THE DUKE OF ARGYLL ON THE CROFTER COMMISSION.
LTO THS EDITOR OF THE "BrIICTATOR..1
Sta,—Will you allow me in your columns to enter a little pro- test against the extraordinary arguments and conclusions in your article of December 17th on " Fair Rents in the Scottish Highlands," as regards the censure cast indiscriminately on all proprietors whose rents have been lowered by the Crofters, Commission ?
The leading fallacy is in the third paragraph of the article (p. 1,733), which affirms that the present agricultaral depression has nothing to do with the value of land held by the smaller class of tenants, called crofters. What the writer means by this I cannot understand. Upon what principle land is ever to be valued when keld for agricultural purposes, except upon the value of its produce, is quite unintelligible. Of course, there are holdings so small as to belong rather to the class of allotments than to crofts properly so called. The rent of allotments in connection with cottages is generally higher than the mere agricultural value, if it were reckoned as part of a farm. The element of accommodation comes in, and the rent of allotments generally is determined by average market rates in each district.
But a large proportion of crofts in the Highlands are simply small farms. The family lives on them, and, in the main, lives upon them. The tenant very often also fishes, or goes to the low country at certain seasons, to earn wages by labour, in the case of the smaller crofts. But this is not the practice of the tenants of the larger and better crofts, lying between the rentals of £10 and £30. In the main, these crofters live on the pro- duce of their holdings, and pay rent out of its produce. Now, what are the facts as regards the effects of agricultural depression upon that produce ? The great fall in values affected the price of wheat, in the first place, most seriously. Land which can only grow that crop, or is best adapted for it, fell in rental rapidly, and 50 per cent. does not measure that fall. The fall in value of the other cereals followed more slowly,Und has not reached the same comparative depression. Dairy produce, although depressed, has never fallen in the same degree.
The miscellaneous produce which gives value to land near great towns has not suffered any serious depression at all; and I am told that tenants of land near the great markets of Lancashire have not generally needed any abatements. The agricultural depression has, therefore, told very variously in different parts of the country,—acoording, strictly, to its bearing upon the special kinds of produce out of which rent was paid and profit was received.
The special produce out of which rent is generally paid by small Highland tenants is lean, or store-cattle. To which must be added in many cases, but by no means in all, sheep and their wool. Now, it is a fact that the great depression in valve which has been affecting so many articled of produce, did not reads store-cattle till the year 1885. Not only fair prices, but even
high prices, continued to be realised for our Highland cattle during many years up to 188485. Since that year, and during that year, the depression reached this particular article of produce, and reached it in a severe degree. It would be an exaggeration to say that the fall has been unprecedented, because I recollect prices being as low about forty years ago. One of my tenants told me lately that he recollects having bought a cow at that time at a prise about as low as that which has ruled lately. The fall has varied, of course, with the quality of stock. But for the inferior qualities of stock and for young beasts, it has been very heavy.
It is in the face of these facts that the writer of your article gravely asserts that new valuations of mountain or Highland land, which show large abatements of rent in 1887, cannot be explained upon any grounds connected with agricultural de- pression. Yet these valuations have been made at the very bottom of the deepest depression which has affected the special produce of the Highlands for at least half.a-century. If the Commissioners have not taken this into account in their revaluations, they cannot have proceeded on the principle which determines all values, and is now determining all rents which are regulated by the ordinary laws of commerce, for land of the same kind, and yielding only the same kinds of produce. I prefer to believe, and I do believe, that the Commissioners have acted on some intelligible principle ; and the only intelli- gible principle in such cases is the principle which is founded on produce and its market values.
If the great fall in value which has recently (since 1884) affected the price of the cattle ordinarily produced by crofters be taken into account, and if this be compared with the abate- ments of rent made by the Commissioners, the result will be exactly the reverse of the conclusion drawn by the writer of your article. It will prove that the former scale of rent, at the former scale of prices, must have been a very cheap scale of rent in a great majority of cases.
Averages struck over a great variety of holdings, both as to size and quality, are quite deceptive. In the case of my own estate of Tiree, the per-centage varies greatly amongst the nearest neighbours in the same township. But as the Commissioners visited each croft separately, I conclude that they saw corre- sponding differences in the quality of the soil or in the quality of the stock. The value of that stock in the market, deeply depressed as it has lately been, they must., of course, have made a principal item in the valuation. To rule this item out of court, as regards the rents of crofters, when it unquestionably deter- mines all other agricultural rents whatever, is a contention altogether irrational.
I do not wish to dwell on any observations in your article which are personal to myself, farther than to say that I accept the full responsibility of the manner in which my agent con- ducted the case before the Commissioners. He acted on my in- structions, which were to lay every fact which was relevant before the Commission, to treat all my tenants in a friendly and courteous spirit ; but, on the other hand, to allow no erroneous impression or statement to pass without correction. I have no reason to believe that the Commission or its Chairman found any fault whatever with the manner in which my case was handled. Quite the contrary. The whole investigation was conducted in a businesslike, and at the same time friendly spirit, and I may add that in a few cases of dispute among my tenants which we agreed to refer to the Commissioners, their decision has been in favour of the management of the estate.
I may add that the arrears have almost entirely arisen since
the fall in values began to affect the price of cattle, and that up to a very recent date, no tenantry on my estate paid more regularly or more fully than the crofters of Tiree. Let any competent man visit that island now, and compare its agriculture and the condition of its people with the account given of it by Forbes of Culloden in 1737, and he will see what an immense progress has been made,—an advance which can only be called a rise from barbarism to civilisation and to comparative comfort. This advance has been entirely due to the manage- ment, in spite of more than thirty years of laissez-faire, of the suspension of all rule, and of the sufferance of subdivision according to native tendencies. Since that was stopped, and since the crofts were enlarged by systematic consolidation, the prosperity of the people has been steady and continuous. I hope it may continue to be so. But that depends now, more than it did before, on their own intelligence and their own means. I rejoice with the writer of the article in the result in Sutherland. No management has been more attacked and mis- represented. It turns out that the crofters' rents here were not only cheap, but almost, if not altogether, eleemosynary. No small proprietor—no proprietor, even, with moderate means— could afford the enormous outlays and the charitable lettings which have been systematic with the Sutherland farmers during the last three generations.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[A. person who pays £30 a year of rent, whose house does not count for much, may very properly be described as a small farmer. It is probable that he not only lives on his land, but makes his living off it, having no other income than what arises from the sale of his produce. There are many such men in the Eastern Lowlands,—on the property of Lord Aberdeen, for in- stance, where, time out of mind, the rule has been to encourage holdings on which one pair of horses can do the holder's work. The depression in agricultural prices has told severely upon such people. They are, however, comparatively scarce in the Highlands. The Duke of Argyll has selected the maximum figure given in the Act of Parliament as defining a " crofter." Out of the eighteen hundred cases decided by the Commission, how many have been far below the half of that sum ? We believe that the number who were rented under £5 greatly exceeded those who were rented over £15. Even in Tires, the average rent in the oases investigated did not come near the latter amount. There were one hundred and thirty cases in all, and the rental brought into question was lees than £1,300. What appreciable difference would a lowering of price make to such folk ? They consume almost all they produce. Save for the sale of a" stWk," or a half- dozen standing sheep, they are unaffected by the influences that rule the market, and the sooner their condition is mended, so much the better will it be.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
