they were interested. The hon. Gentleman was an economist upon all subjects, except those which concerned the particular interests which touched himself. He asked his hon. Friend to consider what would be the result if every Member in the House made demands of this character upon the Government, and the Government were to yield to them all in turn? The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) said money was to be given for the development of the resources of the country, which was poor in its soil, and to provide employment for the people—rather a large order, not confined in its principle to the West Coast of Scotland or the crofters. There might be something said on that subject in every part of the United Kingdom. Amongst the other objects they were asked to build harbours, give better communication, and to subsidize Railway Companies, for the purpose, as he understood, of their going into remote parts of the West Highlands. What would be the consequence to the taxpayer of this country of adopting principles of that description—of accepting the principles that they were to develop the resources of bad land, to find profitable employment for the people, to subsidize Railway Companies, and to improve communication, for the purpose of finding better markets for commodities of all descriptions? Those were the sort of proposals which would ruin the finances of the country, which made all economy impossible—proposals made at a time when the expenditure was increasing without limit. If the House were to accept a general principle of that character, there was no hope for the finances, or the solvency of the country at all. It was perfectly impossible to apply this principle to one part of the country, and refuse it to another. He knew that the late Lord Advocate, and he supposed other Scottish Members, would like to see money spent in Scotland. When the Royal Commission was appointed—for which he was responsible—he had no idea they were to undertake the duty of financial recommendation. If he had had such an idea—although he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, but Home Secretary—he would have taken very good care, as they generally did on Royal Commissions, to put somebody to look after the interests of the taxpayers of the Kingdom. What happened? That Commission, which consisted of very able and very patriotic Scotsmen, who differed upon every other subject, agreed to make unlimited demands upon the English Exchequer. That was the one point on which they were unanimous, and having once begun that operation, they were most bountiful. Their imagination was freed of all restraint, as the English Exchequer was to pay. He thought the Commission which recommended that great trunk lines should be made at the expense of the country into most of the lochs on the West Coast——

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that Scotland contributed to the Exchequer as well as England.

said, that was true; but he would ask the House to consider what would be the proportion of each £1 which the English taxpayer would pay, and what would be the proportion which the Scotch taxpayer would pay? He was bound to consider those matters, and to tell the House that there was not the money to do this; and that to adopt a Motion of this kind was not a reasonable proposal. It was really playing at the Business of the House. It would not be doing what was practicable, because there were no means to carry out proposals of this character. Therefore, he most sincerely hoped his hon. Friend would not press a Motion of that character, which would only have the effect of standing in the way of a measure which they all sincerely desired, and with which he trusted the House would now allow them to proceed.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken always acted up to the top of any part which might happen to be entrusted to him. Last year he was Home Secretary, when he had charge of the Crofters Bill; now he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it appeared that this country was to be bankrupt, and we would be unable to meet our engagements if the smallest amount of public money was expended on behalf of those unfortunate people for whose benefit they were going to upset the existing condition of things.

I made no proposals about money last year. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Hear, hear!]

Do I understand the Lord Advocate assents to that interpretation?

The only proposal was to lend on the security of the land.

Was there a proposal in this Bill to lend on the security of the land? He did not know what were the views of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment; but he believed the hon. Gentleman's views might be largely met if the Government consented to lend on the security of the land. That was the species of proposal which the hon. Gentleman had in view, and which the hon. Gentleman near him advocated.

Subsidizing Railway Companies.

How was it that any money proposals were now to have such tragic consequences when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government which proposed them only last year?

said, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to notice the fact that £4,000,000 had been added to the expenditure since then.

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman assented to the proposal that money ought to be given; but as a good deal of money had been spent by the Government lately the crofters must wait. That was not the view advocated in his speech, nor was it a view which would find much favour with the starving population in the West Highlands. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to his Friends not to imperil what he called the success of the Bill by voting for the Amendment. He apprehended what they had to think of was, not whether the Bill would pass to-night or to-morrow, but whether, apart from the Amendment, it was likely to effect the object it had in view. That was the only species of success. What fatal consequences would follow if the Amendment were passed? The only consequence would be that they need not continue the discussion that night. The Government would have three days to renew their proposals about loans on the security of the land, and they could go on with the Bill on Thursday. He overheard the right hon. Gentleman say—"Let them throw out the Bill." They had no intention whatever to throw out the Bill. If that had been their intention, they would have done so on the second reading. He had never heard that it was supposed to indicate hostility to a Bill to pass an Amendment of this kind, which, if passed, was not necessarily fatal to the progress of the measure. Was their object to benefit the crofters, or were they simply to be content to disintegrate the land system of the country? If the former, it was vain and futile to imagine one single crofter would be in the least benefited by this barren manipulation of the Land Laws of the country. The crofter had fixity of tenure. He had been in undisputed possession for at least 40 years. No crofter had been in fear of arbitrary eviction for a long period. What those people was in fear of was, not arbitrary eviction, but poverty. That was the cause of their misfortunes. How was the Bill, apart from the Amendment, likely to cure that poverty? How could they stock their lands without capital? Was it not the vainest and most barren thing to say to those poor people they would give them more land; but nothing would induce them to risk one sixpence of public money in order to enable them to make use of the additional land? This was legislation which might injure the landlord; but it could not by any possibility benefit the tenants. The poverty which had been chronic for generations would not be mitigated in the least, do what they would with the Land Laws, unless they were prepared in no ungenerous spirit to carry out some such recommendations as that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.

rose to address the House, when——

asked whether the hon. Gentleman, having seconded the Motion, had not exhausted his right of speaking?

said, that it was a well-understood Rule that if an hon. Member seconded a Motion by simply raising his hat he was not precluded from subsequently taking a part in the debate.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that the utility of this Bill depended on the carrying in some shape of the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He was amazed at the vehemence, the indignation, and the anger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke of this proposal as if they were asking him for a gift. No such word had been used in relation to the proposal. This was to be a loan upon what he (Mr. Macfarlane) believed to be very good security, and he would make the right hon. Gentleman an offer. He would accept from him for the Highland people a commission of 5 per cent on the amount he was prepared to give to the Irish people by a Bill which he (Mr. Macfarlane) should probably vote for; but the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman knew no bounds, whatever the security might be. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said the chief misfortune of these people was poverty. No doubt about that; but how was it brought about? It was brought about by rack-renting, and by a system of clearances which was a scandal and a shame to the country, and it was that scandal which they were trying to redress. His hon. Friend behind him had said this was a shabby Bill. He quite agreed with the description. It was a shabby Bill. It had been drawn by the hand of a miser, and was animated with the spirit of the laird and the factor. It was not such a Bill as he should have expected from the Government, and he was quite sure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), who was lately in charge of it, would have made a better one if he had had the power. He was sure his right hon. Friend's spirit was willing, but his flesh was unfortunately weak, in resisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was a landlord's Bill. He was not surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should support it, and if he were a crofter he should not be glad to see it pass, and if he were a landlord he should pray night and day that it should pass without delay, because this question was advancing, and every year passed would render it more difficult to settle.

said, he could not support the Amendment. In the first place, it was too vague, and would lead to expectations which could never be realized. He did not like it either, because it seemed to him to invite the crofters and any poor population in this Kingdom always to fly to the State rather than to depend upon themselves whenever they were in difficulties. Everybody who knew that part of the country to which this Bill was now confined knew quite well that if the crofter was to have more land he must look to his gains from the sea to stock that land; and it was in that direction he should be taught to look, and not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was glad to see some Amendments on the Paper which were to be moved by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) for the purpose of assisting in developing the fishing industry in the West of Scotland. That was the real harvest which these people could reap. It was idle to divide the land unless they developed their gains from the sea. He hoped these Amendments would be met in no niggard spirit; and he thought they were also entitled to press on the Government in regard to those services it now undertook, not to deal with them in too parsimonious a spirit—he referred principally to the service of the telegraph. It was a mistaken parsimony to make the number of messages the only rule upon which they should extend the telegraph system. There were hundreds and thousands of people who were interested in one and the same message. The fish came into the bays and lochs at uncertain times and in uncertain numbers; and the telegraph was necessary to obtain salt, barrels, staves, and a steamer to carry the fish to the market. Having regard to this, and the difficulty of properly securing the rich harvest when it appeared and despatching it to market, he asked the Government to consider the amount of public benefit which was to arise from a single message. If they did that, he thought they would no longer bind themselves to the hard-and-fast rule of requiring the people to guarantee the expense of the telegraph before they would extend it. Another important point in connection with the development of this fishing industry was that of mussel bait. On many parts of the West Coast this was being destroyed; and he asked whether some general regulation could not be made to prevent the wanton destruction of this useful article, without which it was impossible for the Highlander and the crofter to continue, particularly, their winter fishing? They wanted to develop not only the herring fishing, but the winter fishing.

said, that the Bill did not give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. In regard to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Commissioners were extremely guarded in their proposals as to advances of public money, and they distinctly pointed to the fishing industry as the most profitable direction in which assistance might go. That recommendation was confirmed by the experience of Lady Gordon Cathcart, who had been able to achieve little if any good by a large expenditure on crofts, but whose expenditure on harbours and boats had been productive of the greatest good. For instance, six large boats were fitted out at a cost of £1,500, and in six weeks these boats actually realized 50 per cent on their cost, while they had paid the whole cost before the fishing season ended. The recommendation of the Commission also pointed to the expenditure of money upon harbours, fitting out fishing boats, and the extension of tramways and telegraphs. He thought it would be a great mistake if they were, as was asked by this Motion, to press on the Government to advance the public money in a direction where there was little hope of its being advantageously employed, which, in his opinion, would be tempting the people to turn from that upon which they could profitably expend their efforts to that which would be attended with little success. The Motion before them, therefore, was not, in his opinion, in the real interest of these people, and it would be extremely dangerous if the public money were so spent. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be altered by leaving out after the words "pecuniary assistance towards that object," and inserting the words "and the objects recommended by the Royal Commissioners."

said, the language of the Motion might be vague, but its object was quite transparent, and everyone could understand what his hon. Friend meant. He did not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Minister of a Government which had granted so much money to Ireland for emigration and other matters, could object to this Motion. He could not see that the suffering and destitute Scotsmen were less entitled to a grant from the Imperial Treasury than the Irish farmer in similar circumstances. There were 26,000 small occupiers within the counties to which the Bill applied. Of that number there were 11,000 representing a population of between 40,000 and 50,000, who each occupied land of less than £4 annual value. How could it be expected that tenants occupying land of that value could obtain a subsistence for their families from the land? He did not think that any person acquainted with agriculture would say that such a thing was possible. Something, therefore, should be done; and he did not think it would be at all inappropriate for the Government to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. Such legislation as the Crofters Bill led the people to expect something; and he thought that that expectation, under the circumstances, should be met. Much as he was opposed to grants being made from the Imperial Treasury, he thought that this was a case in which the proposal of his hon. Friend should be agreed to.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which made a certain demand upon the Exchequer, but the competency of which he was told was somewhat doubtful; and he must, therefore, be allowed to say a few words on this Motion. The objection which had been urged against the Motion had mainly been based upon the assumption that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy made a gratuitous demand for assistance from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Bedford had pointed out that it was much more desirable that money should be spent on objects of a reproductive character, with regard to which the State would not be a loser. He thought the Motion entirely covered objects of that character, and that it might very easily be accepted on the understanding that it was to exclude all objects of a purely eleemosynary character. He was surprised at the strenuous and vehement manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rejected the proposal, because he was entirely mistaken as to the policy of this, or indeed, of any Liberal Government, if objects of this kind were to be regarded as beyond the purview of their policy. He objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking as if this were a case of Scottish Members knocking at the door of the English Exchequer and asking for money. They asked this money solely for reproductive and for public purposes, and they hoped that the National Exchequer would not lose a sixpence by granting it. He suggested that the Government should accede to the first of two clauses which he had ventured to put upon the Table for insertion in the Bill. That clause was embodied in the Bill of the Government last year, and would go very far to meet the views of his hon. Friend. The object of the clauses was to enable advances to be given on moderate terms to the landowner himself on the security of the land. It would place him in a position to assist his poorer neighbours, and to give them some advantages so as to enable them to stock their farms.

asked the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy whether he would remove from his Motion the words in regard to the improvement of land, and he would support it?

No.

said, that being the case, he could not support the Motion, the object of which was to encourage what he thought was a fruitless undertaking. Agriculture was in no part of the Kingdom a very prosperous occupation, and still less was it so in the remote and sterile regions to which the Bill applied. Hon. Members had before them the experience of those private individuals who had already undertaken to advance money upon the three schemes open to the inhabitants of this part of the country—namely, agriculture, fishing, and emigration. Of these three schemes the first had proved a total failure; the other two had, so far as they had been carried out, proved a signal success. With the experience they had with reference to fishing and emigration, they would be justified in assuming that public money advanced upon these schemes would be advanced with perfect security to the public. If, therefore, the hon. Member would alter his Amendment so as to limit the advance of public money to the encouragement of fisheries and communications, and to the encouragement of emigration, he would support him.

said, he rose to say a very few words—he might almost call them one word—on the practical question as to whether the friends of this Bill should vote for or against this Motion. His hon. Friend had moved an Amendment in very definite terms, which some hon. Members wished him to extend. One of the most ardent supporters of this Amendment was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour); and he must ask the real friends of the Bill who sat around him whether the part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman which came most directly from his heart was of a nature to commend his advice to those below the Gangway on the Liberal side of the House? The right hon. Gentleman said the endeavour to remedy the evils in the Highlands was one chiefly at the expense of the landlords, and not at the expense of the general taxpayer. Now, he did not believe, if this Bill were passed, it would be found that these evils had been remedied at the expense of the landlord. He held it was in the interest of the landlords quite as much as of the tenants that this Bill should pass, and pass quickly. Now, what did the Amendment mean? It meant that they should assist the crofters through the landlords in one of three ways. The first was that suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford). That was the clause on which the right hon. Member for Manchester was so very ingenious in his reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a good tu quoque argument; but it had very little practical bearing on the case. He maintained that the clause which was in the Bill of last year, and which his hon. Friend proposed to put into the Bill of this year, would be perfectly nugatory. He did not believe any landlord would borrow money for the purpose of stocking his crofts on the security of his land. If this clause were nugatory, what other means were there of spending money? One would be the Irish system of lending five or seven years' rent—he forgot which—to the small crofters. But he never could be a party to recommending the extension of that provision to Scotland. The other method of expending money would be to expend money to enable the crofter to purchase his croft from the landlord. On that point he spoke at some length when he introduced the Bill, and he, as a private Member, could not recommend that House to embark upon such a questionable mode of proceeding; and the Government with which he had had the honour to serve could never have embarked upon it. He begged the hon. Members around him, who were friends of the Bill, but in a different sense from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not to vote for this Amendment of his hon. Friend. He sympathized with the Amendment. He was glad to get as much public money for Scotland as could be well expended in Scotland, and which could certainly be returned to the Treasury; and in everything relating to this question of the Highlands he had endeavoured to expend every penny he could obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what would really be of advantage to the Highlands and Islands, and these principles he would be ashamed to abandon on the very day he left the Treasury Bench. The clauses to which his name would be found attached, relating to the loans for fishing boats, would be of a nature that could be defended by experience, that could not be questioned; and his object could be accomplished for a very small expenditure of money, every halfpenny of which could be returned to the Treasury over and over again. He was glad to see that the Post Office and the Treasury between them had, only within the last two months, established, at a small cost, a system of packet boats, which would treble and quadruple the facilities for carrying fish to the mainland, and thence to the great markets of the cities of Scotland inland. It was in this direction that he hoped they would expend every penny they could obtain; and he trusted hon. Members who wished well to the Bill, would vote against this Amendment, which his hon. Friend, he thought, was not very earnest in pressing.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and trusted to the moral effect of the discussion.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, or for impeding the progress of the measure; but he wished to offer a few remarks before the House went into Committee. He recognized the necessity of dealing with the question with justice, and even with generosity, towards the crofter population of the Highlands. For the last 10 years he had spent annually a considerable period in the North of Scotland, and he had some opportunity of making himself acquainted with the condition of the crofters. It was impossible for anyone who had had a personal experience of this nature not to feel a warm and real sympathy with the condition and lot of these people—a condition which, owing to the circumstances with which they were surrounded, must ever continue to be a hard one in the future His observations would not be dictated by any feeling of hostility to the real and true interests of the crofters. While there were many statements with which he cordially agreed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, there were also many to which he objected. He questioned the historical accuracy of part of the case made out for the crofters, while admitting that they had grievances which might be mitigated, though they could not be altogether removed, by legislation, and that the time had arrived when it was the bounden duty of the Government to deal with the question. As to the historical arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman supported the Bill, it was not the case, so far as he had been able to discover, that the great uprooting of the crofters between 1780 and 1820, which had been described that night as a scandal, was made solely for the purpose alleged by the right hon. Gentleman of establishing great sheep farms. He supposed that the clearances in Sutherland were the clearances which attracted more attention at that time than any other. But why were those clearances effected? It was for a twofold purpose. One was the natural purpose of developing the wealth and the resources of the county; but primarily they were effected for the welfare and the benefit of the crofters themselves. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he had had the opportunity of acquiring some information which might not have been accessible to others. The condition of the crofters now was immeasurably better than it was previously. A description of the previous condition of the crofters had been written by a gentleman who had exceptional opportunities of obtaining accurate information, and who spent the greater part of his life in trying to improve that condition. Writing particularly of the year 1816–17, Mr. James Loch said:—

"During the latter period they suffered the extremes of want and of human misery, notwithstanding every aid that could be given to them through the bounty of the landlords. Their wretchedness was so great that, after pawning everything they were possessed of to the fishermen on the coast, such as had not cattle were reduced to come down from the hills in hundreds for the purpose of gathering cockles on the shore. Those who lived in the more remote situations of the country were obliged to subsist upon broth made of nettles, thickened with a little oatmeal. Those who had cattle had recourse to the still more wretched expedient of bleeding them, and mixing the blood with oatmeal, which they afterwards cut into slices and fried. Those who had a little money came down and slept all night upon the beach, in order to watch the boats returning from the fishing, that they might be in time to obtain a part of what had been caught. In order to alleviate this misery every exertion was made by the proprietor. To those who had cattle he advanced money to the amount of above £3,000. To supply those who had no cattle he sent meal into the country to the amount of nearly £9,000."

Mr. Loch was for many years a well-known and respected Member of that House—not a Conservative, but a Member of the Liberal Party; and the honesty and single-mindedness of that Gentleman had never been questioned. The crofters were removed to the coast with the very best of human motives. They were moved to the sea coast, in the first place, because the land adjacent to it was, generally speaking, the most fertile in the whole county; and, in the second place, because they were able to combine the fishing industry with that of agriculture. He agreed with every word which had been uttered by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); and he doubted whether, in the course of the debate, anything would be said by any hon. Member more deserving of attention than the advice which the hon. Member gave with regard to the development of the fishing industry in the Highlands. In the third place, the crofters were taken down to the sea coast because they were at all times of the year easily accessible by sea, and it was found possible to transport food to them without the enormous cost and trouble previously experienced. It was absolutely incorrect, therefore, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the crofters were now in a very depressed and hopeless condition in consequence of the alterations made in their circumstances many years ago. If any further proof were needed of the improved condition of the crofters at the present time, he would like to ask the House to try their condition by one test alone. He thought the House would agree with him when he said that the house in which a man dwelt was not a bad test of the general prosperity of his condition. What was the character of the houses in which the greater portion of the crofters dwelt as compared with the time of which they were speaking? He wished to call the attention of the House to a few sentences from Mr. Loch's Report regarding this matter. It was an accurate description of the crofters' homes at the time spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman—

"The huts of the people were of the most miserable description. They were built of turf, dug from the most valuable portions of the mountain side. Their roofs consisted of the same material.…. Under the same roof and entering at the same door were kept all the domestic animals belonging to the establishment.…. The floor was the bare earth, except near the fireplace, where it was rudely paved with rough stone. It was never levelled with much care, and it soon were into every sort of inequality, according to the hardness of the respective soils of which it was composed. Every hollow formed a receptacle for whatever fluid happened to fall near it, where it remained until absorbed by the earth. It was impossible that it should ever be swept; and when the accumulation of filth rendered the place uninhabitable another hut was erected in the vicinity of the old one. The old rafters were used in the construction of the now cottage, and that which was abandoned formed a valuable collection of manure for the next crop."

This he believed to be a perfectly true description of the character of the dwellings which were inhabited by most, if not by all, of the crofters in the interior of the county from which they were removed. This was the character of the clearances which, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, were such a scandal and such a shame. He had explained, however, that they were neither in the character of a scandal nor of a shame, but that they were to the benefit of the crofters. He asked the House to contrast their former condition with that of to-day. On the East Coast, and, he be-believed, also on the North Coast, and in many instances even on the West Coast, they would now find house after house, almost without exception, in the largest part of the county built of stone and mortar, with slated roofs, with boarded floors; and he thought he was justified in appealing to the character of the dwellings which the crofters inhabited to-day, compared with the dog-holes they inhabited 40 years ago, as some reasonable proof in support of his assertion that it was totally untrue to say that the crofters were in a deplorably depressed state now, and in support of his contention that whatever their condition might have been before it was immeasurably better now than in former times. He had already addressed the House at considerable length, but he was anxious to controvert the historic arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, supported his introduction of this Bill; and, secondly, because he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity in his power of raising his voice in protest against any attempt, from whatever quarter of the House it might come, to extend and largely develop this system where it did not exist at present. The case of the existing crofters was one thing, but it was a totally different thing to try and extend that system, which, he believed, owing to the circumstances of the present day, owing to the great foreign competition we had to contend with in the matter of our food supply, owing to the character of the soil, its barren nature, and the inhospitable climate in which the people lived, was foredoomed, whatever legislation might be adopted, to failure and destruction. On the other hand, it was their duty to recognize the fact that they were confronted with a state of things which they ought to try and grapple with. He was not very sanguine of the beneficial effects of any legislation with regard to the crofters; but he recognized, at the same time, that they had some grievances, and he was prepared to go considerable lengths in the attempt to remedy them. It was undoubtedly a grievance on the part of the crofters that they had not at present by law, in a great number of cases, any compensation for the improvements made by them. He thought they ought to have it, and he was prepared to give his cordial support to that portion of the Bill which dealt with compensation for improvements. He had always advocated compensation of this nature for many years with regard to tenants in England; and he confessed he could see no reason, in point of justice or of right, why the same principle should not be applied to the crofters of Scotland. As far as he knew anything about the question, he believed that what the crofters most desired at the present time was undoubtedly an extension both of their grazing and arable lands, and he was prepared to admit that it was right they should have it. He should be glad to see them have it where it could be done by fair and legitimate means. He believed it was more important, in the cases where crofters' holdings were exceedingly small, that they should have an addition to their arable land rather than, by the addition proposed to be given in the Bill, with respect to grazing land. The extension of grazing land would often be practically useless, because many of the crofters were so poor that they had not capital to stock it. This objection, however, would not apply to small additions of arable farms, where the capital required was the labour of the crofter and his family. The Bill also gave fair rents and fixity of tenure to the crofter. That was simply an application of what he always considered to be some of the worst principles of the Irish Land Bill to Scotland. His experience, and probably the experience of everyone, as to the results of the application of those principles in Ireland was not very encouraging while engaged in considering their extension to other parts of the Kingdom. It reminded him of the occasion, which he well remembered, when the Prime Minister devoted 25 minutes of a powerful speech to an absolute and complete destruction of the principles of fair rent and fixity of tenure now proposed to be embodied in this Bill. He recollected the right hon. Gentleman certainly proving to his satisfaction, and no doubt to his own satisfaction, that the only possible result of the adoption of that system in Ireland must inevitably be to demoralize the people of that country. He suspected that the Prime Minister, if he ever remembered his former speeches, how unhappily the truth of his prediction had been realized in Ireland; and certainly, as far as he (Mr. Chaplin) was concerned, if those principles were to be applied in the North of Scotland in the same circumstances as they were applied in Ireland, nothing on earth would induce him to give his consent to them for a moment. But there was this distinction between the two cases. In Ireland that principle was forced on the landlords of the country, so far as he knew, almost entirely against their will. In the Highlands, on the other hand, so far as he was able to gather, both the landlords and the crofters were equally willing, if not equally anxious, to try it; and, that being the case, he did not feel called upon—certainly he was not prepared—to undertake the responsibility of opposing that part of the measure, however much he might dislike it himself. The Bill contained another principle—a principle which was, as far as he was aware, totally new in English legislation; and that was the principle by which it was proposed to empower the Land Commission to make an order for the compulsory leasing of certain portions of the landlord's estate. He confessed that it was a great strain on the principles of hon. Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House to ask them to consent to a novel and unprecedented proposition of that kind. The very least they could do, however, and the least they could stipulate for if they consented to accept it—he did not give any pledge on that point—was this—that if this principle was to be adopted the landlord, at all events, should have the option of insisting that his land should be bought outright, instead of being compelled to let it on a compulsory lease if he should prefer to sell. Again, he found the Bill interfered with existing leases. As far as he knew, that was an entire and completely novel departure from all recognized principles of English legislation. He acknowledged that it was confined to existing sporting leases, and he was well aware that there was a great feeling of hostility on the part of many persons towards everything connected with the name of deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland. Although that was the case, he was convinced—and he had had opportunities of learning something of this question—that the worst injury that could possibly be done to the crofter population of the Highlands, and to the population of the Highlands generally, would be to carry out legislation by which deer forests should be more or less practically abolished. As stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the second reading of the Bill, an enormous amount of money was brought into the Highlands, and a large amount of labour and employment afforded, by the sporting tenancies which existed in such large numbers in the Northern parts of Scotland. In one county in the Highlands with which he was well acquainted one-half of the revenue of that county was derived from sporting tenancies, and the whole revenue of the county was spent among the people. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for hon. Members below the Gangway to jeer; but how did they think the resident population would appreciate legislation the first result of which would be to diminish by one-half a revenue which for the last 50 or 60 years had been entirely spent among them? There was one criticism which he wished to make upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and that was to say that one of his statements was absolutely and entirely inaccurate. He said—

"Now, the deer forests are spreading fast at the expense of the poor remains of the crofters' holdings."

For that statement the right hon. Gentleman had not one single shadow or particle of proof; and he should like to know where those deer forests were situate which were spreading at the expense of the remains of the crofters' holdings at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman's statement was in direct contradiction to the Report of the Royal Commission; and before he could accept his statement as accurately representing the state of things with regard to the spread of the deer forests at the present moment, he must call upon the right hon. Gentleman to tell them where and in what part of Scotland the deer forests were situate which were spreading so rapidly and so disastrously at the present time. Upon that part of the Bill which related to fishing he would not dwell, as he had already said he cordially agreed with the hon. Member for Bedford upon that point. Speaking for himself, and expressing, as he believed, the views of many hon. Members on that side of the House, he might say that they were ready to go to very considerable lengths, and to do much that they believed might be for the advantage of the crofters, and for crofters' holdings, which were existent at the present time. But he was entirely opposed to even a partial development and extension of that system, because he was certain it must result, not only in loss to the community at large, but in misery and poverty to the unfortunate crofters themselves. The House ought to remember, when propositions were made by statesmen for the perpetuation of that system in the Highlands, that a living derived from land in the Highlands, such as was proposed, must at all times be most precarious, if it were owing to the character of the climate alone. He would give a simple illustration. When he left the Highlands last autumn to come down to England for the General Election, he had the opportunity of seeing many crofters, and with some of them in conversation on their prospects of position. Although it was the end of October, none of the corn of that district was carried home, a great deal was not even cut, and there was no chance of it ripening at all during that season. The universal complaint made to him was that the potatoes were all rotten and destroyed; and, as everyone that was acquainted with that locality knew, those were circumstances which must be expected to occur one year out of every three or four years in the Highlands. How was it possible, under those circumstances, for a population to thrive and flourish upon land in parts of the country where the soil was so unfruitful and the climate so inhospitable? He had little confidence in the success of any system of small holdings in these days, whether tenancies or freeholds, in the face of the foreign competition with which they were confronted at the present time, no matter in what part of the country it might be. But if such systems were to be tried, if hon. Members holding extreme opinions were determined to try it, in God's name let the system be tried where it might have some small prospect of success, and let them not try to establish it in parts of the country where miserable and starving populations already existed, and where, owing to the circumstances of the country, they were foredoomed to misery and destitution. He had stated some points in the Bill in which those who acted with him desired amendment. They wished to give a cordial support to Her Majesty's Government in their endeavours to pass the Bill through Committee; and he hoped that the proposals he had made for amendment, and the objections he had raised to the details of the Bill, would receive the fair and candid consideration of the Government. He trusted that they might arrive at a conclusion which would enable them so far to agree with the Party on his side of the House that they should be able, as the measure proceeded, to carry it through to a safe conclusion, and enable them to continue the general support which they desired to give the Bill.

, said, he regretted that, while the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) had promised to support the Government, he should, nevertheless, have carefully refrained from pledging himself on some of the most vital portions of the Bill. In his picture of the inhospitable climate and sterile soil of Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the people who were cleared away and their descendants were to be found in a still more inhospitable climate, and on a still more sterile soil. On the North-East Coast of Maine, and in New Brunswick, he would find grey-headed men—he was only speaking from his own experience—who would give him a very different account of the Sutherland clearances, and the burning of their dwellings, in order to dispossess thorn of their homes. Nor was he quite able to understand the advantage to men who had been brought up to agricultural pursuits of being transplanted to the seaside to follow an industry upon the sea to which they were totally unaccustomed, there being no boats, harbours, or other conveniences furnished to them by the great Lords who dispossessed them. He had no means of determining which of the stories was true; but men he had met in Maine and New Brunswick had told him that they believed they and their fathers had been cleared out and their native glens had been made waste and desolate because wool paid better than human beings. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of the proposal of compulsory leasing as being novel and unprecedented; but, for himself, he apprehended that in the present and in succeeding Parliaments the landed class would have to listen to many proposals that would be to them novel and unprecedented; because in the past the landed class had made the laws for the protection of the landed interest, while in the future the Representatives of the people would deal with the land as subject to the well-being of the State. He had been astounded at hearing that the rents of the deer forests were spent for the benefit of the people in the districts from which they were derived, because he had understood these rents were often spent on the boulevards of Paris and similar places, and that the crofters obtained but the very scantiest advantage from them.

The first Amendment is one which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who proposes, in line 9, to leave out "crofter," and insert "tenant." As far as I understand the provisions of the Bill, that is an Amendment which is altogether beyond the scope of the measure; and, therefore, I feel called upon to rule that it is out of Order.

I shall be quite ready to explain the scope of the Amendment if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow me to propose it. If, however, he decides that it is out of Order, I should like to ask a question on the point of Order—namely, whether it is possible to extend the scope of the Bill in any direction whatever? The hon. Member will observe that the Preamble of the Bill declares that—

"It is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land by Crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotlands."

But there are Amendments standing in the name of the Government by which it is proposed to extend the provisions of the Bill to fishermen as well as crofters. Will the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) be in Order in moving Amendments to that effect?

I am aware that there are Amendments on the Paper in the name of the Government, the object of which is to include fishermen. I am not prepared to say that that is not within the scope of the Bill; but the proposal of the hon. Member to extend this clause from crofters to tenants generally is certainly beyond the scope of the Bill.

The next Amendment stands in my name; and I propose in page 1, line 9, to insert after "crofter," the words "or cottar." I may say that I have placed other Amendments on the Paper to the same effect, and I may inform the Government that on the division which takes place upon this point will depend whether a large number of cottars in Scotland are to be deprived of all benefit from the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is limited by its title to the tenure of land by crofters; but, notwithstanding that limitation, the measure itself proposes to confer some of the advantages to be derived by the crofters upon the cottars. I know it is desirable that the Bill should pass through Committee as quickly as possible, and I do not believe that there are more than four or five important questions which will have to be discussed. I myself have at least 20 Amendments to propose on the same verbal point as that involved in the present Amendment, and the fate of this one will probably decide the fate of all the others. As I have said, there are involved in the Bill only four or five principles; and as I wish to limit the discussion as much as possible, with a view of doing that, if the Government decline to accept my Amendment I shall take the opinion of the Committee upon it, and then pass on to some other question. The Royal Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland were specially instructed to inquire into the condition of the crofters and cottars; but I find that in the Bill, as it stands, there is no provision in reference to the cottars except the one that I have referred to; and unless my Amendment, or one of the same nature is accepted by the Committee, the Bill will tend to the rapid extermination of the cottars, who have been permitted hitherto to live on sufferance. They only exist by the benevolence of some landlord or other and the public opinion of the neighbourhood, which have hitherto enabled them to live in the miserable buildings they now occupy. If the Bill is passed without my Amendment, that indulgence will no longer be extended to this class of persons, because the landlords will be entitled to say—"Parliament has just legislated on the subject, and has decided that in the public interests we shall be protected if we exterminate this class of occupiers in the Highlands altogether." Now, who are these people? In many instances they are persons who have been imported into the Highlands from England and Ireland, and they have occupied certain pieces of land to which they have no claim. Everybody knows that they are the descendants of crofters, although they are the immediate descendants of evicted tenants. The Bill, as it now stands, proposes that where a remanet of crofters has been left a certain amount of benefit should accrue to them, but where the extermination has been completed, and where there are no crofters at all, that there should be no redress whatever for these persons. What is the proportion of people in the whole Highlands who are affected by the Amendment I now move? I have a Return here in reference to a few of the parishes in the Isle of Skye. In one parish there are 929 persons, comprising 220 families, and 115 of them are described as "cottars and landless." It is the same in half-a-dozen other parishes. I have here a complete list; but I will not trouble the Committee with all the details—I will confine myself to the totals. In the Island of Mull the cottars in one parish amount to 422 persons, and they will all be excluded from redress under the present terms of the Bill. It is stated in a Petition which has been sent to me that the cottars who have been driven off the large farms have been huddled together upon the crofts, notwithstanding the fact that the crofters themselves are unable to give employment, or, indeed, to eke out a subsistence for themselves from the crofts. In one instance I am informed that there are 33 cottars and only 27 crofters. One township in the Island of Mull, a few years ago, contained 40 crofters in comfortable circumstances, each of whom had from 5 to 12 cows, and a fair proportion of sheep. But immediately the present proprietor came into possession he cleared out the whole of them, and not a single crofter has been left upon that estate. The effect, however, of this Bill will be that the landlord who has exterminated the crofters will be free from further trouble. It is only, as I said before, the landlord who has some small remnant of humanity left in him who will suffer from this measure. The Royal Commissioners say in their Report that out of 3,226 families there are 825 unaccounted for, but who must be placed among the landless cottars and crofters; and these 825 comprise more than one-fourth of the population. The Commissioners say that—

"They are without land and without regular access to local wages—most of them, it may be assumed, scattered among the poor occupiers, to whom they are a heavy burden. Side by side with this mingled multitude, so slenderly furnished with the means of life, we find 30 occupiers, forming less than 1 per cent of the whole community, in the occupancy of nearly two-thirds of the land. These 30 include a factor, a few proprietors, and some non-resident tenants. Taking the four parishes together, we believe that the conditions of tenancy which they reveal may be regarded as fairly representative of the state of the seaboard on the mainland, and of all the Islands from Ardnamurchan, in Argyllshire, on the South, to the borders of Caithness, on the North. A similar repartition of tenancy exists in some districts of the Central Highlands, in Ross, and Inverness, and it prevails over nearly the whole of Sutherland. The evils attached to excessive sub-division and consolidation are less felt in the Southern Hebrides, in certain parts of Argyllshire, on the Eastern seaboard generally, and in Orkney, in all of which the small holdings are, as a rule, of greater dimensions, are more graduated, and are associated in some degree with small farms not inaccessible to the crofting class. The examples which we have selected for analysis above are cases in which clearance and congestion may be observed in close proximity, where the local population has been transferred and crowded, but not removed to a distance, in consequence of the formation of large grazing areas; they are cases in which consolidation has not been in any material degree attended by depopulation. There are other places in which the large farms have absorbed the whole area, in which any small farms which may previously have existed have been extinguished, and in which the poorer order of people, occupying land as sub-tenants, have been exceedingly reduced in numbers without being benefited in condition. Examples of the consolidation of pastoral areas, accompanied by the removal and dispersion of the humblest classes connected with the land, might be found in various parts of the Central Highlands of rather ancient date, and on the Western Coast belonging to a more recent period, notable examples of which were submitted to us in connection with the districts of Moreverne, in Argyllshire, and Glenelg, in Inverness-shire. We have, however, selected the parish of Bracadale, in Skye, as a typical instance, and, in regard to the reduction of numbers, not of an extreme character."

The Commissioners then proceed to give further figures with which I will not weary the Committee. I think all hon. Members from Scotland, and most of those from England, will understand the principles involved in this Bill; but I may say that the examples quoted by the Royal Commission may be taken to represent the whole of the country from Caithness to the South of Argyllshire, and that 25 per cent belong to the class for whom I am now pleading. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Trevelyan) indicated that it was the intention of the Government to limit the operation of it to existing circumstances, and he added that in no case would they attempt to redress the past. They would treat existing crofters as worthy of some redress; but persons who have ceased to be crofters and become cottars would be worthy of nothing except the payment of their funeral expenses. Now, I think that the right hon. Gentleman made a great mistake in limiting the provisions of the Bill to one class. The measure will certainly fail to secure contentment in the country unless the scope of the Bill is largely extended. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Government wish to do is to fix upon the land those who are now there. It is something like the story we have heard of the travelling game of chess. The game has been played out, and there are few men left on the board; but by some mechanical arrangement they are fixed in their places. The few places which exist in the Highlands from which the crofters have not been exterminated are like those on this chess board; and they are occupied by the poor cottars I am speaking of. What I want is to have the whole of the men placed on the board, and the machinery arranged for fixing them properly in their places. I trust that the Government will accept the proposal I now make to them, and will endeavour to do justice to a class quite as deserving as the crofters—certainly, if suffering gives a claim, even more deserving than the crofters who remain. Although some of them may not be the men who have been evicted, they are, nevertheless, the immediate descendants of evicted tenants. If the Government consent to accept my Amendment, I think they will find that the Bill will slip through Committee much more easily. The principle I am contending for is an exceedingly small one—namely, that the provisions of the measure should be made to contribute to the greatest good of the greatest possible number, instead of, as is now the case, to the least possible good of the least possible number. Under these circumstances, I appeal to the Lord Advocate, who must know the feeling of Scotland on the subject, to yield to this reasonable request.

It is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the first place, I would ask the Committee to take into view the definition of cottar as given in the Bill. Clause 29 says—

"That a cottar means the occupier of a house with or without land, who pays no rent to the landlord."

[An hon. MEMBER: Or to anyone else.] Therefore, how is it possible for us to provide that a cottar shall not be removed from the holding of which he is tenant? It may be desirable to extend the clause to tenants; and we have a provision in regard to sub-tenants. I think the definition of a cottar always has been that he is a man who is living without paying rent. No doubt the lot of the cottar is one which we must all commiserate; and if we could do anything to alleviate his condition, consistently with sound principles, we should be glad to do so. I wish to point out, in the few remarks I shall have to make, that it has been charged against this Bill that it goes beyond the Report of the Royal Commission, inasmuch as it proposes to confer the benefits specified in it upon all crofters, however low their rents may be, instead of limiting them, as the Royal Commission did, to crofters paying £6 and upwards, or, in the view of a minority of the Commissioners, to crofters paying not less than £4 of rent, That is a matter which the Committee will have an opportunity of discussing on a later Amendment; but if the Amendment now proposed were carried, it would not be a question of giving benefits to existing tenants, but a question of giving land to persons who have none now, and who never had any. I say that advisedly. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) spoke of 25 per cent of the Highland population being cottars. That may be correct. There are a large number, no doubt; but I will venture to say that in other parts of the country there is a much larger proportion of the population who are landless in that sense; and, therefore, if we were to accept the hon. Member's view, we should be driven to the general obligation of giving land to every individual. The hon. Member says that one-fourth of the entire population have no right to land, and he proposes to meet their case by this Amendment. Now, I say that this is a proposal of the very largest scope. It is not a question of the relations between existing landlords and existing crofters, but of assigning portions of land to those who have it not, and who have no historical claim to it. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read a few lines from the Report of the Royal Commission in order to show what is meant by cottars. It is the case that those persons who are called cottars in the Bill, and who are commonly known as cottars in the Highlands, are, in reality, squatters living on land to which they have no legal right or title. The Royal Commission, in their Report, say as to this matter—

"The social problem in the Highlands and Islands is complicated by the prevalence of sub-tenancy and squatting. Where this practice is least injurious it takes the form of cottars' holdings, in which the occupiers pay a stipulated rent to the farmer in money or service, and may be regarded as occasional farm servants. A more unhappy case is where the offspring of the recognized occupiers of township holdings remain and multiply on the ground, either sharing the narrow dwelling of the head of the family, or putting up habitations in defiance of estate regulations. But the evil assumes its darkest complexion in the Long Island, where in some places, in the waste, there are crowds of squatters who construct hovels, appropriate land, and possess pasture stock, but pay no rent, obey no control, and scarcely recognize any allegiance or authority. These poor people support themselves by casual labour in the country, by the simpler kinds of fishing, and by wandering elsewhere in quest of work. It is needless to say that they are a burden to the crofter and the proprietor, and that they are in a chronic state of poverty, degenerating, in bad seasons, to absolute destitution."—(P. 43.)

That is the class of persons to whom it is proposed, by a legislative enactment for the first time, to assign the occupancy of land. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) is well founded in the assertion he made, that, to some extent, these cottars are the descendants of evicted crofters; but in many cases they are the descendants of crofters who have not been evicted, but who, instead of going out into the world, as is done by other classes, have remained on the spot, partly, perhaps, owing to the want of means of communication, and partly from the want of knowledge. Anyone who is acquainted with Highland life knows that this is one of the greatest misfortunes, and that, whereas it would never occur that all the children of tenants in the more prosperous and civilized parts of the country would remain on the spot, these unfortunate persons too often never leave the locality in which they have been born, whether there is employment for them there or not. I hope that the establishment of better means of communication and the spread of education will remedy this evil, and that it will not hereafter be the custom, as it has been in the Highlands, for these persons to remain upon one spot where the holdings in the neighbourhood afford no reasonable means of subsistence. I have explained to the Committee the condition of the cottars; and, while I was quite prepared for an attack upon the Government, we have certainly had some attacks this evening which we did not think we should have had. The Government would have no defence if they assigned to every landless person ground which his condition would make it impossible that he could stock or do justice to. Unless the Committee are prepared to accept the view that every landless person in the Highlands, and, as far as I can see, in the Lowlands also, is to get a piece of land assigned to him, it is impossible to hold that cottars can be introduced to the benefits of the Bill. Would it be wise or kind to these poor people in the Highlands to continue them upon land where they find it impossible to obtain the means of subsistence? It is not merely a question of being a crofter tenant, or of not being a crofter tenant; but I maintain that it would not be an act of kindness to these people themselves to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. The Report of the Crofters' Commission described the poor cottars as being, in many cases, a burden to the crofter and to the proprietor, and as living in a state of poverty degenerating into destitution in bad seasons. Therefore, I put it to the Committee that the Amendment would not only involve an enormous extension of the principle of the Bill, but that it would introduce a principle which is not contained in the Bill. It is no part of the principle of the measure to assign land to every landless person in the Highlands. Its purpose is to give certain benefits to existing crofters; and if we were to go beyond that, I am afraid we should find ourselves landed in enormous difficulty, and that we should introduce a state of matters which would not be to the benefit, but, on the contrary, to the great disadvantage of the cottars themselves.

I am sorry to see that at the outset of the consideration of this Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has felt it his duty to meet the Amendment of the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) with such a direct negative. The Bill has been brought forward for the benefit of the Highlands, but one-fourth of the population of the Highlands consist of what are called "cottars;" and the Government now say—"We cannot give to them, in any shape or form, the benefits which we propose to confer upon the crofters." What is it that the Government are giving to us? They are not giving us one-halfpenny of money, and they simply propose to allow us to take land for which we shall be required to pay a fair rent. Is that such a great privilege? Whatever it is, we simply ask that the cottar shall be placed in the same position as the crofter. A great many of them are evicted crofters, or the children of evicted crofters. We have heard a good deal about emigration. Why should these poor people emigrate, and vacate the land for those they leave behind them? What they say is—"Why should we emigrate when there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land we can cultivate and render valuable?" They maintain that the land was not made for a few landlords, but for the benefit of the people; and, therefore, they do not feel inclined to move away from the land and leave it in the undisputed possession of the landlords. The landlords themselves can emigrate if they desire; and under these circumstances I do not see why the Committee, for a moment, should accept the views of the Lord Advocate. The Government do not propose to give us much. The Bill simply allows the people to possess the original right to the land to be able to take it at a fair rent. Why should we say to the crofters—"If you want land you can have it, as you have already an acre or two of land;" and then say to the cottar—"You have no land at all, but only half an acre of garden ground. Your position is therefore very different, and we will do nothing for you at all." I certainly hope the Committee will not adopt the view of the Lord Advocate. We have heard the Highlands spoken of as if they were most uncivilized. The Lord Advocate talked of more civilized places in the South. If poverty means want of civilization, then certainly there is a good deal of it in the Highlands; but if acuteness, intelligence, good manners, and good breeding are to count, there is quite as much civilization in the Highlands as there is in the South; indeed, as far as my experience goes, there is a great deal more, and the people of the Highlands will compare favourably with any other class of persons in the Kingdom. The Government say they will be glad to do everything they can to alleviate the condition of these people. What I want them to do is to give to all of them a fair start—cottars, crofters, and everybody else. We do not ask for land without the means of stocking it. If the Government will not help the cottars in that direction their friends may not be able to supply them with funds to stock their small holdings, and they might find that not one-fourth of these cottars would ask for land at all. They have no money to stock it with; they would, therefore, not ask for it; and, consequently, the benefit which the Government intend to confer on them by this Bill is not quite so great a benefit as they suppose. I do not see why, for a moment, the Committee should concur with the Lord Advocate in supposing that any great amount of benefit will be conferred by this Bill either upon the crofters or the cottars. All that I ask for both classes is simply that justice should be done to them.

I would point out that what the Lord Advocate has said is quite evident from the drafting of the Bill, which defines that a—

"Cottar means the occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord;"

but, as has also been pointed out from passages in the Report of the Royal Commission, there are many cases in which these cottars do pay rent to tenants, and in other cases render services which are equivalent to rent. Not merely is that the case, but I find that there is a provision in the Bill which I think explains the idea which has been expressed in regard to the cottar as distinguished from the crofter. Clause 9 gives compensation to the cottar for improvements on removal. It provides that—

"When a cottar is removed from his dwelling and any land or buildings occupied by him in connection therewith, he shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements;"

and Sub-section (c.) of that clause gives a Proviso that—

"Such improvements have not been executed in virtue of the stipulations of a lease or in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings."

In other words, they get the ground on which they squat on condition of improving it by putting their labour into it, and yet they are now told that they are not to come under the benefits of the Bill because they do not pay rent. But they pay what is equivalent to rent. I think the case of the cottars illustrates the inconvenience of the Government appealing to the Report of the Royal Commission as if the Bill had been drafted in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of that Commission. The Commissioners recommended that certain substantial benefits should be conferred upon the cottars, and made provision not that cottars who had no land should receive a share of it, but that when vacancies occurred in the townships the case of the cottars should be taken into consideration among others, and proposed that they should be given other independent improvements in the shape of permanency of tenure—for instance, such as not being removable with less than a year's notice. Some of these benefits are included in the Bill, but not to the extent recognized in the Report of the Royal Commission. The reference which I have made to Sub-section (c.) of Clause 9 shows that, although direct rent may not be paid to the landlord, what is equivalent to rent is paid as a condition of occupancy, and for that reason I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

This matter has been fully considered by the crofter Members, who are determined to fight it to the last, as, in point of fact, they told the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) the other day. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) has given some statistics in reference to the crofters and cottars; but I should like, although very briefly, to give a little more insight into the condition of the cottars. In one of the Islands in the county of Inverness two-thirds of the land are held in two farms; but there are, nevertheless, 73 cottars upon that Island. Upon South Uist there are 160 cottars who do not own land, while there are 11 tacksmen with gigantic farms. And, in addition to these 160 cottars and 11 tacksmen, there are 36 farm labourers who are anxious to get land. In the Island of Skye there are upwards of 1,200 cottars who have no land. I would ask the Government whether, when they brought in this Bill, they did so with a real intention of endeavouring to settle the question. I am quite sure that it is utterly impossible to do so if the cottars are to be kept out of its benefits. I must say that it was with great regret I found the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate taking up so strong and decided a stand on the subject. I fully concur in the remarks which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross (Dr. R. McDonald) that the Crofter Members are prepared to fight out the case of the cottars to the last, and I hope they will have the intelligent support of the House generally.

I understood the Lord Advocate to give two reasons for refusing to accept this Amendment, and thereby give land to the cottars. The first was that they have no land at all; and the second was that they are a burden upon the crofters. I could understand these two reasons if they had been used on the opposite side of the House. Who in the world should land be given to by the Bill but those who have not got it now? It is by acting on the opposite principle that we have got into our present difficulties. It has been the giving of the land to the rich which has brought the country to its present position. We have been reduced to want because the land has been given to the rich. We give the land to those who already have too much of it, and you take it away or give it not to those who really require it. I believe it will be in the recollection of hon. Members that some years ago a number of convicts whose term had expired gave a great deal of trouble to the community. Government were at their wits' end to know what to do with them, and finally they thought it expedient to give each of them 40 acres of land. After that they had no further trouble with them. That, I think, is exactly what would happen in Scotland if the land were fairly distributed among the people. There would be no further difficulty at all. The difficulties which it is found are now quite impossible to get over would be readily surmounted if you will allow the people a fair opportunity of getting the land and working upon it. We are told that the cottars who are now squatting on the land are a burden to the crofters. How can they be otherwise than a burden upon the crofters if they have no land? Land is the natural means by which a working man can get a living, and, if you deprive him, they are obliged to be a burden to somebody. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for the facts he has supplied us with; but I do hope that the Committee will apply them in an exactly opposite direction.

Before the Committee come to a decision upon this Amendment, I think we ought to be agreed as to what a cottar is. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said, as I understood him, that the meaning of the term "cottar" is that he is the inhabitant of a house without land—that he pays no rent to a landlord or to anybody else. Now, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really suppose that the cottar pays no rent to anyone? Is the middleman in no sense the landlord? I want to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers that a man who occupies a house, or holds a garden or a kail-yard, is to be classed as a crofter or a cottar? There are, I think, three distinct classes among the people of the Highlands and Islands—the crofter, who is the tenant of the holding as specified in the Bill; the squatter, whom I understand the Lord Advocate to mean by the word "cottar;" and a class of cottar who is a small tenant paying a small rent, perhaps, to another tenant, partly in kind and partly in money. I want to know which of the last two classes is included in the Bill?

It is certainly desirable that there should be a clear understanding as to what the meaning of the Amendment is. The principle of the Amendment appears to me to be the giving of the benefits provided by the Bill to a class of persons who are at present not in the occupation of any land at all. The Bill, as it stands, is undoubtedly applicable to all crofters; and a crofter is defined to be the tenant of a holding from year to year who habitually resides on his holding, the annual rent of which does not exceed £30 in money, and which is situated in a crofting parish. The holding itself is defined to be any arable or pasture land, so that any person who is in the occupation of either arable or pasture land is a crofter, and will come within the scope of the Bill. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), certainly a person would not be a crofter under this clause who is merely in the occupation of a house and a garden; but if he is in the occupation of arable land or pasture land which is not merely a garden, then he will come within the scope of the Bill. Now, what is the proposal contained in this Amendment? The proposal in the Amendment is to make all the clauses of the Bill applicable to cottars and persons in the occupation of houses without any land. I would ask the Committee to consider for a moment what the effect would be. It is a Bill which gives compensation to tenants for improvements in regard to holdings. The crofters will get the benefit of the compensation for improvements, because the provisions of the Bill are made specially applicable to them. But is it seriously proposed to apply a clause dealing with the enlargement of holdings to persons in the occupation of houses without land at all? I was much surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) speak so strongly in support of this Amendment, because I observe that in the Report of the Royal Commission, in which my hon. Friend concurred, an opinion is expressed that it would be most inexpedient to extend the benefits proposed even to crofters who are in the occupation of premises rented at less than £6 a-year. My hon. Friend, no doubt, objected to that Report; but he appended a Memorandum to the Report, in which he said that crofters whose premises were not rented at more than £4 a-year should not be admitted. Now, it is difficult for me to see that if it is considered inexpedient to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission to crofters occupying at a less rent than £4, why we should consider it expedient to apply them to persons who occupy no land at all. It would be an aggravation of the present evils which this Bill is intended to remedy if the Committee were to apply the clause for the enlargement of occupation to persons having houses with no land at all. It would necessarily lead to the continuance of the system of sub-division, and would operate against the consolidation of holdings, which is certainly one of the benefits that will, I hope, follow the passing of the Bill.

The Committee have not yet had any express or precise definition of the term "cottar." The Bill states that it is to mean—

"The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."

There are many occupiers who pay rent to the landlord and also to the superior tenant. Are they included in the benefits of the Bill or not? [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: No.] Then all those who pay rent to the landlord will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I am taking the case of the occupier of a house who does pay rent to the landlord.

He is not a crofter, and, therefore, in no way entitled to the benefits of the Bill—by which my hon. Friend means, I suppose, the affirmative benefits—namely, fixity of tenure, fair rent, and enlargement of holding. The definition both of a crofter and a cottar is contained in Section 29 of the Bill, which provides that it is to mean—

"A tenant of a holding from year to year, who habitually resides on his holding, the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds in money, and which is situated in a crofting parish."

The "holding" means—

"Any piece of land held by a crofter, consisting of arable or pasture land, or of land partly arable and partly pasture, and which has been occupied and used as arable or pasture land (whether such pasture land is held by the crofter alone or in common with others) for a period of not less than five years prior to the passing of this Act, but does not include garden ground only, appurtenant to a house."

No person who does not satisfy that condition is entitled to the affirmative benefits of the Bill. We propose to give to the cottar class the benefit of the extension of the principle of compensation, inasmuch as they have been allowed, without objection, to put up premises on land, and we say that they shall not be turned out without being compensated; but I understand that the question my hon. Friend asks now applies to a person without land who pays no rent to the landlord, and he contrasts that with the position of some other person who pays rent to someone who may be a sub-tenant. But a sub-tenant is not entitled, under the Bill, to extend his holding, and we propose to make it a statutory condition to the crofter as long as the holding is sub-let. Sub-letting, I am sorry to say, is the addition of an enormous evil to the squatting power of the cottar. No person who does not affirmatively possess the requisites of the crofter can secure the benefits of the Bill.

I understand the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but there is another point which I desire to submit. The definition laid down by the Bill is—

"The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."

Well, what I want to know is, whether, in the case of the cottar paying some rent, he is to be deprived of his condition of cottar, and is not to come into the benefits of Clause 9? So far as I am able to understand the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, it is that this Bill lays down the Scriptural principle that to him who hath shall be given, while from him who hath nothing shall be taken away even that which he hath. I do not think it is desirable to discuss the question further than to obtain a clear definition of the question I have raised. Clause 9 provides that certain compensation shall be given to the cottar; and Clause 29 defines that a cottar means—

"The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."

Therefore a cottar who pays 5s. a-year to the landlord must be understood to be deprived of the benefits of this Bill.

This is one of the three points we consider to be vital in the Bill; and if the clause is carried in its present form, and all the other Amendments relating to the cottars are kept out, we shall not consider that the Bill is worth having. In the first place, the clause strikes out one-fourth of the inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from the benefits of the Bill; and it will, undoubtedly, intensify their present condition of distress. There is, however, one class of cottar which has not yet been mentioned, and that is those who have been cleared away from the tenements they formerly occupied, and who are squatting now on waste lands not owned by anybody. A large number of crofters who have been evicted from the townships in order that big farms and deer forests might be made have gone to these waste lands and squatted on them. They have reclaimed a considerable portion of such waste lands, and there they are, owning no landlord. They have as much right to the land as anybody else; and yet this clause of the Bill will keep them out from the benefits of the Act. The Lord Advocate has entirely ignored the economical conditions of the Highlands, as well as the Report of the Royal Commission, which was that you should make the township the element you should go upon. I trust that hon. Members will support us on this point—namely, that when there is an extension of the township one-fourth of the population comprised in the cottar class shall get their fair share. In the enlargement of individual holdings the compensation given for making additions, such as fencing pasture land, will be of very little worth unless you give the land to the township and the cottar as well as to the crofter.

The distinction which has been drawn between the crofter and the cottar is a very false one. In the Bill itself the cottar is defined to be—

"The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord."

But in the Report of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland there is a definition of the terms "crofter" and "cottar." The Commissioners say—

"The classes whose condition we have been directed to study are designated as crofters and cottars. By the word 'crofter' is usually understood a small tenant of land with or without a lease, who finds in the cultivation and produce of his holding a material portion of his occupation, earnings, and sustenance, and who pays rent directly to the proprietor. The term 'cottar' commonly imports the occupier of a dwelling with or without some small portion of land, whose main subsistence is by the wages of labour, and whose rent, if any, is paid to a tenant and not to the landlord. The crofter is a small farmer who may live partly by the wages of labour; the cottar is a labourer who may have some share in the soil. But these definitions are deceptive, for there are crofters who are sub-tenants under tacksmen; and there are many cottars who pay rent to the owner. The distinction between the two classes is more easily felt and understood than delineated. Nor is a strict definition necessary. For the purposes of this Inquiry and Report we limit the class of crofters to tenants paying not more than £30 annual rent; but we are unable to fix any point in rental below which the crofter descends into the cottar class."—(P. 3.)

The Lord Advocate has stated that a sub-tenant ought not to be entitled to any of the benefits of the Bill; but the Report of the Royal Commission says "that there are some cottars who are sub-tenants;" and it says, further, that "there are many cottars who pay rent to the owners." Therefore, they took a course which would exclude some crofters and some cottars, but would, at the same time, admit some of both classes. The Report of the Commission further states—

"Of the terms under which the smaller tenants held their possessions no definite account is presented; but it is assumed that they were entitled to security of tenure, subject to rent and services, as the descendants and successors of those subordinate members or dependants of a family who in former ages won the land for the clan and maintained the fortunes of the chief by their swords. This claim to security of tenure is held to have been in some sort transmitted to existing occupiers."—(P. 5.)

Further on the Commissioners say—

"There have been in some districts from an ancient date small tenants holding farms in common, and paying rent direct to the proprietor. Such, undoubtedly, existed in considerable numbers in the latter half of the century. In these cases the small tenants occupying large areas at low money rents, and little vexed by services to the landlord, who was remote or indulgent, no doubt enjoyed a life of tolerable case and abundance, diversified from time to time by the deprivations caused in years of scarcity. Of such a state of existence there are some indications which it is consolatory to identify among the painful records of penury and oppression which form the burden of the contemporary literature devoted to the subject. The larger proportion of the land in the Highlands and Islands was, however, held by tacksmen or leaseholders from the proprietor or chief, and the mass of cultivators lived under their sway as sub-tenants at will, paying rent in money, kind, and service."—(P. 5.)

This mass of persons, who are really crofters, are to be excluded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition from deriving any benefit from the main provisions of the Bill. And now I come to the real point of the definition. It is stated that the cottar is merely a sort of sub-tenant, with a smaller amount of land and less stock than the crofter. And yet between the two classes, which had originally the same rights, a hard line is to be drawn—one class is to have considerable benefit, but the other is to have none at all. The only distinction seems to be that these are the men who have been the least able to resist the depredations of the landlords.

I hope the Committee will support the Lord Advocate when we go to a division. I believe there will be found to be on all sides of the House a very general desire to support the Government in their endeavour to settle this question. There are many hon. Members who may think that the Bill of the Government goes too far; but who will, nevertheless, vote with Her Majesty's Ministers in support of it, because they are of opinion that the Government have shown an earnest desire to consider the rights of all concerned, and to settle the question in as satisfactory a manner as the case will permit. The object of the Bill, as I understand, is to maintain the crofters in their possessions; but the arguments which we have heard in support of the Amendment go very much beyond that. The object of the Amendment is not to maintain the crofters in their possessions, but to take the land from those to whom it belongs and to give it to those who have no claim to it whatever. For my part, I cannot see, if you are to take land by compulsion and give it to the cottars who do not possess it now, and who never have possessed it, why you should stop there. Why not take the whole land of the country and divide it up? It seems to me that the arguments brought forward in favour of the Amendment really carry you to that extent. I shall certainly vote in support of the Lord Advocate when we come to a division; and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be supported by a large majority of the Committee.

I entirely concur in the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane)—namely, that the definition of a cottar contained in Clause 29 of the Bill shall mean—

"The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord,"

is ridiculous, if you provide that the cottar shall lose the benefit of the Bill by the fact that he does pay some rent. I would suggest this alteration in the definition—that a cottar shall mean a person, with or without land, not paying rent to a crofter. I am satisfied that when the Definition Clause is reached it will require a considerable amount of overhauling.

I believe that if an Amendment of this kind were carried the whole benefit which the most sanguine advocate of the Bill can anticipate from it in the Highlands of Scotland would be done away with. I am satisfied that if we were to adopt such an Amendment, we should, by our legislation, inflict upon the soil and upon the population, who cannot now by any possibility extract an adequate livelihood from the soil, an absolutely irreparable injury, compared with which all the injury done by the most reckless landlord who has evicted his tenants in order to make sheep-farms would sink into insignificance. One hon. Gentleman who spoke to-night talked of the natural right of every man to rent some of the soil. Another hon. Gentleman—I think the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders)—seemed to regard as a universal panacea for all social ills that every man should be put in the occupation of a holding of 40 acres of land. Now, it matters very little what the Committee declare the natural right of every man to be, because, unfortunately, the law would make short work of his natural right. Whatever may be the natural right of these squatters to rent land which they cannot cultivate or stock, the fact is that there is no land for them to rent; and it matters nothing what a man's natural rights may be if the laws of geometry are altogether against him. I feel very keenly on this point. Hon. Members who take the view of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) absolutely ignore the very root and origin of the evil from which the people of the Highlands suffer. The root and origin of the evil—and it is recognized by every impartial investigator—is that for the whole population there is not adequate employment; and what advantage can result from rooting on the soil those who at this moment cannot find employment upon it? Now, are you going to deny to others who become discontented in their turn and become squatters, the rights you propose to give to the existing squatters? The existing squatters have come there by no arbitrary Act; but simply because the State regulations were not adequate to keep them off land to which they had no right or title whatever. There can be no doubt that if we pursue this legislation the race of squatters will augment and multiply. What are you going to do with the addition to the race of squatters? Are you going to fix them on the soil, and to carry on the same system ad infinitum? If so, how long will it be before the chronic want of which you now complain will turn into chronic starvation? This is in no sense a landlord's question. It is a question vitally affecting the prosperity not of the landlords, but of the existing crofters, and it is in their name, and their name alone, that I most earnestly implore the Committee to support the Government in resisting the Amendment.

I rise to move to insert, after the word "crofter," the words "or fisherman." If there is in the Western Highlands of Scotland, besides the crofters, a class of people endeavouring to exist upon difficult conditions—if there is one class more than another who require the protection which this legislation is intended to give, it is the class of fishermen. Now, the occupants of houses without gardens are not to be included in the provisions of the Bill at all. By an Amendment on the Paper I understand that the Government are willing to include fishermen in the cottar class. The privilege of the cottar class is that if they are dispossessed they will be compensated for any improvements they have made. Now, what I wish is to have the fisherman secured in his house; I wish to give him fixity of tenure, and secure him also fair rent. I do not wish to give him power to get more land, but to protect him against an arbitrary advance of rent on the part of the landlord. I think it very desirable that there should be an improvement in the harbours in the Western Highlands, and that other advantages should be given for the development of the fisheries; but there is too much reason to fear that if that improvement took place the landlord would come in and increase the fisherman's rent. Now, I propose this Amendment for the purpose of securing to the fisherman fixity of tenure and fair rent, in view of the improvements which I hope to see, even if those improvements are effected at the public expense.

I am afraid that we cannot assent to this Amendment. But we have made what we think a reasonable and adequate provision by putting an Amendment on the Paper for the compensation of fishermen. The Amendment provides that a fisherman shall be defined as a person carrying on the occupation of fishing, and living in a house of which he pays the rent, and that he shall not be removed without compensation. To give fixity of tenure to any person simply because he follows a certain occupation would be entirely beyond the intention of the Bill. I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) stated an argument of a kind which seems to tend in a direction opposite to his Amendment. The hon. Member said, and we are fully alive to the view, that the best way to ameliorate the condition of the fisherman is to give him fixity of tenure. But there are many other trades the members of which would be benefited by fixity of tenure; and if you are to give fixity of tenure to the fisherman you will be required to give it to the blacksmith, carpenter, grocer, postmaster, and others who occupy houses. Whenever you get beyond what we have stated to be the principle of this Bill you come to a class of cases not in the least peculiar to the Highlands and Islands, but to all parts of the country abutting on the sea-shore. Therefore, it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment. But, reverting to the Amendment just disposed of, I may say, with reference to statements which have fallen from several hon. Members relative to the state of the cottar, that we will consider as to whether any alteration should be made in the definition of the term.

There is one consideration I desire to submit to the Lord Advocate, and it is the necessity for the fishermen to occupy sites close to the sea and in localities suitable for hauling up boats, for nets and lines. They are thereby specially exposed to the action of parties who now lay claim to rights over lands needed for fishings. The fishermen cannot evade extortionate demands by a change of residence, as the classes named can do. I have no doubt the payments by fishermen for sites have since my boyhood largely increased. The additions have not been for benefits conferred by the proprietors, but are solely due to the enterprize of the fishermen. Indeed, the privileges of this class have been lessened. The rights to the foreshores have been taken away in a form dangerous to the rights now claimed over fishing sites by parties whose titles to the land might, perhaps, be justly questioned.

I think the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate does not hold good with regard to my Amendment. He says that if we give fixity of tenure to the fisherman we shall have to give it to the blacksmith. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to treat the fisherman in an exceptional way by lending money to develop the fishing industry. Now, it is quite easy to do this at the public expense; but, at the same time, he makes no provision for giving the fisherman the benefit of it. I say that if we spend money on nets or harbours, or in establishing improved communication with the Islands, there is the risk that the landlord will deprive the fishermen of the benefit of it by the raising rent. I wish to provide against that by giving the fisherman security of tenure and fair rent.

I wish to say a few words in support of the contention of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). It is not an uncommon thing in the East of Scotland to find certain fishing dues charged by proprietors to fishermen, which, at so much per man amounts, in some cases, to £10 a-year. If the fisherman refuses to pay these charges the landlord may raise his rent upon him, or order him to quit the house at the next term. This man, although he has made the industry for himself, is not protected. Why, I ask, should he be deprived of his house; and why should the proprietor have power to raise the rent? There is no class of the community which more requires the protection of the Legislature with regard to their holdings than fishermen. Their circumstances are exceptional; they have often no alternative but to leave the district or pay these dues; and I hope the Government will give an undertaking that their case shall be dealt with in the way proposed in this Amendment. It is a very hard thing that fishermen, when they have created their industry, should be made to pay, because they have no alternative, £50 an acre for land which is not worth more than £1 10s. an acre.

Mr. Courtney, I beg to move to insert, after the word "crofter," in page 1, line 9, the words "the annual rent of whose holding in money is four pounds or upwards." The object of this Amendment is to confine the operation of the Bill to those crofters who are not of the poorest class—to those who may be expected to derive real benefit from its provisions—and not extend it to those to whom its provisions would be a snare and no advantage whatever. It will be observed that the clause has reference to tenure: it proposes to give to the crofter something like fixity of tenure under reasonable conditions. Now, there is no doubt that this privilege would be accepted by the crofter as an encouragement to seek his livelihood, to a greater or less extent, in connection with his holding. But such encouragement would be no kindness to the very poor crofter. A man who has a plot of ground the extent or value of which may be measured by the fact that he pays a rent of only £2 or £3, cannot depend in any degree upon the croft for his living; and to lead such a crofter to think of himself as settled upon his land by Act of Parliament would only be to make him less likely to exert himself to improve his position in other ways. From the Report of the Commissioners, and from the experience of all who know the Highlands, we find that the great difficulty of doing good by legislation of this kind is found in the fact that the crofters are so poor. It is proposed by this Bill to give an extension of holdings; but, as has been already said to-night, an extension of his holding is of questionable value to a crofter who has not the capital to stock the croft. In the case, then, of very poor crofters this objection holds with special force. We find that by this Bill itself an extension of holding is only to be given when the Commissioners are satisfied that the crofter is able to work and to stock the increased holding. That, of course, cannot be said to apply in the case of a very poor man. Then the question is, have we no sympathy with the very poor crofter? Yes; we have sympathy with him, but we wish our sympathy to be of a practical kind. We feel for the poor crofter, who is in a deplorable condition at present; but our desire is to give him real and effectual assistance. We wish to help him out of his misery, and not to fix him in it. We wish to help him out of his misery by opening up better outlets for his industry and by giving facilities and encouragement for more remunerative employment. To encourage these poor crofters to look for relief in the continued occupation of their small holdings, is only to deceive them. On this subject I will refer to the opinion of the Commissioners. In their Report this point is fully discussed, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will quote a passage from page 39. In the previous part of their Report the Commissioners say that their suggestion refers to crofters who pay a rent of £6 and upwards; and, treating of improving leases, they report of the smaller tenants in the following terms:—

"It may be objected to the scheme which has been proposed, that the protection and encouragements afforded to the higher class of crofters above the level of the £6 line are withheld from those of an inferior condition, forming in most localities, we regret to say, the vast majority, and who may need such safeguards equally or more. This must be admitted. The poorer sort are here endowed with no formal security against eviction or excessive rents. The inequality of treatment is manifest and may appear unjust. If we allow it we do so not from a want of sympathy for the class excluded—we accept an evil to avoid a greater evil still."

And they continue—

"To invest the most humble and helpless class of agricultural tenants with immunities and rights which ought to go hand in hand with the expansive improvement of the dwelling and the soil, would tend to fix them in a condition from which they ought to be resolutely though gently withdrawn."

These are the words of the Report of the Commissioners, a Report which is signed by all the Commissioners. But in an Appendix to the Report the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) states his objection to the particular figure which is used in the Report—the figure of £6—as the minimum. He says—

"I do not wish to perpetuate small crofts;" but "the figure of £4 would, in my opinion, be, though high enough, a fair one, and having been recognized by the Valuation Act of 1854, has a distinct significance."

So that the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire is that £4 is the proper limit. I have taken advantage of that suggestion in the Amendment which I now beg to propose for the acceptance of the Committee.

This is an Amendment proceeding in an exactly opposite direction to the last two Amendments, and just as we felt it our duty to resist the last two Amendments we feel it our duty to resist this. We think we have hit the proper mean between the two courses. There is no doubt that the Report of the Commissioners does say that in the judgment of those who reported many of the advantages could not be fully enjoyed by persons holding crofts under £6, or, in the judgment of one Commissioner, under £4; but when regard is had to the statistics given by the Commissioners, and to the obvious fact that upon their statistics there would not have been any benefit whatever given to somewhere about nine-tenths of the population, and also to the hope which we cherished of great advantage being derived from the development of the fishing industry, aided, as we propose to aid it, we have thought it right that every crofter should have the benefits of the Bill, even although his rent may be comparatively small. I understand that the objections which are taken resolve themselves substantially to this—It would be an encouragement to very small crofters to remain upon the land. Well, there would be no compulsion upon such persons to remain on the land. I do not suppose any of us wish to see them evicted from the land—turned off the land by force; but even when they get the benefits we propose to confer upon them by this Bill they will be as free to go voluntarily as they ever were. Therefore, it is very difficult to see how there would be any fixing by way of attachment to the ground by the carrying of this provision. It is very true, no doubt, that the mere cultivation of a croft of a £6 or a £4, or a less rent, will not be adequate to sustain a family, or even to sustain a crofter without a family; but then it is notorious that a very large number of the inhabitants of the Western Highlands and Islands pursue other callings along with that of the cultivation of the soil—particularly they pursue the calling of fishing. Now, I do not think that the holding of a small croft of the size referred to would at all distract the attention of the crofter from diligently pursuing the business of fishing. He would have a small patch of potato land, he would perhaps have a few beasts on the land—he would be much better off if he had both; and one of the greatest complaints made by those who have been too much restricted as regards their land is that they have no cows, and therefore no milk for their families. In like manner a great complaint has been that they had no potato ground. If it was simply a question between cultivating land or pursuing a more lucrative industry, there might be a great deal in the Amendment; but it is notorious that these men do have the opportunity of doing all they need to do on the croft, and their families do the rest—their families do the rest while they are engaged in fishing. I believe that those who are best acquainted with this matter feel that not only would it be an enormous disappointment to about nine-tenths of the crofter population if they were excluded from the benefits of the Bill, but that the ideas put forward against the extension of the benefits of the Bill to these people have no great amount of foundation. I have not referred on previous occasions to the statistics given as to the relative proportion in which the tenants under £4 or £6 stand to those above; but I have before me, on page 11 of the Crofter Commissioners' Report, the statement that of 420 crofters and cottars in Uig, Lewis, there are five who pay over £10 and under £30, 22 who pay between £6 and £10, and 393 who pay under £6. Now, if the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. Campbell) were carried, these 393 crofters and cottars would receive no benefit from the Bill. I believe that the case is not materially different in other parts of the country.

Mr. Courtney, I desire to give an illustration of how this Amendment would operate. I will take the county of Sutherland. In that county there are 2,500 crofter holdings; 500 crofter holdings are above the £4 limit and 2,000 are below it, so that by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell) four-fifths of the crofters of Sutherland would be deprived of any benefit under the Bill.

I can perfectly understand its being a strong reason for not making any alteration in the Bill in the direction of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) that it would cause great disappointment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate says that if there was any limit such as is described by the Committee and suggested by this Amendment, it would cause very great disappointment indeed. No doubt, it would, Sir; but I want to know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to tell this Committee that he believes that the ultimate result of this Bill will not be disappointment? It is not for the Legislature to pass measures which will merely give present satisfaction and present gratification to the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiates what is laid down distinctly by those who formed the Royal Commission, and who considered the matter with due care, and under whose advice the Government professed in bringing in this Bill to be acting, when he proceeds to do that which the Commission have practically declared will lead in the near future to an infinitely worse state of things than that which at present exists. It is not the duty of the Legislature and it is not the duty of a Government to evade present disappointment. In legislating, it is the duty of the Government, to act in such a way as shall produce permanent satisfaction. Now, Sir, the Royal Commission have most distinctly and clearly expressed their opinion that no permanent benefit—nay, not even any real benefit for a short time—is to be attained by taking any other course than dealing with the crofters who have very small crofts upon the footing that they shall be firmly but gently withdrawn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), who, undoubtedly, has taken a deep interest in this question and studied it carefully, is of the same opinion. There is no man who knows more about crofters than the hon. Gentleman. The Crofter Commission takes £6 as the limit; the hon. Member for Inverness-shire was unable to differ with them in their principle; but, feeling that the £6 limit would operate with some harshness in the case of many respectable people who might wish to better their position, he fixed the limit at £4, and that is the limit which is now proposed by this Amendment. This Amendment, therefore, gives effect to the views of the Gentleman upon the Crofter Commission who, probably, knows most about the crofters, and gives effect to the views of the whole Commission, though not to the full extent to which the other Members considered it advisable to do so. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate says—"Oh, but in not putting any limit into our Bill we had in view the possibility of the desirability of a great number of the people who had small crofts continuing to hold them, and by the development of the industry of fishing being able to get on extremely well with their £4 limit." But the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that when he drew this Bill and stated no limit in it, there was not a word about fishing in it, from beginning to end, and that it was only the pressure put upon the Government from this side of the House which led to fishing being included at all.

I would not interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman except upon a distinct matter of fact. I may say, with the most absolute assurance, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken on this point. It is a fact, and I state it as one who knows the fact, that before this Bill was put upon the Table of the House, it was arranged that there should be a Fishing Clause.

Exactly, Sir; the Government had not been able, up to the time when this Bill was completely drafted and handed to the Members of the House, to get the Gentlemen who represent the Treasury upon that Bench to allow them to put in clauses relating to fishing. I think that is a perfectly intelligible and correct statement of the situation. Again, Sir, the Lord Advocate forgets that in the latter part of his speech he made statements which were to a great extent inconsistent with themselves. In the first place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be a great advantage that these people who are to develop the fishing industry, should have their small holdings. But does he think, and does any hon. Member of this House think, that if you place crofters who practically may be paying only 25s. or 30s. as rent, in the position of getting grazing land, and bring up their crofts to the value of a £15 rent, it would tend to the development of the fishing industry? I venture to think it would do nothing of the kind, and I am sure those Members of the Committee who look at the matter from a common sense point of view will come to the same conclusion as myself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated no reason, and has given no explanation whatever, why he differs from the opinion of the Crofter Commission; but, I think we are entitled, before this Amendment is disposed of, to have from the Government some intelligible and intelligent reason why the reasons which were given by the Crofter Commission are to be set aside, and why we are to act in absolute defiance of the opinion expressed by the Commission and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh). If any reasons can be given to satisfy a reasonable mind that the Crofter Commission was wrong and that the opinion which they gave was incorrect, and if the Members of the Government can persuade the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire that he was wrong in the view he took upon the Commission, there would be no occasion whatever to press this Amendment; but to give reasons which do not touch the reasons given by the Crofter Commission, which in no way overcome them, and then to ask this Committee to vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) is, to say the least, unreasonable on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Give us a reason to show that the Crofter Commission was wrong, and there will be an end of the controversy; but, if that reason is not to be given, I think we ought to divide.

There is no doubt, Sir, that in this particular the Government have deviated from the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but I need scarcely say that it is not the function of a Royal Commission to prescribe to any Government what the particular provisions of any Bill introduced by the Government shall be. The function of a Royal Commission is to investigate and to report, so as to enable the Government to determine on their own responsibility what should be the provisions, in the form of a Bill, which they should submit to the House for adoption. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) says that no reason which is intelligible to an ordinary mind can be given, so far as he can see, for the course which the Government have taken in this matter. If my right hon. and learned Friend will give me his attention for a very few seconds, I will give one or two reasons which ought to satisfy any reasonable mind that the course the Government have chosen to pursue is the proper one. The statistics which have just been quoted, have disclosed to the Committee that the proportion in which the crofters whose holdings are less than £4 a-year stand relatively to those above, is something like 2,000 as against 500. [An hon. MEMBER: No; £6.]

I quoted the figures from the Report of the Royal Commission. In Sutherland there are 1,966 crofters whose holdings are below £4 a-year, and 548 whose holdings are above £4 a-year. Hon. Members can verify the figures by turning to the pages of the Commissioners' Report.

Those figures were quite in accordance with my own examination of the Report, and they have a most important bearing upon the present question. It is a fact that there are about four crofters whose holdings are rented below £4 a-year to every one crofter whose holding is rented above that figure. We cannot get rid of that fact. There the people are, living partly by agriculture and partly by fishing. What is to be done with them? This measure is introduced for the purpose of dealing with the grievances which the people of the Highlands have. The people who are engaged in the industry of agriculture are in the occupation of holdings so small that they are not able to make a living for themselves. Are you to pass an Act which is to exclude from its scope four-fifths of the people suffering from the grievances which you are endeavouring to remedy? I quite admit that it is a great misfortune that there should be so many people located there upon such very small holdings; but surely it is not a reasonable proceeding to pass a measure which, amongst other provisions, contains machinery for enlarging holdings, and yet not allow that measure to be applicable to the class of holdings which stands most in need of it. There is a very marked distinction between this proposal and that which was negatived in the last division. What the Government have done by including all crofters has not been to extend the Bill to those who are not at present engaged in the industry of agriculture, but simply to extend it to all persons who are at present engaged in that industry, and who are partly dependent upon it. The reason why the Bill is made applicable to them is that they are really the class who stand most in need of the remedy, and the Government do not see why the remedy should not be made applicable to them.

I will not detain the Committee more than a few minutes. I confess I have never been very greatly enamoured of this Amendment, and certainly the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—and his figure, I understand, are admittedly correct—would undoubtedly weigh with me very greatly. On the other hand, I have always been largely influenced by the Report of the Royal Commission—a Report produced by Gentlemen who gave great thought and trouble to the consideration of this question; and I have in my hand at this moment an opinion which was expressed at the time the Report was made by one Member of the Commission, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh). What the hon. Gentleman said is this—

"The figure of £4 would in my opinion be, though high enough, a fair one, and, having been recognized by the Valuation Act of 1854, has a distinct significance."

Now, Sir, I think the Committee would be glad to know what is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman now. Does he adhere to the opinion he then expressed, and, if not, will he be kind enough to state to the Committee what are the circumstances which have induced him to alter his opinion? I must confess that, after all the consideration the hon. Gentleman has given to the Crofter Question, the opinion which he may express will largely influence me in the vote I give.

It is quite true that on the Royal Commission I thought the limit of £4 a proper and reasonable one; but that figure referred to an improving lease which the Commission recommended. As that recommendation has not been taken up by the Government, I think myself quite at liberty now to approve, as I do thoroughly, of the proposal of the Government not to set up a limit.

hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

I rise, Mr. Courtney, to make a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who must feel that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell), in asking the Committee to consider the suggestion made by that responsible body, the Crofter Commission, has done good service to the discussion of this Bill. I understand the case of the Government to be this. They admit fully that there are districts in the Highlands where it is unfortunate these people, having very small tenements, should be congested; but they point out, on the other hand, which I quite admit, that there are parts of the Highlands where a man with a croft as small as £4, or £3, or £2, may make an adequate and substantial living, either by fishing or some other industry he can pursue in his neighbourhood. Therefore, it would appear, by the confession of the Government, that there are two distinct classes of crofters having holdings below £4, one a class which exists where no adequate employment can be found, and the other a class existing near good fishing, or where adequate employment either exists now or will exist when the fishing provisions proposed by the Government become law; and I would ask the Government whether they could not, between this and Report, consider the possibility of giving to the Land Commission some power of drawing a distinction between these two classes, while I should recommend strongly that under no circumstances should the total amount of land in the possession of the crofter community be diminished by one iota, or that one fragment should be added to a sheep farm or deer forest. I think, in the interest of the crofters themselves, crofts should be consolidated in certain parts of the Highlands—surely it would be for the benefit of the crofters that the very small crofts should be gradually diminished in number and the remaining crofts increased in size. Probably my hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) will not think it worth while to put the Committee to the trouble of a division on this subject; but I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will consider between this and Report proposals which, whether practical or not, he will see are founded upon a rational view of the wants and necessities of the Highland people.

I hope that the Government will consider seriously the suggestion that has now been made. The Lord Advocate said that the adoption of a £4 limit would exclude nine-tenths of the crofters from any enjoyment of the benefits of the Bill. Now, he has made a mistake. I have the figures with me, and I find that instead of nine-tenths there are not five-tenths who would be prejudicially affected by the adoption of the present Amendment. The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) says that four-fifths of the crofter population would be precluded from sharing in the benefits of the Bill; but he is equally mistaken. If the hon. and learned Gentlemen will look at the Return of the number of occupiers in Scotland, they will find that what I state is quite correct.

Mr. Courtney, I propose to omit the word "no," in line 12 of this clause, in order to make the line run "but he shall have power to assign his tenancy." The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), in introducing the Bill, said there was no historical right in the Highlands of Scotland to free sale, such as existed in Ireland. Now, the Ulster tenant right was originally limited to Ulster; but by the Irish Land Act Parliament extended the principle of free sale to the other three Provinces of the country. I think that practically, at the present time, the Ulster tenant right does exist in the Highlands of Scotland, because in a number of counties when a tenant leaves his farm he has a right of sale, and he does receive some payment. The incoming tenant not only pays something for the tenant right, but he takes upon himself the liabilities of his predecessor in the farm as well. I have not heard any argument against granting the right of assignment. Why should a crofter under the new conditions not have the same right that cottiers have in Ireland? Why should they not have the same right as a feuar had in selling his feu? If a crofter and a landlord become partners, the one giving land and the other giving his labour and capital, why should the crofter not have as much right to sell his capital and labour as a landlord has to sell his portion of the partnership? I should like to hear from right hon. Gentlemen something more than the statement that, historically, crofters have no right of sale. As a matter of right, as a matter of usage, the Ulster custom exists in the Highlands at the present time. The great bulk of the crofters, when they leave their farms, have the right to sell their holdings, and they do sell them. Now, the objection to my Amendment is that under the Compensation Clause crofters will have compensation for their improvements. But it seems to me they can receive no adequate or full compensation except they get the market price. Compensation for improvements simply means the getting from the landlord the price that one individual will give for the improvements; full compensation means selling the article and getting its full market value. I do not think a landlord would like to have his right of sale limited, and, if so, why should a crofter's right of sale be limited? It is time that the rights of those who hold personal property should be considered quite as much as the rights of those who hold real property. If men want to prevent the development of Socialism, let them stop the system of confiscating the property of others, and place all property in the same position. If they do that, perhaps they may prevent the growth of Socialism; but as long as they keep up the unjust privileges of the great as against the small, they will only aid and abet the development of Socialism.

This is a very important Amendment; but after the best consideration which the Government have been able to give to it, they have felt it their duty not to accept it, and I shall endeavour to state in a few words the grounds upon which we have come to that determination. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has proposed this Amendment in what he believes to be the interest of the crofters. Well, he will perhaps be surprised to hear that the Government oppose the Amendment in the interest of the crofters; we oppose it because we believe that its operation would be prejudicial instead of favourable to the crofters. This Amendment only takes effect when a crofter is about to leave his holding. It is proposed by the hon. Gentleman that a crofter who intends to surrender his holding in order to leave the locality or to adopt some other industry should have the option of selling his improvements as tenant right, as an alternative to adopting the remedies given him under the Bill. Now, what are the remedies of a crofter who has either to remove or to renounce his tenancy? Under the Bill, as it stands, he is entitled to be compensated for all his permanent improvements, receiving such sum as the Land Commission considers the proper value of the improvements; and the improvements are to be valued upon the principle of what they are worth to the incoming tenant. Now, my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) must contemplate that the crofter would get something more by the operation of the Amendment he proposes. Now, what is that something more? It is that he should be paid upon leaving his holding something by the crofter who is coming in, something which is in excess of what the Land Commission would consider the fair value of the permanent improvements. Now, what would be the effect of that? One of the objects of this Bill is that all persons who are in the position of crofters should occupy their holdings at a fair rent. If a crofter had the right to sell his tenant right, and if by such a sale he got something more for it than the Land Commission considered its fair value, the result would be that the incoming crofter would have to pay for the privilege of getting possession of the croft, not only the fair rent fixed, but a premium for the tenant right. The consequence is that while, on the one hand, you are by this Bill proposing to establish a system, and a perfect system, which will secure that the crofters in the occupation of holdings shall sit at a fair rent; by the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark)—an Amendment proposed upon the assumption that the crofter going out will get something more than he gets under the Bill—the incoming tenant would be deprived of some of the benefit which he would have if he came in under the procedure proposed by the Bill. ["No."] I hear someone say "No;" but if this Amendment is not to give the outgoing crofter more than he can get under the Bill, what is the object of it? [Dr. CLARK: It is to prevent the landlord getting it.] The Bill at present secures to the crofter full compensation for all improvements which he is leaving behind him, estimated by the Land Commission on the principle of the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant. If this Amendment is not proposed for the purpose of giving the outgoing crofter something more than the Bill gives, I cannot understand its purpose. And if the outgoing tenant is to get something more he must get it at the expense of the incoming tenant; and, therefore, this Amendment would have the effect of loading the incoming tenant with a disadvantage with which he would not be loaded if the Bill passed in its present form. In short, by the Bill as it at present stands, we give the existing crofter the right of occupation at a fair rent; but by the Amendment we would do much to seriously disturb the fairness of the rent. It is upon these grounds which, upon due consideration, have appeared to us to be important grounds in the interest of the crofter community, that we have come to the conclusion that we are not able to accept this Amendment.

I have an Amendment on the Paper further down; but I confess I had a good deal of diffidence in framing it on the ground, as alleged by the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), that there is no historical argument in favour of free sale as regards the crofters of Scotland. But that argument has been entirely thrown to the wind by the Government, and they oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) upon precisely the same ground as hon. Members opposite opposed free sale in the Irish Land Act, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) has practically used precisely the same arguments which were used against the Land Act, though he voted for that Act. It seems to me that the Government are taking up a very illogical position in this matter. They do not say that free sale is unknown in the Highlands; but they themselves profess to be better judges of the advantages to the crofters than some of the hon. Gentlemen who represent the crofters in this House. I must say that that seems to me a presumption which this House is not bound to accept. I still hold, as I held when the Land Act was passing through the House, that there is nothing in free sale which is really unfair to the landlord. I do not express merely my own opinion, but I would refer hon. Members to the evidence given before the Commission upon the Irish Land Question. In that evidence they will find the statement, again and again repeated by such high authorities as Lord Downshire's agent, The O'Conor Don, and Mr. Kavanagh, that free sale would not have the injurious effect the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher) supposes it would have. On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said in its favour. In the first place, it gets rid of the Compensation Clause, to which I am bound to say I have a great dislike. What are you going to compensate the crofter for, and how are you going to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount and extent of his improvements? Free sale, to put the matter succintly, appears to have these advantages for the landlord —it limits the value of the tenant right to a matter of fact and not to a matter of opinion, it offers a security for the repayment of arrears of rent, the tenant has an interest in keeping and leaving his farm in good order, and, above all, it enables a landlord to get rid without any difficulty, without any friction, of a crofter, and it affords a landlord a natural means of consolidating the holdings. For these reasons, which I have stated before in this House, reasons which at the time I stated thorn prevailed in the minds of the Government, I shall certainly go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark).

If I have read the Bill aright, its object is to root to the soil the crofters who at present occupy the land, and to give them not only compensation for their improvements but benefits beyond that—there are contingent rights secured to the crofters. Well, now, by this Amendment it is contemplated that the crofters shall have the benefit not only of selling the rights to their improvements, but of selling the contingent rights which are secured to them by this Bill. I cannot conceive anything which would be more likely to stimulate the sale of crofts and contingent rights than a provision of this kind, because the men would go into the market not only to dispose of the land they occupied, but the contingent rights which are guaranteed by this Bill. But it would have this further operation, as I understand, that not only the crofters, but the assignees of the crofters, would have the privilege of exercising the rights which are guaranteed by the Bill—not only the crofters themselves, not only the persons you contemplate benefiting, but those who have made speculative purchases would have the right to go for the increase of their holdings, and for the other advantages guaranteed under the Bill. Instead, therefore, of securing the crofters in their holdings, you would be inducing them to speculate in their holdings and contingent rights, you would bring in a class of purchasers who are totally unconnected with the crofts of the Highlands, and whom you never wished should profit by the Bill. It seems to me that the adoption of this Amendment would lead to an entire perversion of the Bill, and to the benefit of those who are in no way the object of your bounty.

Whatever may be said theoretically as to the merits of free sale, I think that, when upon this Bill a proposal is made to introduce the peculiar feature of the Irish land system into the tenure of Scotland, we ought to consider the practical effects of free sale in Ireland. Now, free sale arose from an unfortunate state of affairs in Ulster, by which there was a dual proprietorship of the land. In process of time the tenants of the other parts of Ireland claimed the right of free sale, and it was conceded to them. What has been the effect of free sale in other parts of Ireland? I must, first of all, make this general statement, that a tenant has a right in justice to compensation for all his own improvements; but he has no right to anything else. Well, the result of free sale in Ireland has been that tenant right is sold at such a price to the incoming tenant that he is deprived of all the capital which ought to aid him in stocking the land and raising the condition of agriculture. This is the simple reason why agriculture is more backward in Ireland than in any other country in Europe. You find that tenant right in Ireland means 10, 20, or 30 years' purchase. If a man who, perhaps by legacy, or by his industry in America or some other country, accumulates a little money, buys a wretched holding for the purpose of coming back to his native land, he gives a price for it which renders it absolutely impossible for him to reap any advantage from the purchase; and the end of it all is that we have now, staring us in the face, this Irish Land Question, which is going to rend the Empire asunder. These are simple facts. [Laughter.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon this matter with something akin to amusement; but I look upon it with very serious concern. As I have said, agriculture in Ireland is more backward than in any other country in Europe, while rents in Ireland are lower than those in any other country. [Laughter.] By laughing, hon. Members only show their ignorance of the subject. The rent which is paid to the landlord in Ireland is less than that paid in England or Scotland, or upon the Continent; but the amount which is paid by the interest on the money the tenant has expended in purchasing out the former holder, raises the rent to such an extent that it is impossible for a man to reap any advantage from his holding. I will be no party to introducing into Scotland that principle of free sale which has been so unfortunate in its results in Ireland. Tenant right worked very well in Ulster for a number of years; but now you see the consequences. In the present depressed times no rent is paid at all, and the argument is that the tenant cannot get his rent out of the land. There is no reason why tenants in Scotland should have any claim for other rights not given under this Bill. The Bill gives the tenant fixity of rent for the statutable period of 15 years, which is given in the Irish Land Act. What right has a tenant to anything more, if he leaves his holding, than the value of his own improvements? Any other capital ought to be carefully preserved to the incoming tenant, that he may stock his holding and work it properly. For these reasons I shall certainly oppose the Amendment.

I have a very good reason why landlords and factors and Members of this Liberal Government are anxious to retain this clause in a form different from that which it would assume if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) were accepted. It is because in times past these landlords and factors have appropriated tenants' improvements at less than their real worth at the time being, and up till 1883 for nothing at all. I know that this is the case as a practical man. I have had experience of almost all sorts of land tenure and ownership; and I say, from experience, that the reason the landowners want the clause in its present form is that they may get the improvements at less than their worth.

I understood the last speaker but one to urge that free sale hinders land cultivation in Ireland. I have always understood, however, that in Ulster, where free sale has prevailed, the land was in a higher state of cultivation than in any other part of the country.

I would strongly urge this Amendment on the acceptance of the Committee in the interests of the proprietors as well as of the tenants themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), who spoke for the Government in opposition to this clause, no doubt had a very nice theory—that the landlord will pay the outgoing tenant for his improvements, and give the incoming tenant the land at the old rent. Well, I put it to the experience of everyone who knows anything about the matter, whether landlords will not exact as high a rent as they can get from incoming tenants? It is far better for the incoming tenant to receive the farm in good condition, and pay for doing so. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered how this is going to work out? You are going to entrust the carrying out of the new arrangements to the Land Commission, and to insist upon Commissioners going, it may be, to the Hebrides, to award compensation to the extent of £4 or £5. It is not the fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, that tenants would get more under the system of free sale than they would under this system of compensation. There is all the difference in the world between a man going into the market and getting what he can for his holding, and his submitting to a price fixed by another person. It is very possible that in a great many cases the compensation the tenant would expect from the landlord would be a considerable sum, whilst the benefit to the landlord would be nil. Is the tenant to be compensated for a house that the landlord may desire to pull down as soon as the tenant goes out of it? I maintain that free sale would be quite as much in the interest of the landlord as in the interest of the tenant, and I think there will be a far greater chance of consolidating the holdings under a system of free sale than by the mere giving of compensation for improvements. When a man knows that he has a fair rent, and that he can sell his holding when he likes if he is not able to make a living out of his holding, he has no one to blame—he can only blame the climate or the circumstances of the case. When it is brought home to him that he cannot live on his land, very possibly he will go to a neighbour and ask him if he will give him anything for his holding, and the neighbour, if he sees that he can make more out of two holdings than one, will give him something for it. A little practice in this matter is worth any quantity of theory. No one that I have heard, with the single exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry)—who is now no longer politically connected with Ireland—has complained of free sale. I understand that the free sale system has worked satisfactorily to the tenants of Ireland, and until this evening I have not heard that the landlords seriously complain of it. We have a system of compensation in England and Scotland under the Agricultural Holdings Act; but that Act is universally admitted to be a failure. The tenants are not taking advantage of it. There are so many pitfalls about it, and there is so much expense attending upon its operation, that, rather than make claims and provoke counter-claims on the part of the landlords, the tenants are refusing to take advantage of the Act, and the compensation under it is practically a dead letter. After this experience, I appeal to the Committee whether it would not be wiser to be guided by what has taken place in Ireland, where free sale has been successful—where, at least, I have never heard any complaint of it on the part of tenants—than to adopt the system of compensation which has been practised under the Agricultural Holdings Act of England and Scotland, and which has been recognized as a complete failure?

I would interpose but for a few moments on this question. It appears to me that we have not only to think of the sitting tenants, nor only of the landlords, but also of the incoming tenants. We have to consider not only how we are to deal with present undoubted difficulties, but to see that we may not very soon arrive at a similar difficulty afterwards; and, looking at it from that point of view, I think we cannot leave entirely out of sight that free sale means a higher rent and a rack rent to the next tenant. Is that disputed or not? [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Yes.] It is disputed. How is it disputed? I say that the sale is made at the highest price that the market will give. The sitting tenant takes his holding and his rights into the market, and he sells at the highest price he can get, and the interest on the price he receives for his holding is added to the rent which the new tenant has to pay, and the two together then form the new rent of the holding, and on that hypothesis the new rent is more than the fair rent which, a Judicial Court has said could be properly paid. It seems to me, therefore, that the giving of this free right of sale means that the next tenant is to hold his holding at a rent, which, through the interest upon the capital he has paid to the outgoing tenant, has reached an amount which is beyond what the Court declared was fair; and conceding the right of free sale appears to me simply to be handing over to the existing tenants the opportunity of selling the privileges conferred on them by the Act when it becomes law, while the future race of tenants will be in no better position than the present ones in respect of the high rents which they will have to pay. I would only add one further consideration to what I have urged, and it is this. I understand that the argument which is to induce us to pass this Bill is, in the main, that the crofters are to have restored to them privileges from which they have been ousted in the course of years. It is on historical grounds we are called upon to pass this legislation, which runs counter to the general legislation of the country. It is because there are special circumstances in the case of the crofters, and because they have special rights; but, under these circumstances, I think we ought to stick as closely as possible to those rights which the crofters enjoyed in past times. I understand, if I am rightly informed, that free sale has not been one of the privileges that crofters have in the past enjoyed. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Nor fixity of tenure.] If they have not enjoyed fixity of tenure, it is very questionable now how far we are justified in passing this legislation. We are not, as I understand it—though I may be wrong—thinking what is the best form of tenure which we can invent for the Highlands of Scotland; but we have to deal with a difficult case, and with claims which have arisen from the views the crofters have taken of their historical rights; and, approaching it from that point of, view we are anxious to do them justice, and to put them back into the position in which they were, as far as the changed position of affairs will permit. But that is not an argument for conferring new rights upon the crofters; and if the granting of the free sale is a new right, I doubt whether they could claim it according to the general arrangement which will induce us to pass this Bill. But, at the same time, I would rely more strongly upon the argument I urged at the commencement of my observations—that while we shall, no doubt, be conferring an advantage on sitting tenants by giving them certain rights, we shall heighten the difficulty in the future by tempting others to give high prices for the privileges conferred on these people, for such persons will stand in the position of being scarcely able to pay the rent, plus the interest, which will fall upon them.

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is strangely illogical. He wishes to prevent the tenants from having the chance of selling their improvements if they can. The landlord is to be the purchaser, at a price fixed by the Land Commission, and pretty certain not to be as high as would be got in open market. But what will happen when the landlord purchases the improvements? The landlord can sell them for any price he likes to the incoming tenant; and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the future tenant will not have the advantages which it is the main object of this Bill to provide. Besides that, the landlord could get any price he liked to charge and he thought he could get from the incoming tenant. He could subject the incoming tenant to any rent whatsoever. I think the Solicitor General for Scotland is under a misapprehension when he states that the Bill provides that the tenant shall have compensation for his improvements. I say it provides no such thing. Whatever the Land Commission may term "permanent" improvements, he will be compensated for; but those which will only last 10 or 15 years, and therefore will not come under the description "permanent," will be given to the landlord for absolutely nothing. The landlord will be able, as I say, to sell in the highest market to a tenant from whom he can exact any rent he likes.

The point now raised is a very important one, being whether future tenants are to have the benefit of the Act. If not, what is to prevent the landlords from rack-renting the tenants just the same as heretofore. There is no reason to expect that the landlord will not rack-rent the future tenant. I do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but there is one important point I should like to refer to. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), who defended the clause as it stands, pointed out that the landlord would let the holding on better terms that if he dealt with the way going tenant; but there is no reason to believe that that would be the case. The question now raised is whether this Bill is going to be applicable to future tenancies, and a fair rent is going to be fixed for them by the Land Commission, or whether they are to be left to the tender mercies of the landlords in the future as in the past? The point, I repeat, is a very important one. We shall get out of the difficulty altogether if we adopt the principle of free sale; otherwise we shall have to make provision in the Bill for future tenants that they, also, shall be entitled to have fair rents from the landlords.

There is a special consideration with reference to this matter of free sale versus compensation which has been overlooked. It is assumed that under this Bill the tenant will get fair compensation for his improvements. But what are the conditions under which he receives it? They are—and they do not appear in the Irish Land Act—that the improvements be executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family for 30 years. Further, it is stipulated that these improvements shall not be made in virtue of any agreement or understanding expressed in estate regulations or other writings. Now, there is nothing under Heaven that a crofter can do which is not stated in the written conditions. Through these restrictions and by these conditions I look upon this Compensation Clause as a perfect delusion. It may be that scarcely any crofter will derive benefit from it. I was surprised to notice the solicitude of the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) for the incoming tenant at the expense of the outgoing tenant. He does not wish the outgoing tenant to sell his holding for what it is worth, because it will be too expensive for the incoming tenant—for that is what it amounts to. He will have it valued by the Land Commission for less than it is worth, and then will give it to the landlord, who will sell it for all that it is worth. Then, another clause to be put in the Bill is one which recognizes the right of the crofter to some property in his holding, for he is to have the right to bequeath it. The power to make a testamentary disposition means that he has property to bequeath. Well, if I have the right to bequeath my property I ought to have the right to sell it. The difference is this—If I have the right to sell it I can enjoy some of the advantages during life; but if I have only the power to bequeath I must die in order to get the advantage of it. That is a provision in the Bill, and it seems to me a most illogical position for the Government to take up. It is too late for Her Majesty's Government—represented, as they are, by right hon. Gentlemen who, in this House, on the Irish Land Bill, fought for weeks and months for this principle we advocate, though they are now fighting against it—it is too late for them to talk about free sale as if it were a new principle. It is an old principle that is now sought to be applied to a new spot. I do not believe that the adoption of the principle will produce a rupture of the British Empire. The tenant has a right to get a market value for improvements. An Amendment will come on later to test the question as to whether this should be made a family matter or not, and if the hon. Gentleman now goes to a division I shall support him. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to clear up the question as to future tenants. There is nothing in this Bill corresponding to the wording of the Irish Land Act; and there has been nothing to show why the person purchasing a crofter's holding should not be placed in the same position as the crofter as to fixity of tenure.

There is nothing of the sort, because the Bill does not recognize such a thing as the purchase of a croft. The whole hypothesis of the Bill is that the tenancy belongs to the crofter and his heirs. By a somewhat beneficent extension of that the Government have proposed to give the power of bequest—that is to say, to select a person from amongst the number of his heirs. But according to the proposal of the Bill we do not give the right beyond the tenant. So that, whatever our demerits may be for resisting the proposal, we have not the demerit of being illogical. The two things stand together. With regard to what has been said as to the present proposal not being a novelty, I suppose novelty has some relation to place. It may not have been novel in Ireland; I think it was not, for there it grew out of the Ulster Custom. I remember, however, even in the case of Ireland, hearing a discussion as to how far the custom might be extended to the other Provinces. In Scotland it is absolutely novel. ["No, no!"] Well, I say it is so; and I should have thought that such a statement might have been made here without fear of contradiction. Our firm belief is that we should be doing a thing most damaging to the tenants of Scotland, viewed as a group and as a whole, if we adopted this principle, because the effect of free sale has often been described to be to kill fair rent. They must stand together. I believe that if we gave the right of free sale we should kill the fair rent to all who afterwards came into possession. I am not much at variance with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); but I think that some prejudice would be caused by this Amendment. I think that while it is quite right that the tenant should get compensation for all that he has done by way of improvement, if you allow him to sell the future prospects, if I may so say—all the future prospects, and contingencies, and chances appertaining to the tenancy—you would be authorizing him to sell something which does not belong to him, but to the landlord. I rather think it is not so much the landlords as the future tenants who are interested in this matter, although, as I have said, the landlord would be prejudiced by giving present tenants this power of sale. Whether, therefore, we view the matter in the light of principle or precedent—by which I mean precedent in the country with which we are dealing—or in the view of advantage to the landlord and tenant, we feel constrained to resist this proposal.

I am greatly interested in this matter, although I am not a Scotchman. I am particularly anxious that in this matter the crofters should benefit by the experience we had in Ulster under the old Land Act of 1870, at which time compensation was measured by the Courts and was not given in the right of free sale. I can assure the Committee, from my own experience at that time, that the benefits which the Legislature attempted to confer on the Ulster tenants were lost very much because the Act did not give free sale, which the Act of 1881 did. I am speaking now from both professional and personal knowledge. I also know that that which my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chance) has mentioned as possible to occur really did occur. The compensation awarded by the Court was defeated by the lease given by the landlord to the incoming tenant. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) seems to be under a mistake with regard to what is actually meant by fair rent in the Land Courts. It is intended to cover only the landlord's interest in a holding. If it means anything, it really means to give the landlord a fair return for his interest in the soil; but I fail to see how it can be rack-renting, or how the incoming tenant is in any way injured, if he finds that the previous tenant has added something which, in his judgment, is something of value. He ceases to be a rack-rented tenant, for he has got something more than his farm.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not answered my question.

The hon. Member did ask me a question, and I had meant to answer it, but forgot to do so. As the hon. Member will see, on reference to the last part of Section 16 on the top of page 8, the Bill has clearly defined the application of the matter. It says—

"Within the parishes to which this Act is determined to apply as aforesaid, this Act shall apply to every crofter who is the tenant of a holding at the passing of this Act, and to his heirs, in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease;"

that is to say, to all existing crofters, and to all who derive their crofts by descent—all those who are in the position of possessing that which we assume will be a historical status. If the hon. Member asks me what is to be the position of future crofters, thereby meaning crofters who after this time make contracts, I say that, undoubtedly, the Bill will not apply to such persons, and for this reason—which we shall have a full opportunity of discussing when we come to the clause—that then we shall be dealing with persons who are not in historical status, but who are like anybody else who makes a bargain which may be a good or a bad arrangement.

I must press my Amendment, because the Lord Advocate seems to have answered the Solicitor General for Scotland. The Solicitor General for Scotland told us that we should be rack-renting the future tenants, and now we are told that the future tenants will be rack-rented by the landlords, and that, under Clause 5, the outgoing crofter will have only a portion of his improvements coming under the cognizance of the Court and being recognized, and that then an agreement shall be entered into by the incoming tenant, and the landlord shall exact all the difference between what he pays and a rack-rent. If the hon. and learned Member would so change the clause as to prevent the rack-renting of the incoming tenant I would gladly withdraw my Amendment. I make my proposal in order to prevent the landlord from confiscating a certain portion of the improvements made by the tenant, and also getting the difference between the value of the land to one man and the value of the improvements to the other one. If you could, by a further clause, prevent the rack-renting of the future tenant, then I would withdraw; but as, under this section of the Bill, all now crofters coming in will require to enter into agreements with the landlords, and as future tenants will not have the benefit of the Act, I shall press my Amendment, in order to prevent the crofters' improvements being confiscated, and to prevent legal stealing.