I beg to move at the end of the first section of the clause, in line 41, to insert—

(2.) This section shall extend to any holding situate in a crofting parish, and held by a tenant under lease at a rent not exceeding thirty pounds in money; and where the rent of any such holding has been fixed by the Commission under this section, the valued rent shall, as from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Court, come in place of the rent reserved by the lease, and, save by mutual agreement, shall not be altered during the continuance of the lease."

The object of this Amendment is to bring before the Commission the case of the small leaseholders in the crofting parishes in the Highlands. They are persons in a very similar position to that which is occupied by the crofters who come under the provisions of the Bill. Now, I think that, in dealing with the Highland townships, it is most undesirable that a large class—and that, too, the best class—of crofters—namely, the small leaseholders, should not derive any benefit from the provisions of the Bill. I therefore propose that this section should be extended to any holding in a crofting parish held by a tenant under lease which does not exceed £30 in rent, that being the sum fixed in the case of a crofter.

I quite appreciate the reasons which have actuated my noble Friend in making his proposal, and also the spirit in which he has moved it; but I am afraid that I cannot accept it, because it is obvious that if leases are once brought within the range and scope of the Bill, a great step will be taken beyond the historical reasons upon which the Bill has been justified. Those reasons have already been explained, and it is not necessary that I should repeat the explanation. An attempt has been made to provide for the case of those persons who have succeeded to a continuous occupation from generation to generation by a sort of customary tenure; but if the Bill once permits persons who do not enjoy that tenure to be equally entitled—persons who have made bargains in the shape of leases—bargains presumably involving commercial considerations—we should get into a region altogether outside the purpose of the Bill. I would also point out this consideration—that if you are to include the small leaseholders, there are in the Highlands leases of many kinds. There is one kind of lease in particular which is very familiar with those who are acquainted with the Highlands—namely, a lease where a piece of ground is let at a low rent, for probably 21 or 30 years, on condition that the tenant who occupies under it shall reclaim so much additional land every year. It is only in consideration of that obligation that the land has been let; and it is quite plain that it would be extremely difficult to deal with cases of that kind under the Bill. I may also point out that there might be a question raised under the Amendment of my noble Friend as to what are commonly called building leases. They form another class of leases altogether, and embody commercial contracts which it would be extremely difficult to deal with.

I believe that one cause of the failure of the Irish Land Act was its being altogether too restricted in its operation, and that it gave the benefits of the Act only to tenants from year to year, instead of dealing with leaseholders generally; and I think that the Government are ill-advised in framing the present Bill upon similar lines. I cannot for the life of me see why the length of the term during which the tenant is occupier of the holding should in any way affect the legislation upon this question. It is quite patent to anyone who knows anything about the condition of agriculture at the present moment that the leaseholder is in a much worse quandary than the tenant from year to year. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment of the noble Marquess with great confidence if it is carried to a division. I shall vote for it because I feel that, where leases have been forced upon the tenants, they are just as much entitled to the benefit which this Bill confers as the crofter who has not a lease.

I have placed an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same question upon Clause 7, and that must be my excuse for intervening just now, because I share in the desire which all of us have to expedite the proceedings in Committee to-night as much as possible, in order that we may get through the Bill. I appreciate very strongly the objections which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has stated to introducing leaseholders into the Bill. I certainly would not be a party to any Amendment which would extend the scope of the Bill beyond the limits which have been laid down, and which I think may be justified on very substantial grounds; and I quite admit that, at first sight, the admission of leaseholders to the provisions of the Bill would be likely to furnish a lever to those who wish to extend the principle of fixity of tenure and fair rent to other parts of the country—objects in which I, for my part, do not concur. But I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to reconsider this point. We are, after all, desirous of doing justice, on certain principles, to the crofters who reside within certain geographical limits. Now, it is quite true that, speaking roughly and generally, a tenure under a lease is a sign that the man is not a crofter. As a rule, a crofter is a tenant from year to year, but that rule is subject to exceptions; and when we know that exceptions do exist I do not think it ought to prevent the Committee from doing justice to the crofters, whose rights are the subject of the Bill. I have put the case in a somewhat different manner from that in which it has been put by the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess's Amendment would apply only to Clause 6, which relates to fixed rents, and it only gives to the leaseholder, as well as the crofter, the benefit of a fixed rent. It does not, however, give to him the right of compensation for improvement under the Bill. I propose, by my Amendment to Clause 7, to provide that—

"Where a tenant falls within the definition of a crofter in this Act, except when his tenancy is under a lease instead of from year to year, and such tenant within thirty years prior to the passing of the Act or his predecessors in the same family, have been crofters occupying the same holding, which such tenant occupies at the passing of this Act, or part thereof, such tenant shall be entitled, upon one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy as at any term of Whitsunday or Martinmas, and shall thereafter be deemed to be a crofter within the meaning of this Act."

I propose to make a general application of the Bill to a limited class of lease-holding crofters; and those whom I include in my Amendment are those who have themselves, or whose families have been, crofters on the same holding within the last 30 years. I think it is impossible to dispute that a leaseholder in that position is just as much a crofter as others who come within the scope of the Bill. I can point to instances in which that is the case, and in which I think it would be an act of extreme injustice if we were to exclude the individual crofters to whom I refer from the benefits of the Bill—for instance, in the Black Isle a large number of crofters have got leases for 19 years—there are several hundreds, I believe, and only about 5 per cent of the crofters have not got leases. The only reason why those who have not got leases are in that position is that they have been less deserving and less provident than their neighbours. Ninety-five per cent of the crofters are deserving and well-doing men; but if this Bill passes without amendment those deserving persons will be excluded from the benefit of the Bill, although they are crofters in every sense of the word; whereas the 5 per cent of the less deserving and less provident will be included, and will participate in the benefits of the Bill. There are other instances in the county of Sutherland, as the noble Marquess well knows. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment in the limited form in which I suggest it should be framed. I do not think it would in that form be open to any possible abuse, and it would undoubtedly confer a considerable benefit upon a large and deserving class of the community.

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, if he is not prepared to accept an Amendment in favour of existing leases, whether he will make a compromise by accepting the modification of this principle as contained in the provisions of the Irish Land Act? That Act does not interfere with current leases; but it provides that at the termination of a lease the tenant who then comes in under the Bill is to be a present tenant. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that modification? The only effect would be that at the termination of an existing lease the tenant would come in as a present tenant under the Act, with all the protection which the law would give.

The provisions of the Irish Land Act are very complicated in this respect, and very different from those contained in the present measure. We hope to give an element of permanency, and some other things which the Irish tenant did not get. The man who has made his bargain is out of the historical scope of the Bill; and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept either the Amendment of my noble Friend, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford).

There is another argument against this Amendment, in addition to that which has just been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Amendment of the noble Marquess or the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) were carried, it would undoubtedly have the effect of destroying leases altogether, and of substituting in their place the system of common ownership of land. Whatever we may think about that, everybody must admit that the system of common ownership is an old-world system which has been entirely exploded by modern ideas, because it has been found altogether antagonistic to all true progress among the people. I am not going to argue the point whether the Government would be right in stereotyping that system where it exists in the Highlands. I will only say that if they re-introduce it where it has ceased to be operative, everyone must admit that it would be the most retrograde step the Committee could take. I therefore hail with great satisfaction the announcement of the Government that they do not propose in any part of the Bill to interfere with leases.

I confess that I cannot see how the adoption of these Amendments would have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has attributed to them of introducing any question as to the common ownership of land. The only effect would be that individual crofters who now hold under a lease would, if these Amendments were passed, be entitled to have a fair rent fixed, the same as any other crofters, from year to year. I understand that that is the only object which the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford) had in introducing the Amendment. I sympathize with the noble Marquess, and I am very sorry that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is not prepared to accept any Amendment on the point. I will not say that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is put in the best possible form; I understand that the effect of it would be the exact converse of the Irish Act. While the Amendment of the noble Marquess provides that the Land Commission should give to these leaseholders a fair rent, but not fixity of tenure, the Irish Act gives fixity of tenure, but makes no provision for a fair rent. No one can doubt that the one point of all others in respect of which the Irish Land Act of 1881 has worked successfully is in giving the leaseholders the benefit of fixity of tenure. It is undoubtedly the case that side by side on one estate there is a class of tenants of a particular character, and a class of exactly the same character on another estate. But in the one case the tenants hold from year to year, and in the other for a certain period of years. Why should the last class be prejudicially affected by that circumstance? Although I admit that in this matter the precedent of the Irish Land Act is against us, still all the experience we have gained by the operations of the Irish Land Act is all in favour of the suggestion now urged. I therefore regret very much that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has refused to accept this Amendment, and I regret still more that he has refused to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) to modify the principle of the Bill, so as to bring it into accord with the Irish Act. This Bill only applies to small tenants; and I think that it is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should refuse to give to the small tenants of Scotland the particular advantage which has been given to the Irish tenants, be they small or large. He has stated that it is impossible to make this concession to a man who holds under an improving lease; but my impression is that that is the very class of tenants you should favour. The tenant who holds under an improving lease has done much to make 100 blades of grass grow where only one grew before; and surely the person who by his industry and skill has improved his tenure is the very person who has a strong moral right to the fixing of a fair rent. Although the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has declined to accept the Amendment in its present form, there are several others aiming at a somewhat similar object which will be brought forward later on in the Bill. I have one down myself; and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the decision he has announced before that Amendment is reached, because I am sure that the determination which he has announced will create very great dissatisfaction in Scotland. It will certainly create an impression that there is an indisposition on the part of the Government to accept any reasonable Amendment of the Bill.

I trust the noble Marquess will carry this Amendment to a division, and I am sure he will receive a considerable amount of support from below the Gangway on this side of the House. Many of us have a notion—and I am afraid it is only too correct a notion—that a large number of these persons have had leases forced upon them. ["Oh, oh!"] What I mean is, that they have had to accept leases or go. I call that having leases forced upon them; and whatever the "Oh!" with which that statement was received may mean, I shall express my conviction in the truth of it by voting for the Amendment.

I strongly sympathize with the object of the Amendment, and I must express my regret that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has not been more conciliatory in this matter. I am quite aware that the adoption of the Amendment would somewhat extend the operation of the Bill; but as the measure is at present drafted it extends to a very small class of holdings, and it places the leaseholder, who pays very slightly above the rent of the crofter, in an invidious position as compared with his neighbour the crofter. The crofter gets benefit from the Bill, whereas the leaseholder gets no benefit from it whatever. What encouragement is there held out to the crofters to transfer their system of holdings in favour of a leasehold system? One large section of the constituency I have the honour to represent hold their land almost entirely under the primitive system of land tenure, by which they will get the benefit of the Bill, while in another part the tenants hold the land almost entirely as small leaseholders. These peasants who individually pay so small an amount of rent are not free to make terms for themselves when dealing with rich landlords owning the whole land. I am anxious to get for those poor tenants the benefit of the protection now offered to the crofters by this Bill; and, that being so, I entirely concur in the remarks which were made by the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) and the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford). I hope that, in some form or other, one of the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper will be adopted by the Government.

I am sorry to find that the Government feel themselves called upon to resist this Amendment, because I think that unless this or some similar Amendment is made in the Bill the value of the measure itself will be very much impaired. A very strong feeling exists in Ireland as to the exclusion of leaseholders; and I am positively certain that in any new scheme some step must be taken by this House to deal with the question of the Irish leaseholders. I am not aware what number of crofters hold leases in Scotland, but I believe they are a very large number. It is further stated by those who know the crofters best that the leaseholders are the very best class of tenants, and a class much more entitled to protection under the Bill than any other. Therefore, if they are allowed to remain in the condition which they occupy at present, the benefits conferred by the Bill will be very seriously impaired. I take it that the object of the Bill is to improve the condition of the crofters, and that object will certainly not be accomplished unless the leaseholders are included in the measure. I would therefore urge upon the Government the desirability of accepting the Amendment which has been submitted to the Committee by the noble Marquess, and I sincerely hope that he will press it to a division.

I am very glad that the Government have opposed this Amendment, because I regard it as one which, if carried, would introduce an entirely new principle into the Bill. This is a measure which has been brought in under exceptional circumstances, in order to deal with a very exceptional state of things; and I am bound to say that it seems to me we ought to be extremely jealous in insisting that principles should not be introduced into the measure which, I am perfectly certain, would hereafter be made use of for further legislation and for different objects. The Amendment of my noble Friend—and I presume that he will take a division upon it—provides that leaseholders holding at a rent not exceeding £30 shall be able to break their leases. Now, that seems to me to be a proceeding to which there is a very considerable amount of objection on the ground of common sense. A leaseholder paying a rent of £30 a-year is really a small farmer, and he has entered into a bargain with his landlord with full knowledge of the conditions under which he took the lease. In the next place, I hope the Committee will bear in mind that if they accept the Amendment of my noble Friend, they will be adopting a principle which cannot be confined to this particular class of tenants in crofting parishes. On the other hand, there is undoubtedly a good deal of feeling on this side of the House in favour of some concession to leaseholders, under certain conditions. There appears to be a desire that they should obtain some advantages under the Bill—for instance, I cannot see that the same objection would apply to the granting of leases, and that when a new lease is arranged the leaseholder might be allowed to share some of the advantages of common pasturage conferred by the Bill in regard to their holdings. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will abide by the decision which he has announced, and that he will persist in refusing to accept the Amendment. But, on the other hand, I think that the Government might consider the subject and see whether they cannot on Report bring up some Amendment carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane), which would have the effect of placing the leaseholder, at the conclusion of his lease, in the condition of a crofter, or a present tenant. That appears to me to be a proposition in behalf of which a great deal may be said; but I cannot support, and I hope the Committee also will not support, the Amendment of my noble Friend, which has been to a certain extent sprung upon the House and has not undergone that fair consideration which its importance demands. If it were carried, it would, in all probability, introduce principles entirely new and novel into the Bill, and into all the relations between landlord and tenant with regard to the occupation of the land.

The objection taken to the Amendment by the noble Viscount who has just sat down has reference to the consequences which will follow from its adoption, and not whether it is best in itself or not. It is stated that it is getting in the thin end of the wedge in order to prepare the way for something else. That is the great objection of the noble Viscount to the Amendment; but it is not a matter for the consideration of this Committee at all. The question for the Committee to consider is, what it is best to do, altogether regardless of what the consequences may be. We are told that the Amendment will introduce a novel principle into the Bill; but the Bill itself is a novelty altogether, and is based upon a new principle, and therefore I see nothing very outrageous in the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The only point upon which I differ from the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) is, that he has limited the qualification. I should very much have preferred if, instead of £30, a limit of £50 had been proposed by the noble Marquess. I think it would have been very much to the advantage of the crofters if an increase of that kind had been made. I certainly hope that the noble Marquess will go to a division; but I do not think there is very much use in talking about these matters at all. It would save a great deal of time if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would stand up and say whether he is prepared to alter a line or a word of the Bill. It seems to me that he is not, and that it is a waste of time to discuss the provisions of the measure in Committee, if no Amendment, however reasonable, is to be made in it.

I quite agree with the object which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. McDonald) has in view; but I cannot say that I agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived. I certainly do not agree with the remarks he has made in reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Everyone who has been present during the consideration of the clauses of the Bill must be aware that every Amendment submitted to the Committee has been fairly considered upon its merits, and has received the serious attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. At the same time, while making that acknowledgment, I must express my regret that he has not found himself able, on this occasion, to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford). What was stated a moment or two ago by the noble Viscount the Member for South Molton (Viscount Lymington) was that the Amendment was founded upon an entirely new principle. But if the noble Viscount had followed the discussion of the Bill, he would have been aware that this question of including leaseholders has, on more than one occasion, been made a subject of discussion.

I have followed the discussion of the Bill closely, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I did not mean to say that the question was one which had escaped attention.

I do not understand that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in rejecting this Amendment, has announced his intention of shutting out these leaseholders from all the benefits of the Bill. On the contrary, I gather that there are other benefits in the Bill which they will share, especially in reference to the extension of their holdings. The Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) would, however, relieve the one grievance from which the leaseholders in the Highlands have most suffered, and of which they have most loudly complained. What do the Crofters Commission say on the subject? On page 43 of their Report they say—

"The isolated crofter deserves our solicitude as well as his associated brethren, though it may be more difficult to meet his necessities and satisfy his demands. Many of these crofters hold under leases of the common kind, and their most urgent complaint is of excessive rents."

The Commissioners, as we know, were not able to recommend the fixing of fair rents by an outside authority in their Report. And therefore they confined themselves, as they were unable to suggest a statutory remedy to meet the claim on behalf of the leaseholding crofters, to the expression of a hope that the indulgence of proprietors would be extended to them. The present Bill of the Government, however, does propose the fixing of fair rents, and deals also with excessive rents. Unfortunately, it only deals with that matter in the case of crofter tenants, and it omits to do so in the case of leaseholding tenants, which class suffer the same grievance, and ought to have their interests equally considered.

I desire to point out to the Committee that this Bill is drawn mainly upon the lines of the Irish Land Act. The only point in which it differs is in reference to rent value. By the Land Act of 1881 it makes no difference whether the tenant is evicted for non-payment of one year's rent or 20 years' rent. In this Bill that is not so; and another point upon which the measure distinctly differs from the Irish Land Act of 1881 is in the way in which it deals with leaseholders. The Lord Advocate is in error when he says that the acceptance of an Amendment such as that which has been moved by the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) will create a new principle. There are two provisions in the Irish Land Act which have reference to leaseholders. The first is, when a person who holds a lease can come into Court and prove that the lease was forced upon him by a threat of eviction; in which case he is entitled to have it set aside, and to have the same benefit under the Act as if he were a present tenant, being awarded a practical perpetuity of tenure, with a right of compensation for improvements. The second provision in the Irish Land Act has reference to the case of a tenant whose lease comes to a natural termination. In that case, also, the tenant is to be treated as a present tenant, and he becomes a tenant from year to year, with a fair rent fixed. I cannot for the life of me see why some such provision should not be introduced into the Crofters Bill. The only possible reason which suggests itself is, that the Bill is the result of some kind of compromise between the two Front Benches. It has already been noticed that not a single Amendment of importance has been accepted by the Government, and the only Amendments which have been introduced have related to very small matters indeed, and have generally been proposed by hon. Members sitting on the Conservative Benches. That is an extraordinary fact, but it is undoubtedly true. I think it would save the time of the Committee if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate were to stand up in his place and tell the Committee that he is really not a free agent in the matter. At the same time, I trust that the noble Marquess will press his Amendment to a division. The Amendment is of such a character that it will enable the country to judge who is and who is not the crofter's friend; and I think there is no better way of bringing that matter to a test than by taking an early division. I would ask the Committee to measure the Liberalism and Radicalism of some of the hon. Members who are responsible for the Bill, by the provisions of the measure itself, and I believe that the country will not feel inclined to ignore the fact on some future occasion.

I do not altogether agree with the wording of the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I do not think that it is quite happy. The Amendment, however, of the hon. Member for North - East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) is not, I think, open to the same objection. The hon. Member appears to have carefully considered the spirit and principle of the Act, and to have worded his Amendment in such a manner as to bring it in keeping with that principle. It, therefore, appears to me desirable that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should reconsider his decision. If he could see his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, he would do what many hon. Members on this side of the House desire, without involving an alteration of the principle of the Bill to any appreciable extent. I would, therefore, advise the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) not to press his Amendment just now, but to allow the Committee to take up the question when we reach the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire further on.

I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not be induced to reconsider his determination on this point, but that he will adhere to the opinion he has already expressed on the Amendment. To interfere with existing leases would be an infraction of one of the main principles on which the Bill has been introduced, and would induce us on this side of the House to consider seriously our position in regard to the Bill. Hon. Members here have been anxious, subject to certain minor alterations which were pointed out early in the discussion, to give a general and cordial support to this measure; and that is the course they desire to continue to pursue to the end. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not be induced to alter his decision on this point. If an Amendment of this kind were accepted, we might have to reconsider our position in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member on the other side of the House (Dr. McDonald) certainly laid down what appears to me to be a novel principle in legislation, when he stated that it was the duty of the Committee not to consider in any way the consequences that would follow from their legislation. For my own part, I should have thought that if there was one duty more incumbent on the Committee than another, it is most carefully to consider all the consequences that are likely to follow from their legislation. But, although I differ entirely from the hon. Member upon that point, there was one remark he made in which I cordially concur, and that is when he recommended that the Committee should take a division upon this question as soon as possible; and it was only because I thought that the Committee might, with advantage, take that course at once, that I rose to take part in the debate.

I did not cordially approve of the Amendment of the noble Marquess when I saw it on the Paper; but I now feel less disposed than I was at first to support it, after the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. McDonald), that the limit should be raised to £50. The hon. Member said—"Why stop at £30? Why not raise it to £50?" In the same way, I would ask why, if we go up to £50, should we not make it £100, or £1,000, in which case you would introduce the system of altering the whole rental of the country? I say that you ought not to do that by a side wind, and by introducing it into a Bill of this kind. I am quite ready to support a Bill for the readjustment of the rents of farms under leases, including those at £30 and £50 rent, or above those sums. But what I say is that this is not a Bill in which that can be done; and if you do it in this Bill up to £30, you may be introducing a principle which will be brought to bear afterwards, when it comes to be a question of the larger tenancies. Under these circumstances, I must vote against the Amendment. But before I sit down, I would earnestly press upon the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the desirability of endeavouring to introduce into the Bill the provisions of the Irish Land Act. He would have my cordial support there, because I think that something should be done for those crofters who are under leases below £30. But although I am prepared to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman to that extent, after listening to the remarks of the hon. Member (Dr. McDonald), I certainly feel myself called upon to vote against the Amendment.

May I be allowed to say that I did not make that proposal at all.

I think the Committee ought to bear in mind the announcement which has just been made by the right hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), that as the Bill stands it has, and will have, the cordial support of hon. Members on that side of the House. I trust that they will also bear in mind the Notice which has been given to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate of the consequences which will result from his acceptance of the Amendment—namely, that by so doing he would earn the opposition of the Tory Party. Now, that is the course which has been taken throughout in regard to this Bill. At any rate, that was the inference I drew from the beginning, and now it is clearly announced from the Front Bench that my view was correct. It is announced from the Front Bench opposite that the Government are not to depend upon Tory support, unless they absolutely and inflexibly adhere to the wording of the Bill. I do not propose to stand between the Committee and the division which must necessarily take place upon the Amendment. I very much regret that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has net accepted any reasonable Amendment—even the reasonable suggestion which I made that he should adopt the principle embodied in the Irish Land Act of 1881.

I think this Committee ought not to hesitate in going, at least, as far as the provisions of the Irish Land Act. I only intend to intrude upon the Committee for a few moments, and all I desire to say is, that I and everyone whom I can influence personally will give a cordial support to the proposal of the noble Marquess. We consider that the small leaseholders, whose case has been brought before the Committee, have been forced into engagements which they no longer desire to abide by, and which their instincts all along have repudiated. Surely we are not to be held down by any mere palaver about the sacredness of contract. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House laugh and ridicule the mere mention of the sacredness of contract; but has not that principle been violated from day to day? What is contract, if the contract interferes with the individual liberty of a single member of the community, or with the well-being of that community? Then I say that contract ought not for a moment to be allowed to stand in the way of legislation. You have recognized this principle before, although you are content to laugh at it to-night. I maintain that this Bill is a retrogressive measure. You recognized the principle I desire to enforce, although I admit it was only in a halting manner, in the Irish Land Act. We appeal to you to-night to recognize the same principle now—at least as far as it was recognized by the Irish Land Act—by trying to relieve those persons who have been forced to seal their own doom upon parchment. I shall heartily and cordially vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess, or for any proposal in the same direction. It appears to me that the votes and divisions upon the Bill, as far as they have gone, have been marked almost by a repulsive amount of tameness. Hon. Members have pretended to entertain strong feelings for the people whose interests are to be benefited by the Bill, and yet they have shrunk from giving full effect to their opinions. There has been a little talk and a few trifling divisions, but nothing whatever has been gained. If anything whatever has been gained, it has been gained in a wrong direction; and if a division upon the Amendment of the noble Marquess will have no other effect, we can, by recording our votes in favour of it, even if we are in a minority of 20, say that we have voted in support of a proper principle.

I cannot see how the Government can accept this Amendment. As I understand the principle of the Bill, it is to deal with the special case of an unfortunate class of the community known as crofters in Scotland. But if the noble Marquess's Amendment is accepted, instead of treating these cases as exceptional, we should lay down a rule that every tenant under £30 a-year in these crofting parishes—that is to say through-out the whole of the North of Scotland—is to hold at a rent fixed not by contract, but by a Government Department. I should like to know, supposing the Committee were to accept this principle, how long it would be before the same question would be raised in other parts of Scotland, and probably in England as well? It would be, in my opinion, the introduction of a principle which would tend in a most dangerous manner to break down the whole system of free contract in the case of every tenure under £30. I cannot, therefore, believe, this being a principle utterly foreign to the intentions with which the Bill was framed, that the Government will consent to accept such an Amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot give a silent vote upon this occasion. I can assure the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the rejection of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which extends the benefit of this clause to existing leases under £30, will be one of the greatest disappointments which the Government can inflict upon the agricultural community of Scotland. I am also satisfied that this principle will have to come up again, and very soon, and, therefore, that they need not be so very much alarmed at the introduction of the principle now. I did not hear the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate very distinctly; but I have listened to other hon. Members who also oppose the Amendment, and I failed to hear a single argument or statement which showed that crofters under leases are less deserving persons than crofters who hold from year to year. On the contrary, all I was able to hear was that crofters under leases are the more deserving class of the two, and the one which most requires consideration at our hands, because they are probably, on the whole, the better tenants of the two. I will only express my strong desire that the Amendment should be carried to a division; and if it is said that it is a novel one, and that it introduces a new principle into the Bill, I would ask the Committee to consider what would be the use of passing the Bill at all, if it was not intended to introduce something new? If it is only intended to continue the existing state of things, the Bill is not of the slightest use whatever. The only way in which it can be made a really satisfactory measure is by amending it in such a manner that it should benefit, not only a small number of persons, but the general body of the community who now exist in the crofting parishes.

I think it is a most important question whether the provisions of the Bill should be made to extend to those crofters who hold under leases. I am certainly of opinion that it is most desirable to include leaseholders under £30 in the provisions of the Bill. They are precisely of the same class as those for whom direct provision is made, with this difference only—that those to whom it is proposed to extend the benefits of the Bill hold from year to year, while those to whom the benefits of the measure are not extended hold under leases. Now, I am unable to see what distinction there is in principle between the two. I do not see why a tenant who holds from year to year is entitled to more consideration, with respect to fixity of tenure and free rent, than the tenant who holds under a lease. Reference has been made to the Irish Land Act of 1881; but, if I am not mistaken, the Irish Land Act did not include tenants under leases. I think that that was one of the great defects of the Irish Land Act; and it was with very great satisfaction that I noticed at the time of the General Election a speech of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) at Belfast, in which he expressed himself as being of opinion that the Irish Land Act might be advantageously amended, so as to include leaseholders. I trust that the House of Commons will not be deterred from giving that provision to this deserving class until it becomes too late. I quite agree that tenants who hold under leases are a more deserving class than those who hold from year to year. There is more to hope from them than from the yearly tenants; and I think that it would be a most unnecessary and injudicious curtailment if the benefits of this measure were not extended so as to include persons who really belong to the same class, but who hold under leases instead of from year to year.

I wish to make one or two observations before the Committee proceed to a division. It is all very well for the hon. Member (Mr. Barclay) to say that leaseholders are a better class of tenants than, the crofters who do not hold under leases; but we must go a little beyond that, and consider that class of tenants who desire to take land upon lease. What we are asked to do now is to aim a very severe blow at the leasehold system—a system which has been of the greatest benefit to Scotland—by depriving the lease of its durability. In the great speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) in introducing the Irish Land Bill, one of his strongest arguments against this principle was that it would place the occupiers of land in Ireland in the position of leaseholders in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman—I remember the passage in his speech—distinctly said there was to be a sort of quasi-lease, and that it was by something of that kind that he hoped to benefit the people, My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) read a quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission; but he stopped suddenly, without concluding the whole of the Commissioners' remarks. I wish he had gone a little further. If he had I am afraid he would have found very little in support of his view. Immediately after the words quoted by my hon. Friend the Commissioners proceed to say—

"It is in this particular that we cannot come to their relief. That these covenanted rents are in many cases high when contracted for in the past years of comparative prosperity and eager competition we can well believe; such has been the case with other orders of occupiers, and over all Scotland; but we are not able to recommend the annulment of existing contracts by Act of Parliament. We must in such cases trust to the discretion and indulgence of proprietors, which have been extensively exercised in regard to large farms by remission and reduction of rent."

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was one of the Commissioners, although he did not sign the Report; but I presume that he sanctioned the conclusion at which his brother Commissioners arrived. [An hon. MEMBER: That was three years ago.] Three years ago. Yes; but this is a question of public importance, and I want to know if it is not for the advantage of a person who wishes to farm land that he should be able to obtain the land by making a bargain with the landlord? The question is a most important one, and I think the thanks of the Committee are due to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for the determined stand he has made against the Amendment.

The question before us is what amount of alleviation the Bill will give. It was purposely brought in to alleviate distress and allay discontent in the crofting districts of Scotland. I may tell the Committee that in the crofting districts of Scotland there are two kinds of holders—the crofter who holds from year to year, and the leaseholder; and it has been proved that the leaseholders have been suffering even more than the annual tenants, and yet under the Bill no prospect of alleviation whatever of their distress is held out. It is, therefore, essential that the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherland (the Marquess of Stafford) or of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford) should be adopted; but, on the whole, I think the last the best. I earnestly hope, however, that the Committee will vote in favour of the Amendment of my noble Friend, in order to ensure that the matter will be dealt with in some way, and so prevent an amount of distress and discontent which the Bill, as it stands, would undoubtedly perpetuate.

I think that we are treading on the verge of very dangerous ground indeed. All the Committee have heard during the last few minutes is to the effect that if a man has made a bad bargain, he ought to be able to come to the House of Commons in order to get rid of it. If the Committee adopt the principle contained in the Amendment, I believe that many who are connected with leasehold property would come to this House for relief in order to get the covenants into which they have entered, and which have been signed, sealed, and delivered, broken because they are found not to pay, and which hitherto have been regarded as obligations. I am sure there are many persons in this country and Ireland, as well as in Scotland, who would only be too glad to repudiate the contracts into which they have entered, if they thought it right to do so, especially those in regard to the leasing of minerals and of agricultural property. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has alluded to the case of Ireland. What was originally done in the case of Ireland was to fix the rent for 15 years, and that was done without regard to good or bad seasons and crops. What is the state of Ireland at this day in consequence? You have the Irish tenants at this moment with 15 years' leases on their hands with all agricultural produce down both in quantity and price. And so also with regard to the Scottish crofters. We desire to do our best for them; but it seems to me that we are only going to make bad worse if we are to put the leaseholders into the Bill, and allow them to repudiate the covenants of their leases. The Scottish crofters, no doubt, have their grievances; but those grievances will not, I fear, be remedied by the Bill. As I said before, I think the Committee are treading on the verge of very dangerous ground, and I cannot vote for such an addition to the Bill.

The Amendment which I now propose is to leave out, in the 2nd sub-section to the clause, in page 4, line 4, the words "decision of," in order to insert the words "notice of application to." The clause, as it stands, provides that the—

"Fixed rent shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the crofter as from the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Land Commission, and shall come in place of the present rent, and, save by mutual agreement, the rent so fixed shall not be altered for a period of fifteen years."

If my Amendment is adopted, the fixed rent will come in place of the present rent from the first term succeeding "the application to" instead of "the decision of" the Land Commission. I think it would be better to take some clearly defined period of fixing the rent, rather than leave it to the problematical date of the decision of the Court. The result of the present state of the law in Ireland is, that the tenant may be obliged to pay an unjust rent for years and then, when he succeeds in getting it fixed in his favour, he has no remedy and cannot recover the amount which has been extorted from him unjustly. I consider this to be an objectionable principle altogether. The ordinary rule of law is that the rights of the parties shall commence with the application to the Court. If a man brings an action to recover money, the rights of the parties are ascertained from the day on which the writ is issued; and I do not see why the same principle should not be adopted in the case of rent. In this case, also, the provisions of the Bill are very much worse than the provisions of the Irish Land Act. In the Act of 1881 there is a provision that, where application was made at the "first sitting" of the Commission, the rent shall run from the the date of the application to the Court. I may be told, of course, that the number of tenants or crofters who are to get the benefit of the provisions of this Bill are only some 30,000 or 40,000, whereas in the case of the Irish Act the interests of more than 1,000,000 tenants were involved; but I do not see that that is any reason why the law should be more imperfect in the one case than in the other. Although there are only some 40,000 persons who are likely to get the benefit of this Bill, I do not see why their interests should be injuriously affected, because from difficulty of access in the district, or from some other cause, it is possible that the decision of the Court may be postponed. That is a case which often occurs in Ireland, and will probably occur also in Scotland. I therefore submit the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee.

I quite understand the ground on which this Amendment is proposed, and I think the hon. Member who moved it was evidently prepared for certain practical difficulties of a very serious kind. I will briefly state what the difficulties are, and I will then explain the Amendment which I propose to move myself. I quite see that if it were practicable to allow the rent as settled and fixed to run from the date of the application, it would be very just in itself, because a movement has then been made, and the matter has become contentious. But I must point out that the great practical difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment as it stands would be that the payment of rent would necessarily cease simultaneously with the application, because, until a decision was pronounced, the landlord would not know what rent he was entitled to demand, nor would the tenant know what rent he was bound to pay. It would be impossible, therefore, to maintain an action for rent, and the presenting of an application would practically involve, if I may use such an expression, a judicial strike against rent for the period which might be requisite to enable a decision to be come to. It would prevent the payment of any rent at all until a fair rent was fixed by the Court, I do not think that would be right, and I am quite sure the hon. Member will see that it would go far beyond anything that has been done in Ireland. At the same time, I think the matter might be met by making an alteration in the Amendment which stands on the next page in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). That Amendment provides that—

"The lodging of an application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent shall operate ipso facto as a sist of all proceedings for the removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined."

I propose to amend that Amendment by substituting words giving power to the Land Commission, on the application of the tenant to fix fair rent, to gist proceedings for the removal of a crofter until the application should be finally determined, upon such terms as the payment of rent or otherwise as they should see fit. The effect of that would be that if any person did not settle with his landlord, and his landlord was proposing to remove him for non-payment of the old rent, it would be in his power to go to the Land Commission and plead that the rent was too high. The Land Commission, in entertaining that plea, would be entitled to ask whether the crofter was going to pay any rent at all, and if he said his rent was £7, whereas he thought it should be only £4, then the Commission could direct him to pay the £4, and let the other stand over, or it might be that they would fix a higher interim payment. What makes me hesitate in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) is that it would have the absolute effect of making the rent non-payable, practically irrecoverable, to any extent. But by such an Amendment as I propose, there would be a certain amount of flexibility given to the matter, and, pending the decision of the Court, there would be a ready means of ordering payment of a portion of the rent. The Land Court might take time to consider, but the delay would not prevent payment of rent altogether.

I did see the difficulty which has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I would suggest to him one way by which I think it may be met. As the matter now stands the provision of the Bill might possibly nullify the whole of the benefit which would result from the measure. I clearly see the difficulty, and I saw it when I put the Amendment down upon the Paper; but I thought of proposing to add to the sub-section a subsequent provision declaring the present rent to be payable subject to the excess, in the event of a judicial reduction, being refunded.

I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should not press the Amendment now, but wait and see the Amendment which I intend to propose. The idea of a rebate did occur to me; but I thought my own proposal was the less hard and the more merciful of the two. The hon. Member's proposal would compel the tenant to pay the money, and lie out of it for some time, although he might possibly get it back again. I think it would be much better to accept my proposal. The tenant in that case would retain a portion of the money, which would not be so great a hardship as parting with all of it. As a matter of fact, the crofter would never have to part with more than appeared primâ facie to be right.

I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposes to deal with the matter on the lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say exactly what the words of the Amendment he proposes to move are?

I propose to substitute for the first three lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife—namely,

"The lodging of an application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent shall operate ipso facto as a sist of all proceedings for removal of the crofer till the said application is finally determined,"

something to this effect—

"When an application is lodged with the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, it shall be in the power of the Land Commission, on the application of the crofter, to sist all proceedings for the removal of the crofter till the said application is finally determined, upon such terms as to payment of rent or otherwise as they shall think fit."

The effect of such a provision would be that the Land Commission would take a kind of payment on account, and would allow the rest to stand over until the termination of the proceedings. It appears to me that that would be of more advantage to the crofter than to have the whole of the present rent impounded.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the propriety of giving the crofter the option of paying and taking the rebate when the rent is fixed?

Certainly.

He will be a better judge than the Land Court.

Certainly, I will consider the matter.

I had placed upon the Table an Amendment similar to that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance); and I certainly think the Committee ought to lay down the principle that the newly-adjusted rent should date from the time of the application. That principle is so just that I am surprised the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should object to it. There ought also to be a provision that that principle does not absolve the tenant from his liability to pay the rent. All I ask is that the Committee should lay down the principle that the new rent should date from the time of the application of the tenant to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, and then, if it is considered desirable, there should be the further provision suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Committee should have power to declare what portion of the rent should go back to the tenant.

I may point out to my hon. Friend that what I have suggested is, that a provision should be inserted requiring that, in the event of a payment having been made by the tenant, in excess of the rent which might ultimately be determined to be fair, there should be a rebate going back to the date of the application to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent.

I think it would be a very great pity, indeed, if effect could not be given to the spirit of the hon. Member's Amendment in some way or other. All I would say now, without committing myself to a decided preference for either proposal, is that I consider the proposal of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) much nearer safety, if my right hon. and learned Friend will pardon me for saying so, than the proposal made by my right hon. and learned Friend to alter the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear).

The object of my suggestion is to provide an alternative.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to say that he intends to apply the principle of the Amendment to the Bill? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman go as far as that?

I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not wait until the Report before he deals with this question. I think that it ought to be dealt with in Committee, and perhaps the proper opportunity for disposing of it will be when we reach the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear).

Before we go further, I want to know what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate means by intimating his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment. I wish to know if he is prepared to accept the principle of restitution under all circumstances, no matter what the accumulation in the shape of arrears may be, or whether he only intends to apply the principle to the current year? The latter part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) distinctly opens the question of arrears, and not only provides that arrears shall be dealt with, but that the Land Commission shall take an account of the amount of arrears due, or to become due, before the application is finally determined, and shall decide whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the whole or what part of the arrears ought in equity to be paid. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that as well as the arrears for the current year?

I think the provision should apply to the whole arrears.

The Amendment which stands in my name is as follows:—To insert, after the word "agreement," in page 4, line 5 of the clause, the following words:—

"Or until the crofter on application to the Land Commission can show that, owing to a decrease in the prices of agricultural produce in the locality, as compared with similar prices at the time when the rent was fixed, and from causes not merely temporary or casual, he is unable to pay such rent."

The Committee will observe that, in this Amendment, there is introduced the principle of affording an opportunity to the tenant of having his rent reviewed and altered during the period of 15 years, if, owing to circumstances over which he has no control, he finds himself unable to continue the payment of the fixed rent. I understand the Government to admit that the prices of agricultural produce are to be an element in the calculation of a fair rent. By this Amendment, the only cause for altering a rent will be the fact that there has been a diminution in the prices of agricultural produce. There is only to be one variation in the rent during a period of 15 years, and, in order that the tenant may get his rent altered at all, the burden of proof will rest upon him. The alteration of rent cannot be brought about by any temporary or casual circumstances. Now, as far as we have gone in considering the question of fair rent, it seems to me that the proposition which is put forward in the Amendment which I propose is rather an alternative proposition to that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), and, as I understand, accepted by the Government, except that my Amendment deals only with a rent fixed for 15 years, and variable once only within that period of 15 years, whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member applies to a rent fixed for 15 years, but variable year by year according to the varying prices of agricultural produce. I think I ought to apologize to hon. Members who represent the Northern parts of Scotland for proposing to introduce this Amendment into the Bill, seeing that I do not represent a constituency in that part of the country; but I can assure hon. Members from Scotland that this question is looked upon with very great interest by the constituencies in England, because there is a very striking analogy between the crofters in the North of Scotland and the squatters in England. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this, the squatter in this country, like the crofter in Scotland, built his cottage upon waste land, and thereby obtained the privilege of pasturage on common land. Like the crofter, he has now been driven out of the rights he thus acquired, and been compelled to give up his particular cottage holding. I do not deny that the condition of the crofter is even somewhat worse than that of the squatter in England, because at the present moment, and for a long time past, the law has been very seriously against the crofter's interest. From time to time they have been driven out of the inland districts down to the seashore, and the only alternative offered them now is either to be driven into the sea or over the sea into some foreign country. Now, I maintain that there is ample room for these industrious persons to gain a decent livelihood upon the soil of this country. There is one other point I wish to lay before the Committee, and it is the fact that I approach this subject entirely from a landlord's point of view—being myself a landlord. Owing to peculiar circumstances, it has been my lot to inherit a property which has never been managed by any professional agent—certainly during this century—and it has been my duty during the last 15 years to conduct myself the management of the estate to which I refer in a business-like manner. From the experience which I have gained, I have learned the object and wants of the tenants. The tenants have come directly to me, without the interposition of any agent between themselves and their landlord, and I have consequently had a considerable opportunity of ascertaining the feeling of the tenants towards their landlords, from which I have been able to form an opinion as to what their feeling is in regard to a fair rent as between landlord and tenant. In the first place, I must take exception to some expressions which have been used by hon. Members on the other side of the House in regard to fair rent. They seem to consider that the fixing of a fair rent is a privilege conferred upon the tenant.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the line of argument the hon. Gentleman is pursuing is strictly germane to the Amendment upon the Paper?

I am afraid that it is a little discursive.

The object of my Amendment is to show that there is a way of arriving at a fair rent which is not included in the Bill—namely, by the adoption of a principle that, when the rent has been fixed by the Land Commission, there should be an opportunity afforded to the tenant of having the rent altered in the event of circumstances occurring over which he has no control. I have placed the Amendment on the Paper in order to give an opportunity to the Government, at all events, of considering the subject, and an opportunity of rectifying the blot which, to my mind, exists in the Land Act of 1881. In this case, it must be borne in mind that the whole principle by which a fair rent is to be arrived at between landlord and tenant is taken from the Irish Land Act. That principle is, that there should be a fair rent and fixity of tenure. I maintain that fair rent and fixity of tenure should go together; you cannot have one without the other; and if you give a fair rent to the tenant with fixity of tenure, you are offering him an inducement to enter on his land and cultivate it for his own benefit; but unless he has fixity of tenure, you place him in a position in which he might at any time be turned out of his holding, and the landlord might step in and take possession of the holding as improved by the tenant. If, on the other hand, you give to the tenant fixity of tenure without a fair rent, you render him liable to have an unjust and an unfair rent imposed upon him; and I maintain that it is impossible for any tenant to get a living with an unfair rent imposed upon him. The result in this case would be that he would have to take shelter under the 7th clause of the Bill and by giving up his holding get out of the farm as soon as possible. Therefore, in my opinion, the two things are tied up together, and fair rent and fixity of tenure must go together. As far as I can judge the Government are making an endeavour, in this Bill, to encourage the landlord to come to an agreement with his tenant, in the first place, and, in the second place, if the landlord and tenant cannot agree it becomes the duty of the Government, or rather of the State, to step in and see that a fair rent is given to the tenant on such conditions as are calculated to insure the preservation of law and order throughout the community.

I must request the hon. Member to confine his argument to the Amendment, which is—

"Or until the crofter on application to the Land Commission can show that, owing to a decrease on the prices of agricultural produce in the locality, as compared with similar prices at the time when the rent was fixed, and from causes not merely temporary or casual, he is unable to pay such rent."

One of the great reasons why I ask for this privilege to be given to the tenant is this. The Crofters Commission have constantly shown that a very large amount of poverty prevails among the crofters in the Highlands of Scotland, and I conceive that to be a strong reason why, when a fair rent has been once fixed at the agricultural prices of the day, if those prices become seriously diminished, the crofter ought, at all events, to have an opportunity of having his rent fixed again so as to enable him to meet the changed circumstances of agricultural prices. Of course, I am aware what the nature of the argument is which will be used against me. It will be said that if when agricultural prices are low the rent of the tenant is fixed in accordance with those prices, the landlord ought to have the right of altering rent when the prices of agricultural produce are high. I know it will be said—"Surely the landlord, when prices get higher, should have the advantage of obtaining more rent." But I maintain that we ought to take into consideration the special condition of the crofter, and the poverty amidst which he appears to be living, as one great reason why the State ought not to allow the rent to be raised during a period of 15 years—at any rate, more than once. There seems to me to be no steppingstone—no means, on the part of the crofter, of attaining from the lowest and most abject poverty to a better position in life. We find in the Report of the Royal Commission an instance given of the parish of Farr, in Sutherland, in which they state that there are 295 crofters and cottars who paid a gross rental per annum of £681. Out of the total number, 288 pay a rent of less than £6 per annum; and while the highest croft pays £7 16s., the lowest farm stands for £290; and while 293 small occupiers represent an aggregate rental of £681, a small pastoral farmer, who is not a resident, holds lands of the annual value of £683; in addition to which he has a shooting tenancy of £200, and an angling tenancy of £100. Under such circumstances, how is it possible for a crofter to raise his condition so as to obtain a better living? The condition of the crofters must, therefore, be taken into consideration by the Government; and if the rent at the beginning of a holding is fixed at a low amount, there is strong reason, bearing in mind the poverty of the crofters, why it should not be raised during a period of 15 years. Of course, where there is a lease, if the rent is fixed at a low sum at the beginning of 15 years, it is a matter of mutual agreement that it shall not be raised during that period. There are other reasons why I think this Amendment is very much preferable to the one which has almost been adopted by the Government at the instance of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—namely, that the rent shall be regulated in accordance with the principle of the tithe rent-charge. I contend that the adoption of this Amendment would be for the interest not only of the tenant, but of the landlord as well, and that it would be far better to have the rents fixed in the way I suggest than to have them altered year by year in accordance with variations in the prices of agricultural produce. The tenant, at all events, would know that if his rent is once fixed it will not be altered for a period of 15 years, and he would consequently know exactly what he would have to pay. It would hardly be possible for the crofter to know what he would have to pay if the rent is to vary year by year; and there is nothing in the Amendment I propose which would prevent the landlord from coming to an agreement with the tenant. It does not interfere with any of the ordinary customs which prevail in the country, nor does it establish any new custom; and I venture to hope that it is a proposal which will be accepted by the Government.

I would suggest to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment at present. The Government are engaged in considering the terms of a clause it is proposed to introduce on Report which will have the effect of making the fixed rent to be paid by the crofter vary according to the yearly alterations of the average price of the produce of the farm, and if a clause of that description is adjusted and is satisfactory to the Committee, it will be quite unnecessary to deal with this matter in the way proposed by the Amendment. I therefore trust that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.

I am glad to hear the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher), and I wish to impress upon the Government that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done in the direction indicated. I think the Committee are under great obligations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) for having brought the matter forward. I have an Amendment later down on the same subject, giving power to the Land Commission, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, to authorize a revision of rents, in the event of an excessive failure of crops or stock, or a falling off in the price of agricultural produce; but, after what the hon. and learned Solicitor General has said, I shall not press it. As the Bill stands now, it imposes on the tenant a long lease of 15 years, and in times of bad seasons and changing prices the tenant may experience considerable difficulty in keeping upon his legs. I am glad to find that the Government intend to consider both the Amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and that of the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller), with a view of making some provision for varying the rent according to the changing prices of produce.

Does the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Fuller) withdraw his Amendment?

Yes.

The next Amendment stands in my name, and it provides that during the period for which rent is fixed an appeal may be taken to the Land Commission to have the rent altered, and that the appellant shall pay all expenses if he fail to prove his case. The Irish Land Act had two grave defects, one of which was that it fixed the rent for 15 years. It is now out of date to fix rents for a number of years without the opportunity of alteration. I think that in these days it is not too much to ask that the rent shall not be irrevocably fixed for so long a period, but that it should be left open for an application to be made to the Land Commission to alter the rent. This leaves it open either for the landlord or tenant to apply to the Land Commission, the neutral authority for fixing the rent; and as the Government have already promised that in the future rents shall be based to some extent on the price of agricultural produce, I hope they will never reach the condition in which they have been placed in the past, both in Scotland and Ireland.

Does the hon. Member move the Amendment?

Yes.

As the words now stand they are inconsistent with the context of the clause.

I would appeal to the hon. Member whether there is any necessity for this Amendment, if a satisfactory clause is proposed to the Committee such as I indicated a few moments ago? In that case, the crofter would be in this position—a fair rent would be fixed, which could be altered, either by agreement or at the expiration of the term of 15 years, which is the term to be fixed by Statute, and then it would also be a rent which would fluctuate annually, according to the average annual value of the agricultural produce of the croft. What my hon. Friend proposes is, that there should be a power given at any time to the crofter to apply to the Commission to have a fair rent fixed. I think that would be very far from a satisfactory arrangement; because, of course, if the crofter applied under the plea that he was not satisfied with the rent owing to the fluctuation in the prices of agricultural produce, there is a great probability that the application would be made under circumstances which would not warrant its succeeding. The Amendment proposes that the unsuccessful applicant should become liable for the expenses of the application. That being so, the Amendment is an encouragement to the crofter to apply to the Land Commission to alter the rent; and, under the circumstances, there may be a great probability of the application being unsuccessful, with the unfortunate result of the tenant finding the application refused, and the costs being awarded against him. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

I think the Amendment of the hon. Member simply carries out the spirit of the concession which has been made by the Government, that rent shall be fixed from time to time. It seems to me an absurd thing to fix rent for 15 years and not to provide for its alteration from year to year according to the current price of agricultural produce. Such a proposition I can hardly support.

Does my hon. Friend intend by the Amendment to give the landlord the right of raising the rent of his tenant upon an application to the Land Commission? [Mr. M'CULLOCH: Yes.] Then I certainly entertain strong objections to such a proposal. At the same time, I do not think the Committee need very much trouble themselves with what is likely to happen beyond the next five years; because I do not think the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will last that time. It is for that reason that I think the Committee may accept the provisions of the Bill, for I hardly think the price of agricultural produce is likely to fall very much within that period. But the Land Commission may probably take a wider view of the subject, and take into consideration the varying price of other commodities. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has laid down the proposition that the crofters are going to convert themselves into fishermen, and therefore the Commission may have to consider the price of fish. Although there may be difficulties in the way, theoretically it is quite possible that the price of labour may increase quite as fast as the price of agricultural produce, in which case it would also form an element. Although, at first sight, it may be considered fair to regulate the rent of the holding by the price of agricultural produce, the fact must also be taken into account that there may be an increase of cost in production.

At least we have the promise that the price of produce will, in some shape, be made the basis of rent. In the present combination of Whigs and Tories, it would be a waste of time to divide the Committee, and I will, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

I merely propose to move the next Amendment which stands in my name formally. It is to provide that the period of 15 years for which the fixed rent is to run shall be reduced to five years, and I move it in order to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate what the precise intention of the Government is. Until I hear what that intention is, I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

The term of fifteen years has been put into the Bill for two reasons—in the first place, because it nearly approximates to the period of 19 years common in Scotch leases; and, also, because it is the period fixed in the Irish Act. Further, it was thought that it would avoid the instability which might result from the too frequent alteration of the rent. But since the clause was drawn up, it has been represented by many persons of great experience that probably a period of 15 years is too long, and I am inclined to that view myself from what I have heard. Two hon. Members have put down Amendments on the Paper to fix the period at seven years, and, if it is agreeable to the Committee, I will be glad to adopt that period.

I think that if the Government are going to agree to an automatic system of rent, according to the price of produce in each year, it is unnecessary and inconsistent to fix rent for any particular number of years. It would be better not to put down any period at all.

It certainly appears to me that all these Amendments hang together. If we are to have an automatic mode of altering rents, and if we are to adhere to it, then it seems to me that seven years is too long for the tenant, and probably too short for the landlord, so far as Scotland is concerned. If we are to have an automatic method, I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) that it is hardly worth while to fix the rent for any particular number of years.

May I ask whether the Government, in addition to reducing the period from 15 years to seven, intend to provide an automatic method of altering the rent? [The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes.] Then, Sir, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Let me point out what it was that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said. He said that, while the automatic mode would be best, it was by no means inconsistent, nor would it dispense with the necessity of fixing the rent for a number of years. The automatic system would only say how much is to be paid under or over the fixed fair rent; but there might be other considerations which would make it proper to lower or raise the rent at particular periods. I am afraid that the adoption of the one course will hardly do away with the necessity for the other; but I am quite willing to leave the matter over until the Report.

I wish to understand at what period the Government propose that the automatic system shall be adopted? Is it to be annually? [The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, certainly.] Then it does not matter what length of time is put in the Bill.

I do not think that it would be wise to limit the term to a period of seven years, and it occurs to me that the tenants themselves would not be satisfied with that short period. I think that 12 years would be more acceptable. I speak from some experience of the matter, because in my part of the country the custom is to take a lease for 19 years; but considering the circumstances of the times, and the extreme uncertainty as to the price of agricultural produce, I think that nowadays 12 years would be a more acceptable term in many parts of the country than 19 years. I am disposed to think that the crofters themselves would prefer 12 years to seven.

I have an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the term from 15 years to seven, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree to that term, which has already been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that seven years would give general satisfaction, and I trust that the Committee will accept the Amendment I intend to propose.

Does the hon. Member for South Kilkenny withdraw the Amendment?

Yes.

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to have a little further explanation from the Government. I very much doubt the possibility of altering the rent year by year. I think it would only be possible to alter the rent satisfactorily and with good effect when the change becomes permanent, and the result of prices extending over a series of years is taken.

I will take this case. The crofter encounters a bad season, and he has to provide himself with oats at a high price. He has, therefore, a high price to pay for produce, and a high rent to pay besides, and, consequently, he has double need of a reduction. Where the tenant has a large farm, the case may be different; but, even there, it is not very different, because if the prices he receives are low, it is because the quantity is large, and if he has a good harvest, he can afford to take lower prices and still be able to pay his rent. The more I think of the matter, the greater do the difficulties appear.

I take it that, strictly speaking, the Committee should discuss, in connection with the Amendment, the automatic system which the Government propose to adopt; but I am far from desiring to do so in any detail. But the hon. Member, who has repeated some of the arguments used by other hon. Members, is quite right in saying that the question will have to be dealt with, and with the utmost caution. I hope that, in giving a general assent to the principle that rents are to vary with external circumstances, we are not committing ourselves to any special provision to make it easy or difficult for the crofter to pay his rent. The more I think over the matter the more difficult does the working of the principle appear to be.

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will, before abandoning either the fixed or movable period, consider what fees the tenant would have to pay for the reconsideration of his rent by the Land Commission. If the holder of a small croft has to pay fees for getting his rent reduced, the fees might be greater than the reduction would probably be for the whole seven years. Therefore, without impugning or objecting in any way to the principle of making the rent vary according to the fluctuating price of agricultural produce, which is to be the basis for fixing the rent, the payment of the necessary fees in connection with the application to the Land Commission will be an important element for consideration.