On Wednesday in the resumed debate in the Lords on
the second reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, Lord Balfour of Burleigh laid stress on the disastrous effects likely to follow from the separation of Scotland from the Board of Agriculture, and contrasted the provisions of the English Act with the Scottish BilL Lord Elgin supported the Bill on the strength of his own experience, but indicated a number of points on which both sides might come to an agree. ment. Lord Lansdowne, who followed, after alluding to these concessions, pointed out that the Lord Chancellor had warned the Opposition that the Government could not accept amend. ments on the cardinal features of the Bill. This attitude rendered compromise impossible. He and his friends believed that there was an essential difference between crofters and other tenants, and denied all along that crofter legislation had been successful in those areas in which it had been tried. The Lord Chancellor in reply declared that the Government could not condescend to capitulate, and that the Bill, which represented the opinion of the country, would be brought forward again and again. The Duke of Montrose's amend- ment proposing the rejection of the Bill was carried by 153 votes to 33. In our opinion, the Lords were fully justified in rejecting so bad a Bill. Until the country chooses to relieve them of the legislative duty with which it now entrusts them, they have no right to pass Bills which they believe to be not only injurious, but also not desired by the people.
Previous page
