speedy legislation would not be sufficient THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND if evictions were to be allowed to go on (Mr. TREVELYAN): I have listened with in the interval. He had no sympathy great pleasure to my hon. Friend the with men who could and would not pay Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton); but, their rent; but occasions sometimes in some respects, I could almost have arose when a large number of tenants wished that the hon. Member had decould not pay owing to special circum-ferred his speech for a few days. I have stances; and then it was only fair that other portions of society should take their part in the burden, and not throw it all on the poor. The Report of the Crofters' Commissioners in 1884 was a lamentable indictment against the whole system of the North-Western Highlands; and this state of things had been growing worse ever since, and evictions were becoming more and more cruel. The Report showed that a social revolution had taken place in these districts, in the course of which the poor toilers had been the sufferers, while the owners had up to very lately been the gainers. The Report showed that there existed a patent contradiction between the Statute Law and the immemorial tradition and custom of those districts. It also gave instances in which whole communities had been driven from the land, and had been huddled between the mountains and the sea on comparatively bare and barren tracts, on which the utmost industry would not enable them to live in any comfort. Rights had been unjustly invaded, and he hoped that the House would not trifle with this matter. Mr. Angus Sutherland, the late crofter candidate for Sutherlandshire, recently gave an account of what was known as the Rosehall case. He stated that in 1845 the estate of Rosehall was purchased by Sir James Matheson, who promised the tenants that they would never be removed from their holdings, at any rate so long as he lived. The tenants accordingly reclaimed much of the land, and made great improvements. The estate was then sold, or rather exchanged for another, and all the tenants were served with notices to quit by the new landlord. They were compelled to accept the landlord's terms or forfeit all their improvements; and thriving tenants were thus turned into rack-rented feuars. He said it was incumbent on the Government to take good heed lest the extreme pressure of what might be legal rights, but were moral wrongs, should drive a long-suffering people to desperation, and bring about bloodshed and disorder in hitherto comparatively peaceful regions. no doubt, from his intimate knowledge [Fifth Night.] given by the present Government-at | up to this time entirely neglected by Parany rate, the first Notice of any measure liament. But are the people of these of importance -has been for a Bill for Highlands and Islands suffering under improving the condition of the crofters any very great grievance from evicand cottars in the Highlands and Islands tions, or from any danger of evictions? of Scotland. I ask the House whether I am glad to think that at a time like it is a fair reward to a Government this in England and Scotland the landwhich has shown itself so anxious to lords are treating their people with that grapple, and to grapple rapidly and sort of consideration which ought to thoroughly, with this great question- exist between the landlords and the whether it is fair to reject the earnest tenants. ["Oh, oh!"] I will not say appeal of the Prime Minister, who has it is being done everywhere; but I know given this pledge, which you may be of many cases in England and in Scotsure he will make good-not to insert land where large reductions are being Amendments in this Address; and I given, and very freely given-permathink hon. Members will have to show nent reductions-and where the eviction very strong cause indeed for inserting of an old tenant is the very last idea this Amendment, because it is an Amend- that would occur to the mind of the ment of a very serious nature. The landlord. But are the Highlands of Amendment, after the Preamble that I Scotland at this moment the districts have quoted, goes on to declare that the where there is an exception to this rule ? House is of opinion that until a Land Are the Highlands, during the last two Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner years, districts where evictions are being with the proved and admitted grievances ruthlessly carried out? If there can be of the Highland crofters has been passed any charge brought against the late into law the Civil and Military Forces Government, or against the Government of the Crown should not be employed in which preceded it, it would be-not that evicting the people from their here- evictions in the Highlands were too ditary holdings. I earnestly trust that easily carried out, but that, practically, before voting hon. Members will con- there were no evictions at all, even where sider the very serious nature of the rents could not be obtained. There is Amendment for which they are voting. no part of the country in which, at this The hon. Member for Caithness-shire moment, there is such immense and such (Dr. Clark), in his interesting speech, general arrears as in certain parts of the referred to the great distress of the fish- Highlands; and to tell the House of ing population, and to the manner in Commons that during the last six months, which they are suffering by the compe- that during the last two years, there tition of trawlers, and by the discrimi- have been any exceptional crop of evicnating rates of railways. I should like tions is to tell them something which is to ask the hon. Member for Caithness not a fact; and, unless it is confirmed by whether the fishing population of the the most powerful evidence, the House Western Highlands are the only fishing could not be induced to accept such an population in the United Kingdom that extremely strong Resolution. But it is are suffering from bad trade and de- not the case. There is a general feeling pression? If that is not the case, why among the landlords of the Highlands, should we adopt such a strong remedy as there is a feeling in the House of as that of suspending the ordinary ope- Commons, and in the country in general, ration of the law in their case, and in that the crofters of the Western Islands their case alone? I must frankly own are in a very unsatisfactory condition, that I would not assent to such a pro- which ought to have been altered long posal. Before adopting it, two facts ago by legislation, and that that is the would have to be established. One of district in which, of all others in the counthese two facts would be that the popu- try, the power of eviction ought to be lation that was going to be specially less ruthlessly and most mercifully used; benefited by such a very strong proposal and I do not believe I am exaggerating as this was suffering from any great when I say that there is no district in grievance of a nature requiring to be these Islands where the people have remedied, or from any great danger; been in less danger of eviction than they and the other thing that would have to were in the crofting districts of Scotland. be established would be that it had been Now, I come to the question of what Mr. Trevelyan has been done for the crofters in this respect by the House of Commons. Never was so strong a Resolution passed, giving so very marked a lesson in the direction of doing the utmost to mitigate the rights of landlords to the Executive Government, as the Resolution that was passed on the 14th of November, 1884, at the instance of a distinguished Irish Member, who has vindicated his right to take up the cause of the crofters. The Resolution was as follows: 6 : Resolved"That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or to apply such other remedies as they deem advisable; and that this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission at page 110 of its Report, that The mere vindication of authority and repres sion of resistance would not establish the relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant, in the absence of which the Country would not be truly at peace, and all our inquiries and counsels would be expended in vain.'" That is the Resolution under which, at this moment, the Highlands of Scotland are being administered-the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons, giving the greatest moral sanction in its power to the theory that the rights of the landlord should not be pressed. On that Resolution the landlords of the West of Scotland have acted, and since that Resolution was passed evictions have not been oppressive; and to say that they were numerous would be to say something which is very far from the fact in the Western Highlands. While I may have been willing to give a passive assent to that Resolution, I cannot go further; the Government cannot go further, and lay down the opinion that the law is not to be supported. The hon. Member asks whether the Government would be prepared to send troops to enable Mr. Winans to make any fresh evictions in order to extend his deer forests? During the last six months, under a Conservative Government, no troops have been sent into that district; and I do not think it is very likely that, under a Liberal Government, any troops will be sent for such a purpose. We desire to find a remedy, not in making any declarations of this sort, but in bringing in and pressing forward a Bill giving the largest measure of protection and comfort to the crofting population that the general sense of the country and the wisdom of Parliament said, and the promise of the Government | peace of those districts would rest upon to introduce a measure, the hon. Mem- the right hon. Gentleman. He should ber will see his way to withdraw the be sorry to encourage any movement Amendment. for the non-payment of rent; but those acquainted with the condition of the Highlands knew that the tenants had not, at the present time, the means of paying, either from farming operations or from fishing; and he thought Parliament ought to intervene to prevent the landlords taking advantage of such a state of circumstances to evict crofters. There were many cases in which the holdings of the crofters were worthless for the purpose of making rent. They were really a foothold for the men on the soil, and the rents had always been paid from fishing, or by some members of the family going to some other part of Scotland and paying the rent of those who remained at home. He considered that the case was sufficient to justify the action which the hon. Member had recommended to the House. The suspense of evictions would only affect bad landlords; and he thought the case of the crofters was quite as strong as that of the Irish peasants when the Government brought in a Bill in former years to suspend evictions. The people in the Western Highlands were a law-abiding, godly people, and no one would accuse them of turbulence unless they had good cause for the complaints they had made; and he should have thought the Government, under very difficult circumstances, would have been very glad to accept the Motion. MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, he begged to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment in the Ministry as Secretary for Scotland. He seemed, however, to be but imperfectly acquainted with the condition of the Western Highlands. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman possessed any exact information as to the number of evictions, or the number of notices which had been served to produce evictions at the coming term. He had been informed that no fewer than 200 notices of eviction were served to become due in May last year. A difficulty arose as to the interpretation of the law. The crofters claimed the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and it was found upon trial in Edinburgh that the landlords must give six months' notice to the tenants, they having failed to do so. He had observed from the newspapers that some landlords had served notices of eviction in a wholesale manner. Those notices would come into force on the 15th of May next, and it was then that the difficulties of the situation would arise. Then was the time when the landlords in the Highlands would have to appeal to the forces of the Crown in order to carry out those arbitrary and unjust evictions. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) did not ask the suspension of evictions to be carried out indefinitely, but only until the Bill of the Government came into effect. It was feared, and with too much reason, that a great number of evictions would take place in the Highlands in May next. Notice had been served by the landlords to that effect; and if the Bill of the Government became law, it would not come into operation in time to prevent the landlords carrying out the evictions at Whitsuntide. He thought the House was called upon to express its opinion on this question, and to say that the civil and military powers of the Crown should not be used for evicting tenants in the Western Highlands of Scotland. Unless the Government adopted some such opinion as this, there was great reason to apprehend serious difficulties in Scotland in May. The responsibility for maintaining the Mr. Trevelyan The SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL wished to join the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) upon his appointment. right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his speech, shown an earnest sympathy with the grievances of the crofters, and in the indication which he had given that it was the intention of the Government to deal with those grievances in a strong Bill. At the same time, he thought that, in the language used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the suspension of evictions, he had taken a somewhat unfavourable view of the case of the hon. Member for Argyllshire. He thought that, at this moment, the relations between landlords and crofters in the Western Highlands were very much strained; and there was a fear that, unless notices of eviction were withheld, trouble would ensue in that region at an early date. On the whole, however, he thought the hon. Member would be wise in listening to the appeal which had been made to him, and not press his Amendment in view of the Bill promised by the Government. MR. BOYD KINNEAR said, that there were one or two points in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on which he wished to make a brief remark. The first was the statement that had been made as to the improbability of troops being employed to carry out evictions under a Liberal Government. But it was a fact that under the last Liberal Government troops were sent to carry out the service of writs, the result of which would be the eviction of crofters; and, therefore, there could be no security that this would not happen again merely because a Liberal Government was in power. Another statement was that there existed in other parts of this Kingdom a general depression in agriculture calling for a remedy; but that was no reason why the remedy desired in this case should be refused because it did not embrace every other case. There was, however, one point in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland which would lead him to join in urging the withdrawal of the Amendment; and that was the promise given that in the proposed Bill of the Government it was intended to take powers for preventing evictions in all cases in which they ought not to be carried out. ["No, no!"] If it were not so he was very sorry, and in that case he did not see that it was easy to avoid voting for the Amendment. True, it proposed the stoppage of evictions of every sort, and he could not honestly support a Bill which should involve that principle, because there might be cases in which evictions might be legitimate and proper. There might be | cases in which tenants could pay their rents and would not. The law ought to distinguish between the two classes of cases. But this could easily be done in any measure to be introduced. If he were mistaken as to the scope of the Government Bill, it was the duty of Scottish Members and of Liberal Members from every part of the Kingdom to vote for the Amendment. What he desired was that such modifications should be introduced into the present law as would be necessary to make it more consistent with justice. No law would command the respect of the people of this country except in SO far as it was based on justice. The great changes in circumstances which had taken place since the bargains and leases were entered into should be taken into consideration. Those changes had not been brought about by the landlord or the tenant. They had come upon us by causes altogether beyond the control of any human being; but it ought to be recognized that they were upon us. As he had said, what he and others desired was to modify and alter bargains entered into, so as to make them what fair and just-minded men would enter into at the present time. He would support the Amendment. MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I only rise, Sir, on account of an observation which was made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), which, although not intended to be used in an offensive sense, was to the effect that the words in the Address may mean no more than that a measure was to be introduced for relief by the parochial authorities. I have no desire to protract the debate upon the Address; but, as such a suggestion has been made, I think it right to state publicly that there was no such intention on the part of Her Majesty's late Government in placing those words in the Queen's Speech; but, on the contrary, it was our intention to introduce a measure which I think the hon. Member for Argyllshire and the Members from Scotland who have spoken in this debate would have found to have been a somewhat comprehensive measure. I have only to say that no description of that measure could have been more unlike reality than the suggestion which the hon. Member for Argyllshire has made. I think it is necessary, however, to give some explanation on behalf of myself and my Colleagues in the late Government who propose to vote against this Amendment. We vote against it because we are satisfied that it can serve no good purpose. It expresses the regret of the House that in the Queen's Speech |