SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[TO THE EDITOR or THE "SPECIATOR."f SIR,—The columns of the Spectator should be open to protest against mischievous legislation, even when presented in humanitarian garb.
Your readers are doubtless aware that a Highland crofter is the tenant of a petty holding of poor land at a rent mostly of 41 to 45 a year. He has no legal title, being technically a tenant at will, but one who considers that he has an absolute tenant- right, as the survival of a clan system of immemorial antiquity, and doing all his improvements for himself ; and in this respect no doubt he has a strong moral claim. It was a wretched system, but the crofter was wedded to it. If he was persuaded to relin- quish his holding, had gone away, made money, and come back a prosperous man, the chances were that he demanded to be reinstated in the ancestral holding. Under the peculiar circumstances of his case, the Legislature came to his help and gave him what he wanted, —namely, fixity of tenure and a Laud Commission empowered to enlarge his holding and fix his rent, so as to enable him to live with some comfort. But the Crofters Act of 1886 was very properly restricted to the counties of Scotland where crofts properly so called were to be found. The Bill quietly introduced by the Secretary for Scotland on the 30th ult, in a Saturday House proposes to extend the system of dual ownership to all Scotland, and to treat as crofts all holdings not exceeding £50 rent. There is absolutely no justification for this extension of a vicious system of land tenure. The Lowland 450 tenant is made of different stuff and placed in circumstances altogether different from those of the Highland crofter. All his buildings and min- provements are provided for him ; he has his lease on terms accept- able to himself,—it is the tenant, not the landlord, who now dictates terms ; he probably looks forward to promoting himself to a larger farm. He would probably reject the Bill as he did a similar one already. But what I would point out is this, that there is no reason in principle or in fact why the line should be drawn at 450 of rent, or why the benefits of the Bill should be restricted to Scotland. In fact. the English system, with farms largely held from year to year, would seem to offer more excuse for legal intervention than the Scottish leasehold system. All persons interested in preserving a healthy system of land tenure should have their attention called to Captain Sinclair's Bill.
I would, lastly, point out that the men who have made such legislation possible are Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain, by driving the Unionist coach into the condemned slough of Protection.
Banff.
P.8.—With a certain grim humour, the Bill professes to be one to encourage the formation of small holdings. But the landlord who should hereafter create a small holding would be rewarded by losing all control of the land.
Previous page
