by Various
THE SCOTTISH CROFTERS.
It is hard to dispel the halo which poetry and romance have thrown aboutthe Scottish Highlander and see him simply as he appears in every-daylife. And indeed, all fiction aside, there is in his history andcharacter much that is most admirable and noble. On many a terriblebattle-field his courage has been unsurpassed. His brave and tirelessstruggle for existence where both climate and soil are unfriendly isequally worthy of respect. Then, too, his sterling honesty andindependence in speech and action and his high moral and religiousqualities combine to make him a valuable citizen.
Such considerations account in part for the interest which has beenexcited in England by the claims of the Scottish crofters. There are,however, other reasons why so much attention has of late been given totheir complaints. Their poverty and hardships have long been known inEngland. The reports made by the Emigration Commissioners in 1841 and bySir John McNeil a few years later contain accounts of miserably smalland unproductive holdings, of wretched hovels for dwellings, of lack ofenterprise and interest in making improvements, of curtailment ofpasture, of high rents and insecurity of tenure, very similar to thosefound on the pages of the report of the late Royal Commission. While inthis interval the condition of the crofters has but slightly, if at all,improved, there has been a very considerable improvement in thecondition of the middle and lower classes of the people in other partsof Scotland and in England. The masses of the people have better houses,better food and clothing, while with the development of the schoolsystem and the newspaper press general intelligence has greatlyincreased. The accounts of the poverty and wretchedness of the croftersnow reach the public much more quickly and make a much deeper impressionon all classes than they did forty years ago. While these small farmersare not numerous,--there are probably not more than four thousandfamilies in need of relief,--many of their kinsmen elsewhere haveacquired wealth and influence and have been able to plead their causewith good effect. In this country "The Scottish Land League" has issuedin "The Cry of the Crofter" an eloquent plea for help to carry on theagitation to a successful issue.
Another reason for the increased attention that has lately been given tothese claims is found in the rapidly-growing tendency to concede to thelandlord fewer and fewer and to the tenant more and more rights in theland. The recent extension of the suffrage, giving votes to nearly twomillions of agricultural and other laborers, leads politicians to go asfar as possible in favoring new legislation in the interest of tenantsand laborers. The crofters' case has therefore come to be of specialinterest as a part of the general land question which has of latereceived so much attention from the English press and Parliament, andwhich is pretty certain to be prominent for several years to come.
Those who are familiar only with the relations existing between landlordand tenant in this country are naturally surprised to find the crofterdemanding that his landlord shall (1) give him the use of more land,(2) reduce his rent, (3) pay him on leaving his holding for all hisimprovements, and (4) not accept in his stead another tenant, eventhough the latter may be anxious to take the holding at a higher figureor turn him out for any other reason. In addition to all this, thecrofters demand that the government shall advance them money to enablethem to build suitable houses and improve and stock their farms. AnAmerican tenant who should make such demands would be considered insane.No such view of the crofters' claims, however, is taken in England andScotland.
What, then, are the grounds upon which these extensive claims are based?Why should the crofter claim a right to have his holding enlarged and tohave the land at a lower rent than some one else may be willing to pay?The reasons are to be found partly in his history, traditions, andcircumstances, and partly in the present tendency of the legislation anddiscussions relating to the ownership and occupation of land.
Under the old clan system, to which the crofter is accustomed to tracehis claims, the land was owned by the chief and clansmen in common, andallotments and reallotments were made from time to time to individualclansmen, each of whom had a right to some portion of the land, whilethe commons were very extensive. Rent or service was paid to the chief,who had more or less control over the clan lands and often possessed anestate in severalty, with many personal dependants. In many cases thepower of the chief was great and tyrannical, and many of the clansmenwere in a somewhat servile condition; but the more influential clansmenseem sometimes to have retained permanent possession of theirallotments. Long ago sub-letting became common, and hard services wereoften exacted of the sub-tenants, whose lot was frequently a mostunhappy one. The modern cottar, as well as the squatter, had hisrepresentative in the dependant of the chief, or clansman, or in theoutlaw or vagrant member of another clan who came to build his rudecabin wherever he could find a sheltered and unoccupied spot. No doubtmany of the sub-tenants, even where they held originally by base anduncertain services and at the will of their superior, came in time, likethe English copyholder, to have a generally-recognized right to thepermanent possession of their holdings, while custom tended to fix thecharacter and quantity of their services. The population was notnumerous, and it was probably not difficult for every man to secure aplot of land of some sort.
The crofters of to-day have lost for the most part the traditions of thedrawbacks and hardships of this ancient system, with its oppressiveservices, to which many of their ancestors were subject, and havecommonly retained only the tradition of the right which every clansmanhad to some portion of the clan lands. In 1745 the clan organizationswere abolished and the chiefs transformed into landlords and investedwith the fee-simple of the land. But, while changes were gradually madeon some estates in the direction of conformity to the English system,most of the old customary rights of the people continued to berecognized. The tenant was commonly allowed to occupy his holding fromyear to year without interruption. Money rent gradually took the placeof service or rent in kind, but the amount exacted does not seem to havebeen often increased arbitrarily. The rights of common, which were oftenof great value, were respected.
The descendants and successors, however, of the old Scotch lairds didnot always display the same regard for prescriptive rights and usages.In some cases the extravagance and bankruptcy of the old owners causedthe titles to pass to Englishmen, while in others the inheritors of theestates were more and more inclined to insist upon their legal rightsand to introduce in the management of their property rules similar tothose in use in England. Early in the present century sheep-farming wasfound to be profitable, and many large areas of glen and mountain werecleared of the greater part of their population and converted intosheep-farms. Many of the mountainous parts of Scotland are of little usefor agricultural purposes. Formerly the crofters used large tracts assummer pastures for their small herds of inferior stock. By and by theproprietors found that large droves of better breeds of sheep could bekept on these mountain-pastures. The crofters were too poor to undertakethe management of the large sheep-farms into which it was apparentlymost profitable to divide these mountain-lands, and sheep-farmers fromthe south became the tenants. By introducing sheep-farming on a largescale the landlords were able, they claimed, to use hundreds ofthousands of acres which before were of comparatively little value. Thelarge flocks of sheep could not, however, be kept without having thelower slopes of the mountains on which to winter. It was these slopesthat the crofters commonly used for pasture, below which, in the strathsand glens, were their holdings and dwellings. The ruins of cottages, orpatches of green here and there where cottages stood, mark the sites ofmany little holdings from which the crofters and their families wereturned out many years ago in order to make room for sheep-farms. Theproprietors sometimes recognized the rights of these native tenants, andgave them new holdings in exchange for the old ones. The new crofts wereoften nearer the sea, where the land was less favorable for grazing andwhere the rights of common were less valuable, but the occupants hadbetter opportunities for supplementing their incomes from the land byfishing and by gathering sea-weed fo
r kelp, from which iodine was made.There were, however, great numbers who were not supplied with newcrofts, but turned away from their old homes and left to shift forthemselves. Some of these, too poor to go elsewhere, built rude hutswherever they could find a convenient spot, and thus increased the ranksof the squatters. Others were allowed to share the already too smallholdings of their more fortunate brethren, while others, again, foundtheir way to the lowlands and cities of the south or to America. Thetraditions of the hardships and sufferings endured by some of theseevicted crofters are still kept alive in the prosperous homes of theirchildren and grandchildren on this side of the Atlantic. The process ofclearing off the crofters went on for many years. In 1849 Hugh Miller,in trying to arouse public sentiment against it, declared that, "whilethe law is banishing its tens for terms of seven and fourteenyears,--the penalty of deep-dyed crimes,--irresponsible and infatuatedpower is banishing its thousands for no crime whatever."
Lately, owing to foreign competition and the deterioration of the landthat has been used for many years as sheep-pastures, sheep-farming hasbecome much less profitable than formerly, and many large tenants havein consequence given up their farms. The enthusiasm for deer-huntinghas, however, increased with the increase of wealth and leisure amongEnglishmen, and immense tracts, amounting altogether to nearly twomillions of acres, have been turned into deer-forests, yielding, as arule, a slightly higher rent than was paid by the crofters andsheep-farmers. Much of this land is either unfit for agriculturalpurposes or could not at present be cultivated with profit. Some of it,however, is fertile, or well suited for grazing, and greatly coveted bythe crofters. The deer and other game often destroy or injure the cropsof the adjoining holdings, and thus add to the troubles of the occupantsand increase their indignation at the land's being used to raise sheepand "vermin" instead of men. Most Americans have had intimations of thisfeeling through the accounts of the hostility that has been shown to ourcountryman, Mr. Winans, whose deer-forest is said to cover two hundredsquare miles. While evictions are much less common than they were two orthree generations ago, there has all along been a disposition on thepart of the proprietors to enclose in their sheep-farms and deer-forestslands that were formerly tilled or used as commons by the crofters andcottars. In comparison with the crofter of to-day the sub-tenant of ahundred years ago had, as a rule, more land for tillage, a far widerrange of pasture for his stock, and "greater freedom in regard to thenatural produce of the river and moor."
Many of the crofters belong to families which have lived on the sameholdings for generations. It is a common experience everywhere thatlong-continued use begets and fosters the feeling of ownership. This isespecially true when, as in the crofter's case, there is so much in thehistory and traditions of the people and the property that tends toestablish a right of possession. Besides, the crofter, or one of hisancestors, has in most cases built the house and made otherimprovements: sometimes he has reclaimed the land itself and changed abarren waste into a garden. The labor and money which he and hisancestors have expended in improving the place seem to him to give himan additional right to occupy it always. It is his holding and his home,the home of his fathers and of his family. While he may be unable toresist the power of his landlord, and may have no legal security for hisrights and interests, he regards the curtailment of his privileges orthe increase of his rent as unjust, and eviction as a terrible outrage."The extermination of the Highlanders," says one of their kinsmen, "hasbeen carried on for many years as systematically and persistently asthat of the North-American Indians.... Who can withhold sympathy aswhole families have turned to take a last look at the heavens red withtheir burning homes? The poor people shed no tears, for there was intheir hearts that which stifled such signs of emotion: they wereabsorbed in despair. They were forced away from that which was dear totheir hearts, and their patriotism was treated with contemptuousmockery.... There are various ways in which the crime of murder isperpetrated. There are killings which are effected by the unjust andcruel denying of lands to our fellow-creatures to enable them to obtainfood and raiment."
The feeling of the crofters in regard to increase of rent and evictionis very similar to that of the Irish tenantry. Very recently Mr. Parnelluttered sentiments which both would accept as their own. "I trust," hesaid, "that when any individual feels disposed to violate the divinecommandment by taking, under such circumstances, that which does notbelong to him, he will feel within him the promptings of patriotism andreligion, and that he will turn away from the temptation. Let himremember that he is doing a great injustice to his country and hisclass,--that though he may perhaps benefit materially for a while, yetthat ill-gotten gains will not prosper." Where crofters have beenevicted, or have had their privileges curtailed or their rent raised,they and their descendants do not soon forget the grievance. Claims haverecently been made for lands which the crofters have not occupied fortwo or three generations.
The Scotch landlords are not, as a rule, cruel or unjust. On thecontrary, some of them are exceedingly kind and generous to theirtenants, and have spent large sums of money in making improvements whichadd greatly to the prosperity and comfort of those who live on theirestates. Many of them recognize the right of their tenants to occupytheir holdings without interruption so long as the rent is paidregularly. The natural tendency, however, to insist upon their legalrights and to make the most they can out of their estates has led to nota few cases of hardship and injustice. A few such instances in acommunity are talked over for years, and often seriously interfere withthe contentment and industry of many families. The traditions andrecollections of the many evictions which have occurred during thiscentury have often caused the motives of the best landlords to besuspected and their most benevolent acts to be misunderstood by theirtenants. The crofter system has been an extremely bad one in manyrespects. There cannot be much interest in making improvements where thetenant must build the houses, fences, stables, etc., but has noguarantee that he will not be turned out of his holding or have his rentso increased as practically to compel him to leave the place. Thekindness and humanity of the landlords have in many instances mitigatedthe worst evils of the system; but, while human nature remains as it is,no matter how just and generous individual landlords may be, generalprosperity and contentment are impossible under the presentarrangements. The discontent and discouragement caused by the action ofthe less kind and considerate landlords and agents frequently extend tocrofters who have no just grounds of complaint, and troubles andhardships resulting from idleness or improvidence or other causes areoften attributed to the injustice of the laws or the cruelty of thelandlords.
The poverty of the crofter often renders his condition deplorable. Hisholding and right of common have been curtailed by the landlord, or hehas sub-divided them among his sons or kinsmen, until it would beimpossible for the produce of the soil to sustain the population, evenif no rent whatever were charged. Some years ago he was able to increasehis income by gathering sea-weed for kelp; but latterly, since iodinecan be obtained more cheaply from other sources, the demand for thisproduct has ceased. In some places the fishing is valuable, enabling himto supply his family with food for a part of the year, and bringing himmoney besides. He is, however, often too poor to provide the necessaryboats and nets, while in many places the absence of good harbors andlandings is a most serious drawback to the fishing industry. Sometimeshe supplements his income by spending a few months of the year in thelow country and obtaining work there. In most cases, however, a largepart of his income must be derived from the land. If there were plentyof employment to be had, the little holding would do very well as agarden, and the stock which he could keep on the common would addgreatly to his comfort. As things now are, he must look chiefly to theland both for his subsistence and his rent, and, with an unfruitful soiland an unfriendly climate, he is often on the verge of want.
Still more wretched is the condition of the cottars and squatters. Thelatter are in some places numerous and have taken up considerableporti
ons of land formerly used as common, thus interfering with therights of the crofters. They appropriate land and possess and pasturestock, but pay no rent, obey no control, and scarcely recognize anyauthority. The dwellings of this class and of some of the poorercrofters are wretched in the extreme. A single apartment, with walls ofstone and mud, a floor of clay, a thatched roof, no windows, no chimney,one low door furnishing an entrance for the occupants and a means ofventilation and of escape for the smoke which rolls up black and thickfrom the peat fire, furniture of the rudest imaginable sort, theinhabitants--the human beings, the cows, the pigs, the sheep, and thepoultry--all crowded together in the miserable and filthy hut, make up apicture which the most romantic and poetic associations can hardlyrender pleasing to one accustomed to the comforts and refinements ofmodern civilization. Of course many of the crofters live in greatercomfort, and some of the cottages are by no means unattractive. But theRoyal Commissioners say that the crofter's habitation is usually "of acharacter that would imply physical and moral degradation in the eyes ofthose who do not know how much decency, courtesy, virtue, and evenrefinement survive amidst the sordid surroundings of a Highland hovel."An Englishman who, on seeing these "sordid surroundings," was disposedto compare the social and moral condition of the people to "thebarbarism of Egypt," was told that if he would ask one of the crofters,in Gaelic or English, "What is the chief end of man?" he would soon seethe difference.
With such a history, such traditions, grievances, conditions, andhardships, it is not strange that the crofter should be ready to join anagitation that promised a remedy. Some of his grievances and claims havebeen so similar to those of the Irish tenant that the legislation whichfollowed the violent agitation in Ireland has led him to hope forrelief-measures similar to those enacted for the Irish tenantry. TheIrish Land Act of 1870 recognized the tenant's right to the permanentpossession of his holding and to his improvements, by providing that onbeing turned out by his landlord he should have compensation fordisturbance and for his improvements. It did not, however, secure himagainst the landlord's so increasing his rent as practically toappropriate his improvements and even force him to leave his holdingwithout any compensation. The Land Act of 1881 secured his interests byestablishing a court which should fix a fair rent, by giving him a rightto compensation for disturbance and for his improvements, and byallowing him to sell his interests for the best price he can get forthem. It also enabled him to borrow from the government, at a low rateof interest, three-fourths of the money necessary to purchase hislandlord's interest in the holding. This legal recognition and guaranteeof the Irish tenant's interests have led the crofter to hope that hisclaims, based on better grounds, may also be conceded.
The changes recently made in the land laws of England and Scotland, andthe activity of the advocates of further and more radical changes, haveincreased this hope. Progressive English statesmen have long looked withdisfavor upon entails and settlements, and there have been a number ofenactments providing for cutting off entails and increasing the power oflimited owners. The last and most important of these, the SettledEstates Act, passed in 1882, gives the tenant for life power to sell anyportion of the estate except the family mansion, and thus thoroughlyundermines the principle upon which primogeniture and entails arefounded. Much land which has hitherto been so tied up that the limitedowners were either unable or unwilling to develop it can now be sold andimproved. New measures have been proposed to increase still further thepower of limited owners and to make the sale and transfer of land easierand less expensive. Many able statesmen are advocates of these measures.Mr. Goschen in a recent speech at Edinburgh urged the need of aland-register by which transfers of land might be made almost as cheaplyand easily as transfers of consols. By such an arrangement, it is held,many farmers of small capital will be enabled to buy their farms, andthe land of the country will thus be dispersed among a much largernumber of owners. There has also been a very marked tendency to enlargethe rights and the authority of the tenant farmer. The AgriculturalHoldings Act of 1883 gives the tenant a right to compensation fortemporary and, on certain conditions, for permanent improvements, andpermits him in most cases, where he cannot have compensation, to removefixtures or buildings which he has erected, contrary to the old doctrinethat whatever is fixed to the soil becomes the property of the landlord.The landlord's power to distrain for rent is greatly reduced: formerlyhe could distrain for six years' rent, now he can distrain only for therent of one year, and he is required to give the tenant twelve insteadof six months' notice to quit. The tenant is therefore more secure thanformerly in the possession of his farm and in spending money and laborin making improvements that will render it more productive. Otherchanges are proposed, which will give him still more rights, greaterfreedom in the management of the farm, and additional encouragement toadopt the best methods of farming and invest his labor and money inimprovements. Many of the land reformers advocate the adoption ofmeasures similar to those that have been enacted for Ireland. It has forsome time been one of the declared purposes of the Farmers' Alliance tosecure a system of judicial rents for the tenant farmers of England. Animportant conference lately held at Aberdeen and participated in byrepresentatives of both the English and Scottish Farmers' Alliancesadopted an outline of a land bill for England and Scotland, providingfor the establishment of a land court, fixing fair rents, fullercompensation for improvements, and the free sale of the tenant'sinterests.
The wretched condition of the dwellings of the agricultural laborers inmany parts of the country has attracted much attention, and plans forbettering their condition have frequently been urged. Lately theinterest in the subject has increased, prominent statesmen on both sideshaving espoused the cause. In view of the political power which therecent extension of the suffrage has given to the agricultural laborers,there is a general expectation that a measure will shortly be enactedrequiring the owner or occupier of the farm to give each laborer a plotof ground "of a size that he and his family can cultivate withoutimpairing his efficiency as a wage-earner," at a rent fixed byarbitration, and providing for a loan of money by the state for theerection of a proper dwelling. The provisions of the Irish Land Act andits amendment relating to laborers' cottages and allotments suggest thelines along which legislation for the improvement of laborers' dwellingsin England and Scotland is likely to proceed.
Then there is the scheme for nationalizing the land, the state payingthe present owners no compensation, or a very small amount, and assumingthe chief functions now exercised by the landlords. No statesman has yetventured to advocate this scheme, but it has called forth a great dealof discussion on the platform and in the newspapers and reviews, and hascaptivated most of those who are inclined to adopt socialistic theoriesof property. Mr. George himself has preached his favorite doctrine tothe crofters, whose views of their own rights in the land have led themto look upon the plan with more favor than the English tenants. Others,too, who have plans to advocate for giving tenants and laborers greaterrights have taken special pains to have their views presented to thecrofters, since the claims of the latter against the landlords seem torest upon so much stronger grounds than those of the English tenant.
The agitations for the reform of the land laws in Ireland and England,and the utterances of the advocates of the various plans for increasingthe rights and privileges of the tenant, have led the crofters to dwellupon their grievances until they have become thoroughly aroused. Theyhave in many cases refused to pay rent, have resisted eviction anddriven away officers who attempted to serve writs, have offered violenceto the persons or property of some of those who have ventured to takethe crofts of evicted tenants, and in some instances have taken forciblepossession of lands which they thought ought to be added to theircrofts. The government found it necessary a short time ago to sendgunboats with marines and extra police to some of the islands anddistricts to restore the authority of the law. The crofters and theirfriends are thoroughly organized, and seem likely to insist upon theirclaims with the per
sistency that is characteristic of their race. It isnow generally conceded that some remedy must be provided for theirgrievances and hardships.
The remedy that has been most frequently suggested, the only onerecommended by the Emigration Commissioners in 1841 and by Sir JohnMcNeil in 1852, is emigration. The crofting system, it has often beenurged, belongs to a bygone age; it survives only because of itsremoteness from the centres of civilization and the ruggedness of thecountry; the implements used by the crofters are of the most primitivesort, while their agricultural methods are "slovenly and unskilful tothe last degree." It is impossible for these small farmers, with theircrude implements and methods, to compete with the large farmers, whohave better land and use the most improved implements and methods.Besides, many of the crofters are, and their ancestors for manygenerations have been, "truly laborers, living chiefly by the wages oflabor, and holding crofts and lots for which they pay rents, not fromthe produce of the land, but from wages." If they cannot find employmentwithin convenient distance of their present homes, the best and kindestthing for them is to help them to go where there is a good demand forlabor and better opportunities for earning a decent livelihood. Toencourage them to stay on their little crofts, where they are frequentlyon the verge of want, is unkind and very bad policy. One who has seenthe wretched hovels in which some of these crofter families live, thesmall patches of unproductive land on which they try to subsist, thehardships which they sometimes suffer, and the lack of opportunities forbettering their condition in their native Highlands or islands, and whoknows how much has been accomplished by the enterprise and energy ofHighlanders in other parts of the world, can hardly help wishing thatthey might all be helped to emigrate to countries where their industryand economy would more certainly be rewarded, and where they would havea fairer prospect for success in the struggle for life and advancement.Many of them would undoubtedly be far better off if they could emigrateunder favorable conditions. The descendants of many of those who wereforced to leave their homes by "cruel and heartless Highland lairds,"and who suffered terrible hardships in getting to this country andfounding new homes, have now attained such wealth and influence as theycould not possibly have acquired among their ancestral hills. The RoyalCommissioners recommended that the state should aid those who may bewilling to emigrate from certain islands and districts where thepopulation is apparently too great for the means of subsistence.
The crofters are, however, strongly attached to their native hills andglens, and they claim that such laws can and ought to be enacted as willenable them to live in comfort where they are. The present, it is urged,is a particularly favorable time to establish prosperous small farmersin many parts of the Highlands where sheep-farming has proved a failure.The inhabitants of the coasts and islands are largely a seafaringpeople. There is quite as much Norse as Celtic blood in the veins ofmany of them, and the Norseman's love of the sea leads them naturally tofishing or navigation. The herring-fisheries, with liberal encouragementon the part of the government, might be made far more profitable to thefishermen and to the nation. Besides, the seafaring people of theHighlands and islands "constitute a natural basis for the naval defenceof the country, a sort of defence which cannot be extemporized, andwhich in possible emergencies can hardly be overrated." At the presenttime they "contribute four thousand four hundred and thirty-one men tothe Royal Naval Reserve,--a number equivalent to the crews of sevenarmored war-steamers of the first class." It is surely desirable tofoster a population which has been a "nursery of good citizens and goodworkers for the whole empire," and of the best sailors and soldiers forthe British navy and army. Public policy demands that every legitimatemeans be used to better the condition of the crofters and cottars, andto encourage them to remain in and develop the industries of their owncountry, instead of abandoning it to sheep and deer. Private interestsmust be made subordinate to the public good. Parliament may thereforeinterfere with the rights of landed property when the interests of thepeople and of the nation demand it, as they do in this case.
It was on some such grounds that the Royal Commissioners recommendedthat restrictions be placed upon the further extension of deer-forests,that the fishing interests should be aided by the government, that theproprietors should be required to restore to the crofters lands formerlyused as common pastures, and to give them, under certain restrictions,the use of more land, enlarging their holdings, and that in certaincases they should be compelled to grant leases at rents fixed byarbitration, and to give compensation for improvements. The governmentis already helping the fishermen by constructing a new harbor and byimproving means of communication and transportation, and proposes togreatly lighten taxation in the near future.
The bill which the late government introduced into Parliament does notundertake to provide for aid to those who may wish to emigrate, or forthe compulsory restoration of common pasture, or for the enlargement ofthe holdings. It does, however, propose to lend money on favorable termsfor stocking and improving enlarged or new holdings. As a convention oflandlords which was held at Aberdeen last January, and which representeda large amount of land, resolved to increase the size of crofters'holdings as suitable opportunities offered and when the tenants couldprofitably occupy and stock the same, the demand for more land seemslikely to be conceded in many cases without compulsory legislation. Thebill defines a crofter to be a tenant from year to year of a holding ofwhich the rent is less than fifty pounds a year, and which is situatedin a crofting-parish. Every such crofter is to have security of tenureso long as he pays his rent and complies with certain other conditions;his rent is to be fixed by an official valuer or by arbitration, if heand his landlord cannot agree in regard to it; he is to havecompensation, on quitting his holding, for all his improvements whichare suitable for the holding; and his heirs may inherit his interests,although he may not sell or assign them. Such propositions seem radicaland calculated to interfere greatly with proprietary rights and thefreedom of contract. They are, however, but little more than statementsof the customs that already exist on some of the best estates. Just asthe government by the Irish Land Law Act (1881) took up the Ulstertenant-right customs, gave them the force of law, and extended them toall Ireland, it is proposed by this bill to give the sanction of law tothose customary rights which the crofters claim to have inherited fromformer generations, and which have long been conceded by some of thelandlords.
Such a measure of relief will not make all the crofters contented andprosperous. It will, however, give them security against being turnedout of their homes and against excessively high rents, and willencourage them to spend their labor and money in improving theirholdings. If some assistance could be given to those who may wish toemigrate from overcrowded districts, and if the government would makeliberal advances of money to promote the fishing industry, the prospectthat the discontent and destitution would disappear would be muchbetter. The relief proposed will, however, be thankfully received bymany of the crofters and their friends.
DAVID BENNETT KING.
