THE FORTY DAYS' WARNING TOO SHORT

It is proper to call attention here to the fact that in agricultural
subjects held from Martinmas to Martinmas on a yearly tack, the
forty days' warning to remove, which is held sufficient by the law
of Scotland, is objected to, with some reason, as too short. A
crofter witness makes the following statement:-

'4688. Is there anything else you wish to say?-There is only forty
days' warning given before Martinmas. No doubt that may be well
enough for tenants town like Lerwick, who hold nothing except a
room to live in, but it is very disagreeable for a tenant holding a
small piece of land as we do. As soon as our crop is taken in, we
must start work immediately, and prepare the land for next season.
We have to make provision for manure, and collect our peats, and
prepare stuff for thatching our houses, and perhaps by Martinmas
we have expended from £6 worth of labour and expense on our
little farms. In that case, it is a very hard thing for us to be turned
out of our holdings after receiving only forty days' notice, and
perhaps only getting £1 or £2 for all that labour. Now what I
would suggest is, that instead of that short notice we should be
entitled to receive a longer notice, perhaps six or nine months
before the term, that we are to be turned out.'
'4689. Do you think you would be more at liberty to dispose of
your fish, and to deal at any shop you pleased, if you were entitled
to that longer warning?-I don't think the warning would alter
anything with regard to that; but if I knew that I was to be turned
out at Martinmas, I would probably start fishing earlier, and I
might have a larger price to get for them, instead of working upon