Page images
PDF
EPUB

them, a shadow seemed to fill the space around me, the light dwindled, the figures melted away, the walls closed in once more, and I stood alone in the hall. Just then a clock struck three, and all became pitch-dark. I groped my way cautiously to a seat, and sat down to wait for morning.

It was maddening to think how near I had been to solve the riddle which has perplexed generations. Fool that I had been not to think of mentioning it sooner! Well, well, it could not be helped now: I had undergone a wonderful experience. I had been in the very presence of the departed; their voices still rang in my ears, the faint perfume of the ladies' dresses still floated in the air. Yet, must I confess it? the uppermost thought in my mind was one of delight that I was soon to return to the society of my living friends. My books-some, the works of those I had been with just now, others,

that told me of their lives—would be dearer to me than ever; but I had seen nothing in the men and women of the past to make me think them better than their de scendants. History preserves what is memorable, excellent, or notorious in the departed; authors are always on their best behaviour; if they record what is commonplace, despicable, or dull, they are not read that is all. The dust gathers undisturbed on volumes that contain nothing that is grand, witty, wicked, or romantic: we devour those that make the past seem nobler and more gay than the present. But I had been a witness that human nature with periwigs, swords, and lace ruffles differs not at all from the same with chimney-pot hats and silk umbrellas, and I found myself muttering old Villon's line"Mieux vaut goujat debout qu'empereur enterré."

HERBERT MAXWELL.

CROFTER MIGRATION.

IT has struck us, no doubt also many of our readers, as remarkable how little notice, favourable or the reverse, has been taken of the recent Report of the West Highland Commission by the recognised organs of crofter opinion. If there had been adverse comment, based on some show of reason and backed by some pretence of argument, we could have understood the situation even while we might have denied the reason or contested the argument. As it is, but one inference is possible-viz., that the Report cannot easily be assailed. But then, this being so, why do the Radical newspapers hold their peace? A large expenditure is proposed, and measures are recommended which, at the worst, can do no harm-which under favourable circumstances may conceivably do a great deal of good. Yet hardly a voice is raised in their favour from the ranks of those who have hitherto posed as the crofter's friends-indeed his only friends! We do not know what may be the deduction of our readers from this remarkable unanimity of silence; ours is simple, and may be stated in a few words: we think it plain, then, that the very last thing in the world desired by the party, whether it be called Land League, Land Restoration League, Land Law Reform League, or anything else, which professes so loudly its interest in the crofter, is that he should become contented and prosperous. We further think that

Total area of the Lews, Deduct water and foreshore,

this party has been stricken with a great fear lest Government, by adopting the advice of the Commission, should succeed in bringing peace to the Highlands on one hand, or, on the other, in demonstrating to the country at large the hopelessly impossible character of the West Highlander as long as he remains here. To this fear we attribute the revival in some directions of the folly called Migration, so glibly advocated by persons who obviously have none but the crudest notion of the practical difficulties. Migration is, no doubt, possible for a few families, and, for those few, therefore eminently desirable; but to suppose that migration on a scale large enough, or nearly large enough, to produce any appreciable effect on the congestion in some parts of the country is practicable, is a delusion, as we shall now proceed to show.

Probably the most suitable example may be derived from the property of the Lews, towards which so much attention has lately been directed that the conditions can be ascertained with more or less approach to accuracy. Thus, we know the area of the four parishes, the extent of water and foreshore, the proportion of the remainder occupied by clergy, proprietor, tacksmen, deer-forests, and crofters respectively, and generally the state of the population. Let us place our information, then, in tabular form:—

Acres.

437,553 33,076

Carry forward,

404,477

2 E

VOL. CXLIX.-NO. DCCCCV.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

254,835

Deduct since given to crofters,

Total in hands of crofters,

The glebes must be assumed to be inalienable, not so the rest, and we have thus 147,069 acres to deal with for purposes of migration, though this of course involves the departure of the whole of the capitalist class; and we have-or rather we had in 1883, there are now a good many more-804 landless families to provide for.

In 1883, of the 240,000 and odd acres held by crofters, 14,758 acres were within the cultivated area. The chamberlain at that time estimated that about 3000 acres should be deducted for uncultivated land, or land unfit for cultivation, within the boundaries of the crofts." And giving effect to this estimate, which is certainly moderate, we have roughly 12,000 acres, or one-twentieth of the crofting area, which can be called arable land. When we apply this proportion to the 147,000 acres with which we have to deal, it appears that we ought to find about 7400 acres of cultivable land at command. The calculation, however, is misleading, for, with hardly an exception, the deer-forest area of 76,747 acres is absolutely unfit for tillage. But if we let that pass, and accept the proportion throughout, we have about 9 acres for each of the 800 families, and 180 acres of pasture.

Let us compare holdings of the size indicated above,—and it may be well to repeat that we have confiscated for our purpose every available acre of the property,with those to which the crofters themselves aspire: we shall afterwards consider the adequacy of their estimate. It appears, then, from the Report of Lord Napier's Commission (p. 100), that the demand of the Lews crofter, when reduced to terms of sheep, and allowing 3 acres to each sheep, is for grazing to the extent of from 210 to 300 acres for each family: the chamberlain's estimate of his needs, after thirty-five years' experience in the estate office, is however much higher. He thinks (App. A., p. 163) that "a Lews crofter would require from 6 to 10 acres of arable land, and from 400 to 700 acres of pasture lands,"-in other words, at the present valuation of 7d. an acre, and discarding fractions, a holding rented at from £12 to £21. The estimate is moderate, for trustworthy authorities who have spent their lives among the crofters place their aspirations higher still-viz., at £25, £50, and £100. The lastmentioned sum may seem extravagant, but it is thus defended by the authority from whom it is derived: "I think a farm of £100 is small enough to support any

family, and even then the rent must be moderate. I have from time to time seen men paying £30 to £40 of rent go to the wall, and their shares taken by one of their own number in the same township who was more energetic than the others." Here we have the testimony of experience, which is always more valuable than mere theory; and if the estimate be correct which fixes the present family expenditure of crofting households at £50 a-year, we have an additional test, which can readily be applied, in the old maxim that a farm should produce three rents, for the proprietor, the tenant, and the land respectively. The £50-farmer would be no better off than are the crofters to-day, and as their condition is admittedly unsatisfactory, there is something to be said for the larger holding. The result as regards the Lews may be thrown into tabular form as follows::

[blocks in formation]

Hitherto, as has been observed, we have dealt only with the comparatively few landless families on this property: if we proceed, in addition, to enlarge to a reasonable extent the holdings already occupied, which numbered 2948 in 1883, it will be seen at a glance how hopeless is the task before us; for we should require in all, even on the lowest computation-that of the crofters themselves no less than from 787,920 to 1,125,600 acres of pasture, and, at only 5 acres to the family, 18,760 acres of arable ground.

But all this is merely "flogging a dead horse," for we must do the advocates of migration the justice to assume that they have not so entirely parted with their senses as to project the occupation of the Lews by none but crofters, and the exile of the whole wage-paying and moneyed population. What they probably desire is to leave the partition of the property, of which the crofters already hold far the larger part, as it is, and, after enlarging the existing crofts by consolidation, to transfer the surplus population to new holdings of adequate size elsewhere. It will be interesting to ascertain, first, how many families must be so transferred; and, second, the probable cost of settling them in their new homes.

It seems then that, excluding fractions, the Lews crofters hold only 86 acres per family, and, taking the mean of their own estimate, that these holdings should be trebled in order to meet their views-in other words, to admit of the consolidation which in 1883 they thought adequate; it would thus be necessary to remove, voluntarily or otherwise, two-thirds of their number, or 1964 families of crofters, together with 804 families of cotters,-in all, 2768 families, or 13,840 persons: a considerable en

terprise, especially if some were averse to the change. We need hardly say that, in our judgment, even the consolidation thus attained would be wholly inadequate to establish the remaining holders of the consolidated crofts as a selfsupporting population in the climate and on the soil of the Lews, and it will be observed above that others are of our opinion; but we prefer to adopt the estimate put forward by the people themselves, from which, being on record, there is no escape. We shall now attempt a rough estimate of the cost of settling the migrants; but first it is necessary to decide on the nature of the holdings on which we propose to place them.

A recent writer in the crofter

interest has set forth his views on the question of the size of the new holdings as follows: "Small farms with a standard of, say, 30 acres of arable and 100 acres of pasture land," and while we dissent entirely from the proportion of

30:100 as between arable and pasture, we

may provisionally accept his view for the purpose of our argument. Our 2768 families would, then, require for their settlement 83,040 acres of arable land and 276,800 acres of pasture in all, 359,840 acres. Where is such a territory to be found? and, when found, what shall we have to pay for it? A rough-and-ready answer to the latter question may be found by calculating the price at twenty years' purchase on the Lews rate of 7d. an acre: this shows a purchase price of £209,900.

The above is our first investment, but it is by no means our last, for at least two-thirds of our arable land must be reclaimed from the wild state, at a cost, ac cording to the best authorities, of not less than £15 an acre: the

operation demands, therefore, an expenditure of £830,400. Next, we have to house our migrants— the crofter's friends condemn the houses which the people build for themselves, so we must build for them,-and a low estimate of the cost of their dwellings and offices is £150 a family, or £415,200. We have now reached the point when we must consider the question of stocking the land, for, unless fully stocked with animals of fair class, the land will not maintain the population-some would say, not even then. But before going into this matter, it may be well to bring together the heads of our expenditure so far::

359,840 acres @7d. an acre, 20 years' purchase, . Reclamation of 55,360 acres @ £15 an acre,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

£209,900

830,400

2768 homesteads @ £150, : 415,200

£1,455,500

The present crofting-stock in the Lews is utterly inadmissible

as the "stock-in-trade" of a com

munity intended to live by the proceeds of farming, and the value is not more than sufficient (if so much) to pay the rent-arrears, shop-debts, and travelling expenses of the migrants. It must therefore be excluded from the account and we must find money for a better and more complete equipment-at least 10 cows and 100 ewes for each family. Stocking will therefore cost as follows :

27,680 cows @ say £10, 276,800 ewes @ say £1,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

£276,800 276,800

£553,600

Various implements will also be required, and, for these, a very moderate estimate reaches £20 a family: 30 acres, too, will fully employ a horse at £25, and we must thus expend :

« PreviousContinue »