I regret that my right hon. Friend has not thought it desirable to state the reasons for this Bill, because I regard it as a gross violation of all the principles on which my right hon. Friend holds his position upon that Bench. It is, thereford, impossible that I can allow the Second Reading to pass without a protest against it. In 1871 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) laid down the lines upon which the redemption of rent was to proceed, and the first attack upon them took place in 1887 under the present Government, who introduced a clause enabling a leaseholder in perpetuity to obtain a fee farm grant. No reason whatever is alleged in justification for the present measure. The tenants have made a fair and reasonable bargain for themselves, and the landlords have not insisted upon anything approaching what may be termed landlord tyranny in Ireland. Nor are the provisions of the present Bill the same as the clauses introduced into the Act of 1890 and the Land Department Bill of the present Session. Those clauses were confined to long leaseholders, whereas the present measure applies to fee farm grants. I take it that a leasehold of 999 years differs essentially from a fee farm grant. My right hon. Friend now proposes to break up that which is the absolute sale of a freehold interest between a vendor and a purchaser. It is not a contract for letting between landlord and tenant, but the absolute sale of the lease, and that is what my right hon. Friend is now seeking to do. Subject to the payment of rent, it is a conveyance of the fee simple of the land of the grantee. The Bill itself makes the expression "fee simple" cover all the land held on fee farm grant. Therefore, I take it that it conveys everything subject only to the rent. I certainly think that those who are interested in this kind of property are entitled to know from Her Majesty's Government what are their reasons for changing the policy which has been hitherto pursued by all Governments in regard to this particular kind of property. In 1887 there might have been a reason for alleging the unfair and inequitable treatment of the owners of short leases, but the owners of long leases were in an entirely different position. The class of tenants who will be affected by this Bill are, with the exception of about 2 per cent., under £50 valuation. For years they have been placed in a position which caused them to be envied by every other class of tenants in Ireland, and I cannot understand why, in regard to them, my right hon. Friend should introduce the principle of compulsory purchase. Under this Bill the landlords, if they go to the Land Courts, would have only one reasonable alternative practically offered to them, namely, to sell their property to their tenants. I do not desire to detain the House at any length, but I wish to state as concisely as I can my objections to this special class of legislation. I am aware that I shall probably not receive much support, and therefore I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division on the Second Reading, but I hope to hear the reasons why the Government have now, at the eleventh hour, turned round and altered the policy hitherto pursued in regard to this class of property. I object to this kind of legislation, which will still further weaken the integrity of contracts in Ireland; and I protest against it as a violation of the rights of property, and of all the principles on which the Government have arrived at their seats upon that Bench.

The hon. Member opposite has been much more prudent in his action than in his speech, and he has wisely abstained from taking advantage of his right to divide the House. If he had adopted that course he would probably find himself telling an empty Lobby, for I doubt whether a single Member would have followed him. Personally, I so far differ from the views of the hon. Member that I am of opinion that this Bill is far from exceeding the demands of justice. On the contrary, it does much less than justice to the Irish tenants. What is the difference between the Irish tenants dealt with by this Bill and the Irish tenants admitted to a fair rent by the Land Courts four years ago? Practically there is no difference at all, and the hardship is greater upon the tenants still remaining than it was upon those who were dealt with four years ago. In old times, when the will of the landlord was paramount, the tenants consented to take farms on the landlords' terms, in order to escape an increase of rent and eviction eventually. They paid a heavy fine, and they secured no reduction of rent in consequence of receiving these fee-simple grants. Unless this Bill passes, those tenants will have to go on paying the old heavy rents, while their neighbours have received some amount of justice. On what principle of fairness should the right to go into Court for a fair rent be given to a tenant with a 99 years' lease, and refused to another tenant who has a longer lease? There is, I repeat, no conceivable difference between the tenants dealt with by the law and those I refer to, except that the case of the latter is much harder. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) speaks of a legal position, but what is this House for but to amend a legal position when it is shown to be inequitable. It is because the Chief Secretary is convinced of the hardship of the position and the equity of the claim that he proposes to amend the law. If the hon. Member took the view which generally prevails in this House as to the duties and responsibilities of landlords towards their tenants he is one of the last men who should raise an opposition to this Bill, for on the estate of his father the fee farm rents are so exorbitant as to destroy not only the fee farm interest but even the tenant right of the tenants.

The only fee farm grant sold by my father was sold for 30 years' purchase.

The hon. Member's father became the owner of the estate to which I refer in 1866.

No.

In 1866, or about that time, and he at once increased the rents; in some cases doubling them. In 1878 he told the tenants he was about to sell the estate, and he advised them to take perpetuity grants. He did not, however, sell the estate, but he holds it now. The hon. Member talks about the fee simple, but these tenants are prohibited from laying down corn beyond such proportion as may be fixed by the landlord, and if they disobey this injunction they are liable to pay a fine of £1 a year for every acre laid down in corn.

That is an ordinary provision.

But what benefit do the tenants derive from having, as the hon. Member says, the fee simple? I have said that when Mr. Ellison Macartney became the owner of this estate he increased the rents upon seven out of 12 farms by sums ranging from £7 to £38 a year. In one case the Poor Law valuation was £22 10s.; the old rent was £23, and the new rent, under a grant which the hon. Member says gives the tenant the fee simple, is £63. In another case the Poor Law valuation is £7; the old rent £15, and the new rent £20. In a third case the Poor Law valuation is £8 10s.; the old rent £16, and the new rent £35. In another case the Poor Law valuation is £39; the old rent was £39, and the new rent is £78, or exactly double. The hon. Member is quite right in taking his own course; but if he does so he must take the consequences, both in regard to his father's tenants and other tenants in Ireland. Tenants paying such heavy and unjust rents, no matter what the form of contract may be, are entitled to the interference and protection of the Land Court. The Bill is an extremely moderate one, and really does less than justice. It is only where men are in a certain position of hardship, and landlords will not sell at all, that the tenants will be able to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed. I admit that the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will not always permit him to go as far as circumstances demand, or as he perhaps wishes but as we cannot obtain full and complete justice for Ireland in the matter we must be content for the time with what is practicable.

I do not propose to discuss this Bill at any length, nor in reference to any particular estate, but I desire to say that there has never been introduced a more just and equitable measure than the Bill which has been introduced by the Government to-day. I agree with the remark of the hon. Member for South Antrim, that the proper time when the tenants in question ought to have been dealt with was when the Act of 1887 was passed, and the result of their being passed over has been that for four years these unfortunate men have been groan- ing under the old exorbitant rents. I and others pointed out in 1887 that we failed to see any difference between leaseholders of 99 years and leaseholders of longer terms; but we had to make a virtue of necessity at the time. A compromise was arrived at by the House, but it was known that I and many others never acquiesced in it, and year after year Bills have been introduced to settle the question. I do not think the bulk of the long leaseholders exist on the estates of the old Irish landlords; they hold under men who have purchased out of the wreck of the old Irish landlords. Those landlords now are in many cases shopkeepers in towns, and I need not tell the House what kind of landlords they are. Whatever were the faults of the old landlords, they were positively blameless compared with these new landlords, the tenants of whom in many cases are made to pay more than double the rent that is paid by their neighbours for land of the same description and in the same neighbourhood. In some instances the tenants pay from £2 10s. to £3 an acre, while a tenant with land on the other side of the hedge only pays £1. I admit, as the hon. Member for South Antrim has stated, that there is one thing in this Bill which was not in that of last year—that the fee farm grants have been added to the measure, but it must be borne in mind that he himself has admitted that there is no difference be-the fee farm leases and the perpetuity leases. The House by this Bill is simply asked to do justice to the men who were left out of the Act of 1887. The landlords will be given the option of selling; it is only when they absolutely refuse to do so that they will be forced into Court, and the tenants will be able to get a fair rent fixed. This is a just and equitable measure and will prevent a worthy class of tenants from inevitably going to the wall. It is, I maintain, a just Bill and will give relief to some 2,000 tenants—a relief which is much wanted and which ought to be given.

I wish to remind the House that the Bill is merely a clause, or rather two or three clauses, taken out of the Bill which the Government introduced early last year. It has been before the country, therefore, for a year and a half, and no comment has hitherto been made upon it, which induces me to believe that the Government are well advised in bringing it forward in its original shape, and in now trying to press it forward in a form which will enable it to become law in the present Session. My hon. Friend who has criticised the Bill will, I think, be of opinion that a worse form of tenure than that of letting agricultural land at the full agricultural value in perpetuity could not be devised. There is nothing analogous to it anywhere, so far as I know; certainly there is nothing analogous to it either in England or Scotland. If the Parliament of this country was justified, as it thought itself justified, in allowing the copyhold tenant of England to personally redeem his tenancy at a fair price, so I think Parliament would now be justified, by a parity of reasoning, in allowing the perpetual leaseholder, holding agricultural land at the full agricultural rack-rent, also to redeem his holding at a fair price. It will not be denied that the provisions made in the Bill for seeing that the price should be a fair one afford ample security and guarantee to the landlord. I believe the Bill meets with the general approval of almost every class in Ireland, including the landlord class.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the second time.

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should put down the Committee stage as the first Order of the day for which it is fixed, in order that it may be disposed of as promptly as possible.

I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the leader of the House, and I will put down the Committee stage for Thursday week.

Bill committed for Thursday, 16th July.

moved, in page 1, line 5, at the commencement of the clause, to insert "except as regards the administrative County of London." The right hon. Gentleman said: The object of the Amendment is to except the administrative County of London from the scope of the clause. At the outset I would call the attention of hon. Members opposite who have so often attacked the London County Council to the fact that their own Government are now proposing to prolong the powers of the Council for six months. The London County Council feel that this is a great compliment; the Council indeed were at first disposed to accept the proposal made in the Bill, and actually passed a resolution to that effect. The Finance and Parliamentary Committees, however, felt very strongly the inconvenience that would arise, and the subject was brought up again, when their arguments convinced the great majority of the Council, and a resolution was passed by 73 votes to 22 in favour of November as against March. The reasons are twofold—partly financial and partly Parliamentary. Taking finance first, the Committee will remember that the Council's year ends in March, and the new rate has practically to be made by the Council early in April, on a Report from the Finance Committee, sanctioned by the Treasury. The rate must be passed by the Council the first week in April, and as the consent of the Treasury has to be obtained, it is clear that the estimates must be sent in by the Finance Committee at the latest on the 1st of April. Now, if the Bill in its present form is to apply to London, the new Council will be elected on the 8th of March. The first duty of the new Council will be to elect a Chairman and Aldermen. I will assume that this is settled by the 16th, that being the earliest possible date. Then the 137 members have to be allotted to the Committees, which are about 20 in number. That is a very important matter, and must certainly take a week, bringing us to the 22nd. There would then only remain 10 days for the Spending Com- mittees to frame their estimates, and for the Finance Committee to consider and recommend for the Council to adopt them. It is quite obvious that the time is altogether insufficient. Such an elaborate process cannot be compressed within 10 days, except with the greatest possible inconvenience. The very first day the Spending Committees meet they would have estimates laid before them by the clerk and would have to come to a determination upon them at once. It is impossible that they could give to them the consideration they require and the estimates must be accepted without proper time having been afforded for their examination. In the same way the Finance Committee will have to accept the estimates sent up by the other Committees without any time for consideration. The Spending Committees will be compelled to adopt the estimates of the clerks of Committees, and the Finance Committee will have no option but to take those of the Comptroller. I have the greatest confidence in the officers of the Council, still it is obvious that under the circumstances the estimates will really be theirs and not those of the Council. I hold in my hand a letter from the Comptroller, in which he urges very strongly the extreme inconvenience of this course. It is very probable that the election may turn partly on questions of finance. [ Ironical Ministerial cheers. ] I am glad to hear that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe the election will turn to some extent a finance, and yet, as I have shown, the new Council must either adopt the previous expenditure, or cut down the estimates without any time for serious study and examination of them. Is it possible to devise any process more likely to interfere with the economical management of the affairs of the London County Council? It must be remembered that we are not now dealing with a single event, but with a proposal which will affect London in future every third year. Now, nothing is so likely to encourage extravagance as to weaken responsibility. If you reject this Amendment one result will be that every third year it will be impossible for our fellow-citizens to saddle anyone with the responsibility of London finance. The incoming Council will say, "We are not responsible for the finances, because it was our predecessors who made the estimates. We have no time to examine them." The outgoing Council will say, "We are not responsible, because it is the new Council which spend the money." I am sure the Committee will feel that the opinion of Lord Lingen, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the County Council, both from his great official experience and from the fact that he has presided over our finances from the commencement, is entitled to great weight. He writes to me as follows—

"I cannot conceive how any one who thinks of the consequences can propose that the London County Council shall be elected in March."

He goes on to say that, while he is anxious to be as conciliatory as possible and to meet the views of Government wherever he can, on this point of the date, "we must endeavour to the uttermost to induce the Government to meet our views." I will not put my opinion as adding anything material to the high authority of Lord Lingen, but so far as it goes I would earnestly press the Committee and the Government to accept the Amendment on financial grounds and in the interests of economy. The Parliamentary reasons are scarcely less strong. In any case, the notices for new Bills must be given by the outgoing but if the elections are in November the new Council will have ample time to consider the legislation proposed and determine their policy. On the other hand, by April their Bills may be, and, indeed, will be, in Committee. If the elections are in March, the outgoing Council will be liable to be told in this House that they do not represent London; and, on the other hand, the new Council will have to determine their policy on many points, often of great difficulty and complexity, with scarcely any time for information and reflection; it will take them some time to look into the questions, and till they have done so no one will be able to express the view of the Council. If, therefore, the Committee reject this Amendment, the result will be that every third year London will be paralysed for some weeks in the very middle of the Session, because there will be nobody in this House able to speak on behalf of the London County Council. And this difficulty will not merely arise in connection with the Bills directly promoted by the County Council. The great majority of the Acts of Parliament affecting London are not brought in by the County Council, but by railway, tramway, and other companies. Most of these are in Committee by March, and yet, by this proposal of the Government, the County Council will be deprived of the power of speaking just when it is most necessary it should be actively watching the interests of the public of London. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board wishes to make the elections for County Councils uniform. But London is really a municipality, and should be treated as such, and not in the same manner as a country district. If uniformity is desired, surely London elections ought to be at the same time as those of other great cities. November has been found most convenient for the holding of these elections in all towns and cities, and the same consideration applies to London also. Every other municipality holds its election in November, and London desires to do so too. Surely, that is essentially a matter which the London County Council might well be allowed to settle. The reasons given for opposing November are that the next Budget of the Council may show a considerable increase of expenditure, and that the outgoing Council ought to present their balance-sheet to the constituencies before the new election. That, however, is, on the face of it, proposing a permanent inconvenience to meet a single case; and let me point out further, that we should not have to present the Budget in any case, be the election in November or in March. The incoming Council will have to perform that duty, and my Amendment will afford them ample time to examine its details and determine what their policy shall be. Moreover, I see no reason why there should be any serious increase of expenditure next year, and, in saying that, I do so after consultation with the Comptroller and Lord Lingen. In any case, however, if the elections are to take place early in March, and the rate was not made until April, it is evident that the rate will be made by the new Council. The difference, however, is that, under the Bill as it stands, the new Council will have to make the rate immediately after they are elected; while, if the Amendment is carried, they will have time to consider and determine their policy. Let me remind the House that a very large majority of the Council, including those especially responsible for the financial and Parliamentary business of the Council—the Vice Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of both our Finance and Parliamentary Committees, our Comptroller and our Parliamentary Agent—are all of one opinion, and strongly of one opinion, namely, that the holding of the elections in March will be seriously detrimental to the efficient government of London. I must apologise for having intruded so long on the Committee; but in the interests of London, and believing that the Amendment is of great importance both with reference to efficiency and economy, I earnestly recommend it to the favourable consideration of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, at commencement of Clause, to insert the words "except as regards the administrative county of London."—( Sir J. Lubbock. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I should like to say a few words as to the views of the moderate and consistent section of the County Council. The right hon. Baronet has very forcibly brought before the House the views of the majority of the Council, whom he represents, but I may remind him that there are those who hold that the ratepayers ought to be considered in the matter, and the information which has reached me induces me to believe that by them March is considered a more suitable time than November. In November we have the School Board elections, and it is very inconvenient to have two big elections in the same month, owing to the extreme apathy of the electors. Again, with regard to the introduction of Bills and the opposition to the Bills, whether the County Council is elected in November or March, the plans must be deposited by the end of November; and it must be remembered that the County Council does not actually expire; there are Aldermen to keep up its continuity; and the Bills are conducted, not by the County Council, but by the agents and counsel they employ. There are, no doubt, members of the County Council who desire to have a finger in the pie, but in my opinion it is not desirable that they should. I am, therefore, not at all sure that it would not be an advantage to the ratepayers of London to have an opportunity of saying at the polls whether they support or oppose a particular Bill promoted by the County Council. I can conceive cases in which a Bill promoted by the Radical and Progressive Party in the London County Council might be extremely distasteful to a large number of ratepayers, who would desire an opportunity of expressing their views on the question, but generally speaking, it is not desirable that the ordinary course in connection with the promotion of a Bill and its progress through Parliament should be interfered with. As to the objection that the new budget will have to be issued by the incoming Council, I did not know that there will be any particular harm in that, as it will afford them an opportunity of revising the estimates. In point of fact the estimates, although only presented in March, are prepared months beforehand, not by one Committee, but by several Committees, which have to make up their minds long in advance as to the work they recommend the Council to carry out, and it is exceedingly desirable that the voice of the ratepayers, who have to find the money, should be heard on the estimates. There is something behind all this opposition, and it has been revealed since the members of the County Council on one occasion voted one way, and on another occasion quite differently. In fact, they did not know their own minds at the time. The leader of the Progressive and Radical Party in the Council (Sir Thomas Farrer), in a letter to the Times, wrote as if the County Council had been taken by surprise by the Bill of my right hon. Friend. But it was perfectly well known for weeks and months beforehand that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to alter the time from November to March. Sir Thomas Farrer forgot to mention an important circumstance, and that was that at a meeting of the Radical and Progressive Party the wire pullers informed them that if they did not upset the previous decision of the Council they would lose their seats. Sir T. Farrer returns to the charge, and in a letter to the Times to day he says that his former letter carefully avoided all political questions. Of course it did. It would not have done for him to state what had taken place at the meeting of the Progressive and Radical Party. Sir T. Farrer waxes exceedingly wroth; he says that if the Bill is not amended in this respect, it will be intolerable, and that the London County Council will be paralysed and emasculated by what is proposed. If some of its vitality were taken away from it, I am not sure but that it would be a good thing. Unless some very strong reason is shown against it, or the ratepayers feel very strongly on the subject, the Committee ought to adhere to the date mentioned in the Bill. This House has something to do beyond considering the political exigencies of the Progressive Party in the London County Council; its duty is to study the interests of the ratepayers, and their opinion is, I believe, that March is the best month for holding the elections.

^* (4.57.) : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will fall in with the view of the President of the London County Council, which is a very different body from the County Councils in the country, and is, in fact, a great Civic Corporation. The County Councils in the country have not power to promote Bills in Parliament, but the London County Council has, though, in my opinion, its powers are not yet sufficient. If the election is yield in November it will be held on a new register, whereas in March the register will be six months old and 20 per cent. of the electors will have removed. The hon. Member has said that the people of London will desire to have an opportunity of expressing their views on the Parliamentary proposals of the County Councils, but they will have that opportunity if the elections are held in November; and if the constituencies are against the proposals, the Council can alter or withdraw them. The hon. Member who last spoke did not attempt to combat the arguments on the financial aspect of the question, and, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University told us, he was supported strongly by Lord Lingen and nearly all the responsible heads in this matter. I think the House ought to give full weight to that authoritative opinion. The election in March, as regards London, would be very inconvenient and very unfair. Further, nothing could tend to make the members of the London County Council more irresponsible than they would be if they were elected at a time when they would have had nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the Estimates, and when Parliamentary work would be so far advanced that they would not be able to interfere with it. Again, if the work done is good, their opponents would take the credit of it; and, if bad, the responsibility would be disclaimed; or if there are any proposals before Parliament that they disapprove, they will not have an opportunity for saying so and stopping the proceedings going on.

^* (5.5.) : This is an interesting subject which should be approached without any of the Party feeling by which the London County Council is supposed to be divided. In most representative assemblies there are two Parties, but, at any rate, the question for this House is, what will be the better time for the elections? With regard to November the objection is that the register will not be ready until the 31st of December. So that, unless special provision is made to accelerate registration, the election will have to be held upon the old register. That, I think, would be very lamentable indeed. The experience which the Government have had of attempting to accelerate registration has not been of a nature to encourage them to provide a new register for an election in November. The School Board election is undoubtedly to be held in November, but it is upon the rate book, which is a totally different matter. The County Council register is to be revised by the Revising Barrister, who sits in September, and appeals from his decisions could not be heard until later; therefore, I do not see how it is possible to have the election in November except on the old register. It has been suggested that the election should be held in January, but that is usually a season of kindly social intercourse which one would not like to see interrupted by the unkind things which are said during an election. The point has been raised as to the preparation of the County Council's financial budget. I think there would be advantage in the estimates being framed by the Committees which have been in office for three years, and know where economies can be effected. There is another thing which should be considered, that if the new body were to frame the estimates, the whole blame of any miscarriage could be thrown upon them by their predecessors—and we know that it is not uncommon to avoid responsibility. If the election were held in March, the Bill should be made sufficiently elastic to allow the County Council to have the election on Saturday or any other day of the week that might be considered suitable, besides which in March there are some hours more of daylight in which to vote, and, on the whole, I think March has the best of the argument.

^* (5.10.) : The hon. Member for Marylebone says that this has been made a political question. Who has made it a political question? There is a particular sect of Members opposite who, whenever a County Council Bill is brought forward, act in a hostile and partisan spirit. If a Bill is brought forward by some large Provincial Municipality all descriptions of Members for that town support the Bill. But if a Bill is promoted by the London County Council certain hon. Members opposite feel bound to go in a direction contrary to that pursued by the majority of the County Council. There is nothing political in this question; it is simply administrative and financial. And I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Lubbock), Chairman of the London County Council, is a staunch supporter of the Government, so that he treats these questions in no Party spirit. Lord Lingen, Chairman of the Finance Committee, abstains from taking any part in these political divisions, and I think it must be conceded that the London County Council is practically unanimous in making this proposal. So far as the action of the Caucus, or Progressive Party, is concerned, I am bound to say that I myself have absolutely abstained from taking any part in Party meetings or Party organisation within the Council. I look upon them as an unmixed evil. This Party feeling is due not merely to our own side, but to an exactly similar organisation or caucus which is supported upon the other side. With regard to November being an unsuitable month for the election, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that after the last Reform Act, in 1885, November was deliberately chosen for an appeal to the country, and I think we are just as likely to have sufficient time for the electorate in November as in March. London is not in a position parallel to that of any other country. Other County Councils have no power of promoting Bills, and so far as their Parliamentary work is concerned it cannot matter to them when the election takes place. The London County Council inherits all the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which are extensive and considerable, with regard to the promoting or opposition to Bills in this House. This, I repeat, is not an administrative and not a political question, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree to what is plainly in the interests of the Metropolis.

^* (5.15.) : I certainly think that March is much the better month for the election. The public would then know whether it was the outgoing or incoming Council that was responsible for any particular action. If we have the election in November it will be upon the old register, and if we have it next March it will be on the register now being prepared. The hon. Member for St. Pancras dwelt a great deal upon political feeling, but I would remind him of the French proverb, "He who excuses accuses." No doubt the introduction of politics is much to be regretted, but it is a fact that politics are brought in; and it is a remarkable thing that the hon. Member did not say one word about what took place between the two meetings of the County Council, at the first of which they deliberately decided to have the election in March, and at the second of which they reversed their first decision in favour of having the election in November. There is a sort of haziness about what transpired. It is rumoured—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if what I say is not correct—that Mr. Schnadhorst came down—["Oh!"]—Yes, let us have this out—and pointed out to this so-called Progressive Body that if they had the election in March it would be perfectly fatal to their chances at the next election. That is the real fact. Nobody can get up in this House to gainsay the statement.

^* : So far as I know there is no truth in it.

^* : All I can say is, I should like to get Sir Thomas Ferrer and some others into the box and ask them whether any such political meeting were held or not.

^* : Does the hon. Member say that the statement is true?

^* : I am not a progressive member of the London County Council, but I challenge anybody to dispute the statement. That is how political feeling has been brought in. By the plan proposed the people of London will be in a position to see who has the credit of a reduction of the rates, and who is responsible for the increase of £4,000,000 of debt and an extra 4d. rate. The County Council came to the conclusion that March was the better month, and they changed their minds when politics were introduced, and they thought it would be against them.

^* (5.20.) : The hon. Member has stated one or two facts on which I would like to correct him. First, he said that the other County Councils throughout the country hold their election in March. Now the cities hold them in November.

^* : They are not County Councils.

^* : I do not wish to quibble on the question. I am speaking of the county boroughs, which hold their elections in November. I am well aware that in the country districts the elections are held in March. Then I wish to correct the hon. Member as to the date of the new register. I am clearly of the idea that it will come into operation on the 24th October.

^* : The new register will come into operation on the 1st January.

^* : I think the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Lawson) is deserving attention. I believe I am called a progressive member of the London County Council, but when I stood I told the electors that I should have nothing to do with politics in the County Council, and it was upon that programme that both Liberals and Conservatives returned me. I regret extremely to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone talking about there being "something behind" the change of decision which the County Council made. There was nothing political in the change of views, and was it not better that they should withdraw from a conclusion which was proved to be wrong? It was shown that by having the election in March the Finance Committee would only have from the third week in March to the first week in April to decide what the estimate should be. Personally, it seems to me that it is impossible that they can do the work in the time. I should even prefer January to March if it could be so arranged, despite the fears about Christmas festivities, though, at the same time, I think November would be much more convenient. I would point out, further, that the County Council is much more likely to know what is for its own convenience than are Members of this House, who have very little acquaintance with the routine work of the London County Council.

I am sure the Committee will acquit me of anything like political feeling in promoting this Bill, or in declining to accept the Amendment submitted on behalf of the London County Council. I have no ill-feeling against that body, and I have always done what I can to assist it in carrying out its work. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Lubbock) urged this alteration of date from three points of view—first, the wish of the London County Council; second, the financial question; and, third, the election as connected with the Parliamentary work of the County Council.

^* : They are not merely our Bills, but those affecting London generally.

^* : Exactly; that is what I understand. I do not think the Committee will be surprised that on the first question I cannot accept the representations which have been made, and I must ask the Committee to disregard the last decision at which the County Council have arrived. The action which the London County Council has taken with regard to this matter is, I think, somewhat extraordinary. They first decided that January should be the month, and subsequently they decided in favour of March. It cannot be contended that this decision was arrived at without having all the objections against the month of March before them. Every single objection raised to-day was put before the Council, when they came to a decision in favour of March. I am not going to enter into the reasons which prompted the Council to so speedily rescind the resolutions they had passed. I know nothing whatever of the secret meeting held by the so-called Progressives with regard to this matter, although it has not been denied that such a meeting took place.

^* : I know nothing about it.

^* : Perhaps the noble Lord was laid up with the influenza.

^* : I know that such meetings take place, but I have not attended any.

^* : I know nothing of any such meeting. Does the right hon. Gentleman state that such a meeting took place?

^* : Oh, I know nothing about the meeting except what I have heard; but I have noticed that it is not denied that such a meeting took place, although, of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he knows nothing about it, and that there was no such meeting.

^* : I have only asserted that if there was such a meeting I know nothing of it.

^* : Well, whether there was such a meeting or not, something or other occurred which altered a large majority for March into a large majority for November. Looking to the fact that that was the third date fixed upon, and also remembering that the noble Lord who spoke last is even now prepared to accept January, I do not think the last decision arrived at by the London County Council would justify the Committee in assenting to the Amendment. This is not a matter on which, in any event, the decision of the London County Council ought to be conclusive. There are other Representatives of the London ratepayers besides members of the County Council. The question affects, no doubt, the financial administration of the London County Council, but it also affects the ratepayers, and we ought to be guided very largely by what is most convenient to the ratepayers. I have received a representation signed, by an immense majority of the Members of Parliament representing London constituencies, in which they represent that March would be more convenient. I do not know why the noble Lord (Earl Compton) should smile. He repudiates any political bias.

^* : Is the representation signed by Liberals as well as Conservatives?

^* : Here, again, we see that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who repudiate all political motives and denounce every one on this side of the House who says a word on the question, are continually introducing politics themselves. It is quite immaterial from the point of view which hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to have adopted whether the representation was signed by Liberals or Tories. The fact remains that the large majority of the Representatives of the ratepayers in this House are favourable to March. The whole basis of the legislation proposed by the Bill is that the time given at present is not sufficient for an election to take place under the new register. The proposal in the Amendment is not to take the same date as that of the municipal elections, which is November 1, but to go to the very end of that month. Another point urged by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the London County Council (Sir J. Lubbock) has reference to finance. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the new rate has to be made in the first week of April. I do not find that is so. Last year the estimates were submitted and adopted on March 25, approved on April 7, and the rate was made on April 21.

^* : What I said was that the vote was passed on the 7th; the rate was formally made on the 21st; and the Vestries complain of the inconvenience resulting from the rate being made so late.

^* : My right hon. Friend stated that the rate was made in the first week of April. It cannot be made before April 1, because the financial year terminates on March 31. If the Committee accepts the proposal of the Government that the election shall be in March, the first meeting will be on March 16th, and there will be plenty of time to make the rate even before the time at which the present Council has been in the habit of making it. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the preparation of the estimates by one Council and their adoption by another. In truth the estimates are prepared mainly by the officials, of course in consultation with the heads of Committees, months before they are presented. I believe the preparation begins as early as November. It is not necessary that the estimates should continue to bind the new Council elected in March. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are always two rates made in the year. In the Local Government Act express provision was made empowering, and, indeed, almost calling upon, County Councils to revise their estimates after the first six months. So that, supposing that during the first six months of the new Council they revised the estimates handed to them by their predecessors, and they found them in some respects excessive, they would be perfectly at liberty to review them for the second half-year. Who would be damnified or injured by the estimates being prepared by the outgoing Council? If they were insufficient they could be added to; if they were excessive they could be reduced. There are no obvious inconveniences or difficulties in this revision of the estimates by the new Council. Besides the expenditure out of rates, there is the expenditure out of borrowed money. We are told in a letter which I saw in the Times to-day from Sir Thomas Farrer that the estimate for this year is £4,371,000, of which £1,745,000 is to be re-lent to other bodies, and £2,626,000 is required by the County Council itself. It is a very large sum, and very much in excess of the sum required last year, when the total was £2,808,000, and the sum to be re-lent £1,510,000. I do not think myself that there would be any disadvantage in the electors having estimates of this kind before them at the election. The whole administration of the County Council is practically based upon finance, and it would not be a bad thing that the ratepayers should have before them a concrete example of the financial policy of the County Council at the time of the election. It might be that at the time proposed for the election in March there would be no general exposition of the finance of the London County Council before the electors, yet, as notice of the financial Bill would be given in February, the broad features of the financial policy of the Council would necessarily be known, and I do not think that would be a bad thing. Supposing the Money Bill is prepared by the old Council, and the new Council has to administer it, there is no disadvantage in that, because the Bill deals with the maximum sum which has to be raised, and the new Council may take advantage of the maximum given to them in the Bill, or they may not. If they desire to retrench there is nothing to prevent them. Then with regard to the promotion of private business. Notices of Private Bills have to be given in November, and if any have to be opposed the necessary steps must be taken whether the elections are held in November or in March; whilst, as to the policy of the London Council in regard to opposition to Private Bills, it is not likely there will be any great difference of opinion between the old Council and the new. Apart from all other questions, March is by far the most convenient month for the election. The days are two hours longer then than in November, when fogs are proverbial and daylight is a great advantage to all concerned in an election. Again, nothing could be more unfortunate than that the School Board election and the County Council election should be held within a few days of each other, not only because it would be difficult to interest the electors in the two elections at the same time, but also because in the School Board election the voting is cumulative and in the County Council election it is not—a difference which may have the effect of losing a large number of votes. As to a revolution being effected in the constitu- tion of the County Council, it is probable that a large number of the present members will be returned again, and I do not think there will be anything like that break of continuity in the work of the Council which some seem to anticipate. For these reasons I ask the Committee to support the Government in adhering to the Bill.

^* (5.55.) : I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute or two, but I wish to point out that three years ago the right hon. Gentleman carried the Local Government Act, in which all these dates were fixed, and all the objections now taken—meteorological, administrative, or financial—were equally strong at that time. In 1888 the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the municipal year in London should commence on the same date as the municipal year in every other large town in England; and no inconvenience has been experienced in other towns from any of the causes named. Why should the municipal life of London be suddenly dissevered from the municipal life of the rest of the country? It appears that a majority of London Members of Parliament sitting on the other side of the House have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this alteration should be made.

^* : No; they did not suggest anything of the kind.

^* : Then the alteration is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman of his own initiative.

^* : I did not say so. The alteration was suggested in the House by more than one Member on the Second Reading of the Bill for accelerating the registrations.

^* : It does not appear that those Members are now present to support the suggestion they made. The right hon. Gentleman said that the London County Council have formed two or three conflicting opinions on the subject of the date of the election. Well, other bodies higher than the London County Council have held different opinions, and yet the right hon. Gentleman does not repudiate their right to represent this country. I must say I do not attach any great importance to the financial or administrative argument. These elections take place once in three years, the Budget is brought in every year, and applications to Parliament are made every year, and if the London County Council are actuated by these dark designs of a political character they will take care not to leave themselves open to attack from opponents on their financial proposals. But what I would rather rest the argument upon is this: that the municipal year of England commences in November, and why should there be a difference as regards the London County Council?

^* : They proposed it.

^* : If there are no better reasons put forward we may well ask what reasons there may be behind? It is a very singular thing that the hon. Members who have distinguished themselves by an unswerving and constant opposition to everything that the London County Council have said or done are the gentlemen who are most anxious that this change should take place. Well, I am not anxious to prolong the existence of the County Council or any other institution for six months longer than Parliament has proposed. The Council was put into office for three years, and I see no reason for prolonging their existence. If they have forfeited the confidence of their constituents, if they have adopted a policy objectionable to those they represent, the sooner they go to their constituents and know their fate the better. I offer a suggestion to hon. Members opposite in reference to municipal elections—and that is, that I do not think they will find the cry about the increase of rates will be a very popular one. There are certain constituencies in which that cry will have force; but even under the cumulative system under which School Board elections are carried on, my experience is that elections turn upon the question of carrying on the municipal work in the best manner, and that the mere cry of saving the rates is not an effective one. I am bound to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case for changing the date he fixed in the Act three years ago and which Parliament with due deliberation sanctioned.

I most certainly agree that this is in no sense a political matter, and it would be foolish to make it so. I repudiate entirely all the statements made about Mr. Schnadhorst and the change being opposed on political grounds, and I do not see the advantage in any way of holding the elections in March. Whether the election is held in March or November, the London County Council will have to answer not for the policy adopted between the two dates, but for the policy pursued over three years. I cannot see that there is any ground for the expectation that the date will have any prejudicial or injurious effect on what is called the Progressive Party on the Council, and that is the view I have taken all along. Why we wish the date to be November rather than March has been sufficiently explained; and I listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman's statement to see if I could find any crumb of reason for giving the preference to March, but I have found nothing to convince me. Only two reasons do I find advanced. As to the argument based upon the weather in this country, and especially in London, that, surely, is one that cannot carry much weight. This is a very small matter when you have the administrative convenience on the other side. Then, as to what has been said about the School Board elections, the whole of that argument went to show that it is intolerable to have the cumulative system of voting along with the system of Parliamentary and County Council elections. If the School Board elections were conducted in the same manner as the County Council elections, the whole of that argument would vanish. I should welcome the introduction of a Bill to change the system, but this proposal only adds to existing difficulties. But we simply oppose this change from November to March because of the financial and administrative reasons, and we wish the County Council of London to be recognised as a great municipal authority, on the same footing as the Municipalities of other great towns in the country. On these grounds I entirely support the proposal of my right hon. Friend behind me. I may recall to the President of the Local Government Board his own argument used some time ago, that registration was somewhat late, that it was difficult to get the registers out in time, and, therefore, he felt at that time it would be better to accelerate the register in some way. But the Bill fell through in consequence of the complicated difficulties met with.

^* : It was not due to complications at all; the Bill was withdrawn in consequence of the determined opposition of a few hon. Members.

Well, surely this is a much less effective way of settling the difficulty. I believe that some hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can gain some political advantage from the proposed change, and I am sorry to find this position taken up. We founded our objections on arguments in no sense political, and these arguments are put forward by men who have identified themselves, and not as politicans, with the work of the London County Council, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Lubbock) and Lord Lingen. The proposed change will land the Council in considerable administrative difficulty. It will not do to say March offers no difficulty. We have to oppose Bills in Parliament, and the policy of the Council in respect to those matters must be shaped before March. There is an important matter to be considered next year, the Metropolitan Water Supply. The policy of the Council in this matter will be dictated by the people of London. You cannot expect a moribund Council to act with any great authority in such a case. Of course, this is a difficulty that may occur every three years. I sincerely regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should have yielded to the political arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen behind him, and allowed them to influence him against the administrative and financial reasons put forward in favour of the motion of the Chairman of the Council.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the issue raised by London Liberal Members in relation to the Registration Acceleration Bill. The position we took up had reference to the alteration of the date of the qualifying period.

^* : I did not mean to refer to the London Liberal Members especially.

The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his argument seemed to think that because we happen to have two elections in London, the School Board election and the County Council election, the electors might get confused in the use of the two sets of voting papers. But let me recall the fact that in 1885 we had within a few days a School Board election and a Parliamentary election, and I do not think the electorate found any grave difficulty about using the two systems of voting, and this experience should dispel all doubts on this account. I am quite at one with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this matter concerns Members other than those who happen to be members of the Council. In opposing the change, I will not dwell upon the administrative difficulties, with which I am not familiar, but I urge now, as I urged when the Acceleration Bill was under discussion, we want the largest number of electors to vote on the new register. The election should take place as soon as possible after the register has been made, and I object to March being fixed on account of the long interval after registration and the possible disqualification of a large number of voters. I believe there would be no difficulty in getting the necessary printing done if the work is given to the proper firms, and I shall certainly support the Amendment.

^* (6.19.) : There are just two points upon which I would say a word. The hon. Member for Marylebone said there is nothing to prevent the County Councils making the rate at an earlier period, but there he is under a misapprehension.

The estimates?

^* : Yes, estimates can be prepared, of course, but the point is about the rate, and that cannot be made up until the close of the financial year. The right hon. Gentleman said that last year we did not make the rate until April 16th, but the rate was passed on the 7th, though it could not be formally made because the Treasury sanction was not obtained. Even so the Vestries have represented the great inconvenience of this having reference to their own statutory objections, and have strongly urged that the rate should be made earlier in April. It is said the new Council could hold their first meeting on March 16th, but then they have to elect chairman and aldermen, and to to form committees, which will take some days, and the result would be they would only have some 10 days to consider the estimates. Of course, the clerks would be preparing these in the meantime, but they would have to be approved by the new Council, and 10 days do not allow time for proper consideration. Some hon. Members advocate March because they say that the present Council ought to present the Budget for next year; but whether the election is in November or March, this will be done by the new Council.

(6.23.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 172.—(Div. List, No. 326.)

I beg to move in line 6, after "councillors," the insertion of the following words, "in each county shall be such day between the first and eighth day of March as the county councils may fix." This is consequential to the decision just arrived at. It is admitted on all hands that the county councils should have seven days from which to select a day most convenient for the election. It would not be desirable for the Councils to stereotype the day.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after "councillors," insert "in each county shall be such day between the first and the eighth day of March as the county councils may fix."—( Mr. Heneaye. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I rise to move the substitution of January for March in the Amendment. In our Council there are no political parties, so that the questions which have been discussed on the last Amendment do not arise. We are unanimous in desiring that the month should be January rather than March, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, whose desire is to assist the County Councils, will not set his foot down and refuse to consider my appeal. In the Eastern Counties March is about the most inconvenient month of the year. Though it is said that the days are short, and the weather is cold and gloomy, January has the advantage that it is a slack month—the slackest month in the whole year. There are fewer operations going on in the agricultural world, and in that month the fewest number of meetings are held. I will not repeat the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, but as to the arguments of hon. Members opposite that in November the elections would have to be fought on the old register, I would point out that they would not apply to my proposal. In January the elections would be fought on the new register; and I would point out, further, in support of my Amendment, that the well-doing of County Councils depends upon the various committees of each Council being able to send in their reports to the Finance Committee in time for the preparation of the budget by the month of March. If the elections do not take place until March the financial reports will have to be adopted en bloc, and will have to be submitted to a Finance Committee that has had no experience. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board at first desired to fix the month of January for the elections, but he changed his mind in consequence of representations that were made to him. I trust he will revert to his first idea, and I, therefore, move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "March" and to insert the word "January."—( Mr. Gurdon. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'March' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will not accept the Amendment now recommended to the Committee. The arguments which were urged at some length in regard to the previous Amendment are, in my judgment, applicable to the present case. There is nothing new to be said in suggesting that the date should be January rather than March. Whether we regard it from an administrative, or a financial, or any other point of view, it is impossible to fix any date that will not have some inconvenience, but the general balance of opinions points to the date in the Bill as the most convenient. I am not sure whether the hon. Member opposite is a representative on the Central Association of County Councils, but as I have the honour to be a member of that Association, and to have realised what is the general opinion of almost the entirety of the County Councils of England, I am in a position to inform the Committee that the enormous majority of the representatives of the County Councils on that Association have come to the conclusion that the proper date is March, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to that date. I may say, further, that it is at the instance of that highly representative Association that March has been put in the Bill. It was put in to meet their wishes, not suddenly expressed, but expressed after due deliberation and debate and vote. Over 40 County Councils have come to an unanimous resolution, and I regret that the hon. Member opposite has not been able to enroll himself amongst that large number who continued to impress on the President of the Local Government Board the enormous advantage of fixing March as the date—which date I hope he will adhere to.

I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. He only speaks for the County of Norfolk. In every other county of England January is considered by far the most inconvenient month for the labourers. It is dark and cold, and very often there is a great deal of snow about. Besides that, in Lincolnshire the month of March will be convenient for other reasons. All the Michaelmas and Martinmas rent audits are being carried out in January, and that, therefore, would be an inconvenient month to have these elections going on. It would be inconvenient for another reason. Looking at the business before us, Parliament may meet early next year, and it would be inconvenient to have these elections going on at the time Parliament meets. At that season of the year, too, there are a large number of meetings being held for charitable and other purposes, and for these and other reasons I think it would be to the advantage of the general community to have the elections in March.

I am sorry the hon. Baronet opposite thinks it is a case of Norfolk against the rest of the country. However, I am quite sure the Committee will be willing to listen to what the people of Norfolk have to say, as there is a strong feeling in the County Council there, which has already been expressed by the Chairman (Mr. Gurdon). I think it is only right that we should state what is felt, without repeating the arguments used in the previous discussion, as to the inconvenience of the elections in March, just before the new Budget has to be produced. But I would bring before the Committee one point that has not hitherto been brought before it at all, and that is the inconvenience of having an election during the time that the House is sitting, and when probably every Member of the House is interested—or should be interested—in the formation of his County Council. In many cases Members are candidates themselves for the suffrages of the county voters, and it seems to me it would be highly inconvenient—unless the House were to adjourn for a week during the elections—for those of us who are interested in those elections to have to take part in them whilst Parliament is sitting. The hon. Baronet who has spoken is Chairman of his County Council, and there are many other Chairmen of County Councils in the House. I put it to those gentlemen who have to be elected or re-elected Chairmen whether it would not be excessively inconvenient for them to be elected whilst this House is sitting? Without arguing for or against January, I do think that March would be so inconvenient that the Committee ought not to agree to it.

^* (6.41.) : As I am one of the Members of the House who will suffer inconvenience from the election taking place in March, I wish to give my reasons for supporting the proposal that the elections should take place in that month. It is true that holding the elections whilst Parliament is sitting will inflict a certain inconvenience on Members of the House, but what we have principally to consider is the convenience of the localities and of the electors of the County Councils. I can fully confirm everything that my hon. Friend and Colleague (Sir R. Paget) has said as to the opinion of the County Councils as a whole. At a largely attended meeting of the Executive of the County Councils it was unanimously agreed that March was better than January, and the reason, I think, is obvious. The days are longer and the weather, as a rule, is much better. For myself I fail to see any countervailing argument that has very much weight. The financial argument has been raised. Well, in our county the Finance Committee meets, as a rule, in the latter part of March in order to prepare the Estimates for the April meeting. If the proposal of the Bill is adopted the Finance Committee of the new County Council will be able to meet in the latter part of March and the Estimates can be dealt with in due time. I do not think there will be such a great break in the continuity of the County Councils at the next election as some Members seem to think. As a rule the old members will be elected or, at any rate, many of the members will have had experience and will be able to prepare the Estimates. I hope the Government will stick to their proposal.

^* (6.44.) : I will not weary the Committee by repeating the arguments I used in the last Amendment, but I desire to say a word on behalf of the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the officials of the London County Council, and to support the hon. Member for Norfolk. If we cannot have November we should prefer January to March, for the reasons I have stated. The hon. Member for Somerset says we have to consider the convenience of the constituents and the electors. But there is something else to be considered besides that, and that is the business of the County Councils themselves. In the counties the organisation is simple and the finance is simple, but in London we stand on a different footing. We strongly support the Amendment. If we are to be considered a County Council we must have the advantages of the position, and in that case Norfolk does not stand alone in urging this Amendment on the favourable consideration of the Government.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman frankly acknowledges that the same arguments cannot be advanced for this Amendment for the counties as advanced for London.

^* : I am not speaking for any place but London. I should not presume to speak for the counties.

^* (6.46.) : It is evident the financial question is much more important in London than in the counties. I understand that, at any rate, so far as London is concerned, the question was considered and decided practically by us as between our date and the date proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, if the hon. Member opposite succeeds in persuading the Committee to alter the date from March to January, the situation of London will change accordingly. But we consider that March ought to be adhered to in the Bill. I do not wish to enlarge on the argument because a mere statement of the facts is enough. That has been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire, and I can bear out what he says, namely, that so far as we are able to gather the opinion of County Councils generally in the country, they are, with the exception of Norfolk, certainly in favour of March. It is not, as the Chairman of the Norfolk County Council has said, a political question in the counties, whatever it may be in Landon. That is evident from the deputation that came to me to urge that March should be the month. It was composed of the hon. Member for Somerset, Mr. Andrew Johnson, Chairman of the Essex County Council—at one time known as a staunch Liberal—and Lord Thring; and Mr. Hibbert was to have been present but was unable to attend. The mention of these names will show that the deputation was of a non-political character. What are we to do? We have the opinion of the Executive of the County Councils Association, who say that they are unanimous on the question. We have had from almost every county in England—at any rate, from an enormous majority of them—representations in favour of March in addition to the representations I have spoken of. The sole county in England that has made any representation against March has been Norfolk. I am sorry we are not able to please the County of Norfolk, but I hope if the Committee assents to the retention of March that experience will show that the County Council of Norfolk is wrong in the position it has taken up, and that all the rest of the counties are right. I have very little doubt that that will be the result. I should very much deplore any inconvenience arising to any county, but we feel bound to adhere to what we believe to be the views of the immense majority of the counties.

I trust the House will be perfectly clear that in supporting the progressive majority on this question, we, on this side of the House, are not actuated by those political motives which have been thrown in our teeth. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the House that I give the most absolute and categorical denial to the statements made with respect to the progressive members of the County Council being actuated by any political influence brought to bear by Mr. Schnadhorst or anyone else.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments agreed to:—Page 1, line 6, after "councillors," insert—

"(2) The ordinary day of retirement of county councillors shall be the eighth day of March in every third year, and on that day the county councilors then in office shall retire together, and their places shall be filled by the newly-elected councillors, who shall come into office on that day."

Page 1, line 6, leave out "and," and insert "(3)"; page 1, line 6, after "March," insert—

"Or such other day within ten days after the ordinary day of retirement of county councillors as the council of any county may from time to time fix for that county."—( Mr.Heneage. )

^* : I have put on the Paper an Amendment providing that each County Council shall have the power to fix, not only the day, but the hour of its meetings. This is most important because, owing to the long distance many members have to come, the hour at present fixed by Statute is sometimes very inconvenient.

Amendment proposed, after the word "councillors" in the last Amendment, to insert the words "and at such hour."—( Mr. Hobhouse. )

^* : The words suggested by the hon. Member will not do as they are, but I agree that if we fix the hour of the first statutory meeting the County Council should have the power of fixing its own subsequent meetings, and I will take care the matter is put right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I beg to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is evident that the whole of the elections in each county shall take place on one day.

^* : The elections for the whole county will take place on the same day, but the days may differ in different counties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, agreed to.

I beg to move the following new clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Sir John Dorington) namely:—

"The declaration required under sections thirty-four and thirty-five of The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' to be made by a person elected to a corporate office may be made within ten days after notice of the election, or within such extended time, if any, as the county council may authorise, not exceeding three months from the date of the election."

The object of the clause is very simple, and refers to the extension of the time during which the declaration of persons elected to corporate offices may he made. It will easily be seen that cases may arise in which it would be very advisable to have such an extension of time as is here proposed, and I would point out that there is a sufficient limitation contained in the words at the end of the clause, not exceeding three months from the date of the election.

New Clause (Amendment of 45 and 46 Vic. c. 50, ss. 34, 35, and 51 and 52 Vic. c. 41, s. 75, as to the declaration by a member of the council,)—( Sir R. Paget, )—brought up, and read the first and second time and added.

Schedule amended, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow, and to b3 printed. [Bill 404.]

^* (7.5.) : I beg to move the new clause standing in my name, after Clause 23, insert the following clause—

A Clause (Certain agreements under seal to be chargeable as if under hand,)—( Sir Albert Rollit, )—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

^* (7.12.) : My hon. Friend has exactly foreseen the answer I am about to make to his proposal. When the matter was brought before the Grand Committee it was then stated that the proposal was one which would interfere with the Revenue, and it was suggested and maintained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it would be intolerable to introduce into this Bill any alteration in the method of charge affecting the Stamp Duty. That is a matter which must be dealt with on a different occasion, and in a different way. As my hon. Friend says it is not a large matter, as far as the amount affected is concerned, but as a matter of principle, I hope he will be content with having raised the point, and will reserve it for consideration to another time.

Question put, and negatived.

The object of the Amendment I rise to move is, that the sum of £14 in the shape of Stamp Duty now paid by the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Benchers shall in future be paid to the Solicitors of Ireland belonging to the Incorporated Law Society. In 1791, an arrangement was made by which this money should be paid to the Benchers who then had control over the Solicitors, as a fund in connection with the education of their apprentices, and I am not disposed to say that the arrangement was unreasonable at that time. But a quarter of a century ago the Solicitors of Ireland became an Incorporated Body, and ceased to have relations with the Benchers in regard to the education of their apprentices. Nevertheless this fund has ever since remained in the hands of the Benchers, who, as I have said, formerly discharged the duties now undertaken by the solicitors. It is obvious that this inequitable and grotesque arrangement ought to be brought to an end as speedily as possible. I am aware that the Benchers raised an ingenious plea when the Society of Solicitors was incorporated and this point was brought forward. The Benchers said this money was given to them in 1791 and in respect of the education of apprentices, but in view of the rent of the Four Courts in Dublin. There is no doubt that by Royal Charter the site of the Four Courts was conveyed to the Benchers, but the Charter given to the Benchers reserved all the rights of the Crown, and as the Four Courts were held on their present site from the time of Elizabeth, the Benchers can have no right whatever to any claim for rent in respect of the site on which they stand. I am informed by the Secretary of the Law Society of Ireland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to make an inquiry into the matter. It is, I think, open to comment that now this Bill is before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is away on other public duties.

That would be an excellent reason for postponing this Bill, but it is hardly a good reason for the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill is before this House. At any rate, he promised to consider this matter before the Report stage of the Bill, and I trust the Government will, under those circumstances, accept my Amendment. I hope my hon. Friend will assist me in pressing on the Government for a fulfilment of their pledge that the inquiry promised shall be held before this Bill is passed.

Amendment proposed,

In page 11, line 16, to leave out from the word "treasurer," to end of Clause, and insert the words "Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and shall be applied as the council of that society shall from to time direct."—( Sexton. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^* (7.22.) : As I was one of the two or thee Members who introduced this matter to the Grand Committee I will say a few words upon it. So far as the circumstances are brought to my knowledge, they point to the conclusion to which the hon. Member has referred, namely, that these funds are not at present devoted to their proper purpose, and that those who discharge the duties referred to ought to receive the recompense. Although it is said that some agreement exists which would displace that conclusion, I have not yet seen it. Therefore, in the general merits of the question, I agree with the hon. Member opposite; but I must differ with him as to what passed before the Committee. I think he is under a misapprehension. What I understood was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised an inquiry into the whole matter, but I hardly understood it was to be an inquiry before the Report stage of the Bill, indeed, such an inquiry could hardly have been undertaken so soon. I trust, however, that such an inquiry will be made, and will take place without undue delay. Moreover, I think it will establish the conclusion to which the hon. Member has arrived. If he insists on pressing the matter to a Division, I feel so strongly on the principle asserted by his Amendment that I may feel it my duty to vote with him; but I think that the best way of arriving at a definite conclusion is to assume that, not only will an inquiry be instituted, but that it will have the result he suggested.

^* (7.27.) : Without going into the merits of the question between the Incorporated Law Society and the Benchers, I submit two reasons why the House should not, on the passing of this Bill, come to any conclusion on the subject of the Amendment. The first is that it is a Consolidation Bill, and a proposal to divert a considerable sum of money from one important body to another is not a proper subject to be dealt with in such a Bill. The second reason is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised an inquiry into the matter, and from the nature of the case the inquiry could not be completed in time for the Report stage of the Bill. Although I do not ask the House to go into the merits of the question, I must say a few words in reply to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There would be much in the case he has put forward if these fees had been granted for services rendered by the Benchers in the matter of educating solicitors' apprentices. But I must point out that these stamp fees were really received by King's Inn in lieu of rent for the site of the Courts, and the arrangement was made as long ago as the last century during the construction of the buildings. This was stated in the Report of the Benchers in 1859, before the Act of 1866 referred to. It is urged that it was not challenged in any way at the time, nor for many years after. The payment commenced in 1791, years before the west wing of the building, now called the Four Courts, was completed, but the building took several years, and it was evidently pending its completion that the arrangement was entered into. There is no doubt that the site of the Four Courts was the property of the King's Inns. This is abundantly proved by charters, Acts of Parliament, and other evidence, going back for several centuries. I have no right to speak on behalf of the Benchers, but I have no doubt that they court the fullest inquiry into the origin of the arrangement under which they receive from the Crown the payments in question.

I think it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who must be fully informed on the point, did not tell the Attorney General for Ireland what was to be the nature of the inquiry promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not pretend to form an opinion as to what may be the result of an inquiry, which is admitted to be much needed. It may be there is something to be said for the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman that these fees are paid by solicitors' apprentices in Ireland as rent, but surely if it is necessary that rent should be paid, it might be raised in some other manner. It might be paid, for instance, in the same way as compensation was paid for the land acquired for the Royal Courts of Justice in London. These Courts were put up at the Imperial expense, towards which the Irish taxpayer contributed, and why should not the Royal Courts in Dublin be placed on a like footing? But looking at the documents which have been placed before us, I think there is very slight ground for the theory that this was a rent. Hence the necessity for an independent inquiry, as a plain answer has not been given to my hon. Friend's question. I hope he will press his Amendment to a Division. Surely the Government can tell us what sort of inquiry it is intended to institute, who will conduct it, if it will be public, and if all the persons concerned will have an opportunity of being heard.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to look personally into the matter, and also expressed a desire that an inquiry should be held, so that he might be assisted in arriving at a conclusion on the merits. Hon. Members probably know that there has been a correspondence going on on this matter for some time. The Treasury desire to take up a perfectly impartial position. I am not quite sure what kind of inquiry it is possible to institute. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no power to compel either side to appear before him against their will.

He can tell them that if they do not come he will stop this source of revenue.

That would be a rather strong course to take, and I am not quite sure he has power to do it. He would like to see an inquiry held by some gentlemen agreed upon by the Benchers of King's Inn on the one hand, and the Incorporated Law Society on the other. After such inquiry he will be prepared to introduce legislation, if such is necessary, in order to settle the matter upon equitable terms.

Will the inquiry be held promptly?

Yes.

And conducted by persons unconnected with either of the parties?

As far as my right hon. Friend can secure them.

On that understanding I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

I rise to move an Amendment in the Schedule, the object being to omit words providing that the Stamp Duty shall be 1d. on a lease of any dwelling-house, for any dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding the rate of £10 per annum. I have no doubt I shall be met by the objection on the part of the Solicitor General that this being a Consolidation Bill no change in the law is intended, but I will point out that, as the law now stands, it is only in Scotland that leases for one year, where the rent is under £10, can be stamped with a penny stamp. But by this Bill an alteration of the law is proposed, because it is sought to extend that provision to England and Ireland. Of course, I do not take exception to that. By all means let the law be uniform, although I believe I could show good reasons why this provision should apply only to Scotland, as there the leases are usually verbal, while in other parts of the United Kingdom they are in writing. I contend that by making this alteration in the existing law you open the door for my Amendment. In the case of Scotland it is felt that the law by which the same Stamp Duty is charged for a lease for one year as for one of 35 years is a very great hardship. In Scotland the practice is to have one year verbal leases, whereas in England the leases usually run for 7, 14, or 21 years, and as the Stamp Duty is the same for one year as for 35 years, the result is that the people of Scotland have to pay it 7, 14, or 21 years as often as the people of England have to. In Scotland this is felt to be a very great grievance. As the practice of having verbal leases is often found to be inconvenient, it is proposed that the leases should be in writing, and that the Stamp Duty should be a penny, no matter whether the rent is under or above £5. It may be said that there should be a difference made between a £10 and a £100 rental, but there is a clear answer to that, inasmuch as a penny receipt can be given for any amount. I believe that as a matter of fact in Glasgow hardly a single lease for a year has the Stamp Duty paid upon it; but if the clause is insisted upon as it stands, tenants will be put to the inconvenience of having a mere verbal agreement instead of an agreement reduced to writing, and therefore the Exchequer will not reap any benefit at all by this Stamp Duty. It is unfair to raise revenue in a form which enables 99 people out of 100 to evade contributing to it; taxation should be on a fair and equitable basis, so that everyone should contribute a fair share. The Revenue would gain, and not lose, by the adoption of this Amendment. This matter was placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently by a deputation from Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed impressed by their arguments. He promised to consider the possibility of making the change asked for, and I do urge that this is the only convenient opportunity likely to arise this Session. I may add that this matter affects the general public even more than landlords.

Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 31, to leave out from the word "at," to the word "annum," in line 32, both inclusive.—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

I can only make the answer which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the same reasons were advanced by the hon. Member in Committee. The hon. Member suggests that the proposed change would lead to an increase in the Revenue of the country, but that is not the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But whether there will be an increase or a diminution, this is a matter which belongs to a Budget Bill, and not to a Consolidation Bill. Surely the burden of taxation upon a particular class is not an admissible topic to enter upon when the House is considering the consolidation of the laws relating to Stamp Duties.

The Solicitor General has not replied to my hon. Friend's arguments as to the alteration which the Government is proposing to make in the law in the interests of England and Ireland. Of course we do not object to the extension of the privilege of a penny Stamp Duty.

It is done for the sake of uniformity.

But still it will affect the Revenue. I think good grounds have been made out for adopting this Amendment. There is a great consensus of Scotch opinion in its favour, and we believe that while it will increase the revenue, it will put contracts in Ireland on a more satisfactory footing.

I may state in fairness to my hon. Friend it is the tenants rather than the property owners who will gain by this change. In the case of verbal leases it is necessary to have a witness, and that witness is usually someone in the employ of the landlord or his factor, therefore any dispute usually results unfavourably to the tenant. I think my hon. Friend has done good service in bringing this matter forward. His proposal would ensure complete uniformity throughout the United Kingdom, and I do submit that this is an opportune moment for making the change. In the past the Chancellors of the Exchequer have been obstinately blind to their own interests in this matter. I trust that my hon. Friend in order to emphasise his protest will press the Motion to a Division.

The Amendment expresses the general sense of inconvenience felt under the present system. It is obvious that a verbal instead of a written agreement must lead to enormous inconvenience. I would suggest that there should be a penny duty on leases under £25. If no concession is made, I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

(7.56.) The House divided: —Ayes 74; Noes 40.—(Div. List, No. 327.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

I beg to move the insertion of the words "the county council of Ross and Cromarty and the district Council of Lews" after the word "Scotland," in line 10. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a promise the other night that none of this money would be spent except with the consent of the County Council of Ross and Cromarty and the District Council of Lews. I think it would be quite as well if, instead of having a mere understanding to this effect, we inserted distinct words in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after "Scotland," to insert "the county council of Ross and Cromarty and the district council of Lews."—( Dr. McDonald. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. The Government entirely adhere to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, namely, that no roads in the island will be proceeded with under the present scheme, except with the approbation and concurrence of the County Council. It will be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that the Central Governing Authorities which have the duty of dispensing this money, and are responsible for it, stand in a different statutory position from the County Council. The hon. Member will be satisfied, I hope, with the assurance that the County Council will be taken along with the Government in what is being done, and I am happy to know that matters are even now harmoniously proceeding in the communications with the Local Authorities.

I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got this special Vote on the express condition that the County Council or District Council was to determine as to the expenditure of the money. I held then, as I hold now, that to expend £15,000 on the Carloway road would be a misuse of the money; and probably the Secretary for Scotland is already aware of that from the representations of his engineers.

In face of the assurance of the Lord Advocate I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2.

I beg to move to add to Sub-section 3 of the clause the words

"The county council may also, before resolving to proceed as aforesaid, determine the boundaries of the special harbour or local works district, and such district shall be liable to special taxation under sub section (25) hereof."

My Amendment is intended to facilitate the object of the Bill. The Government evidently intend that there shall be small harbours, piers, and boat slips made for the convenience of the crofters in the localities, and what I propose is that these various little communities shall be formed into special districts with the object of getting a local contribution towards the work. For that purpose it is necessary to form them into a special district, following the principle of the Public Health Act, which sets up special drainage and water districts. We cannot expect the people of Ross-shire in the mainland, far away from the sea, to be heavily taxed for the purpose of a harbour away on the west coast. The Amendment, therefore, is to form a special harbour or works district whereby the parties, both landlord and tenant, who are to get the benefit of the works shall contribute towards them in the only way in which we can get contributions from a locality.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to move an Amendment in the previous line? [Mr. CALDWELL: Certainly.] I am anxious that Nairn should be included amongst the counties that are to get the benefit of the Bill. I have a very considerable acquaintance with the County and Borough of Nairn. The people of Nairn are essentially of the sameclass as those to whom the Bill applies. They are engaged in the same fishing, and require the same harbour accommodation; and as they have already got a harbour, which, however, does not meet the necessities of the case, I trust the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, after "Cromarty," to insert "Nairn."—( Mr. W. M'Laren. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'Nairn' be there inserted."

One result of there being no notice of this Amendment is that the hon. Member for the county (Mr. Seymour Keay), who is chiefly interested, and whose assiduity is unquestionable, is not present, and I therefore rather conjecture that the County of Nairn does not substantially desire the benefit suggested by the hon. Gentleman, who, with great deference, is quite an outsider. The proposal, however, is subject to very great objection. If there is to be a competition of this kind raised, every Scottish Member will at once come forward with a claim on behalf of his own constituency. The matter must be regarded strictly within the four corners of the Vote, and the proper time for raising any question as to the scope and application of the grant was when the Vote was taken.

I may be permitted to say that I am not altogether an outsider, for on a former occasion I was a candidate for the burghs of which Nairn forms one. One that occasion I pledged myself, at the earnest request of the people of Nairn, to do anything I could to forward their interests.

Question put, and negatived

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 14, after "gift," insert "the county council may also, before resolving to proceed as aforesaid, determine the boundaries of the special harbour or local works district, and such district shall be liable to special taxation under sub-section (25) hereof." —( Mr. Caldwell. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Caldwell) is open to very serious objec- tion. The proposal of the Government is that the body which is to have the responsibility is the County Council; and, accordingly, the natural area of rating is to square with the area for which the administrative body is elected, namely, the county. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal will be that members of the County Council, drawn from other portions of the county, will have no compunction at all in the matter of administration if they can put the cost upon one district which they do not represent. Several hon. Members must be aware of the exceedingly heavy rates which exist in some parts of the Highlands. The County Council has this year been representing that the burden on the ratepayers in the Island of Lews is excessive and intolerable. Therefore, I cannot say that I think we would be justified in proceeding to pile on heavy rates of this kind, and I trust the Committee will not agree to the Amendment, which is really unnecessary.

With regard to this Amendment, I feel we have not had time to ascertain the feeling of the County Councils themselves. The Amendment is one which is particularly fitted to be remitted to the County Councils for consideration. At the same time, I quite agree with the Lord Advocate that there are difficulties in the way. It would be a grievous burden, indeed, for poor localities to have a special rate imposed upon them for harbours. I do not feel competent to express an opinion on the matter one way or another; but, at the same time, I certainly appreciate the difficulties suggested by the Lord Advocate, especially having in view the peculiar circumstances of some of the districts.

There are very considerable difficulties in dealing with this subject. The Island of Lews requires a great many harbours; but as most of the members of the County Council belong to the mainland, the difficulty is to get that body to proceed in the matter. From that point of view, I can see a difficulty in assenting to the proposal of my hon. Friend. The Island of Lews may be sacrificed by the mainlanders, because they would have to bear the brunt of the taxation, getting nothing of the benefit. That is an important point, and I should like to know how that can be avoided.

I have a similar Amendment, to permit a special assessment in a parish as well as in the county, but my proposition is only a 1d. rate for the whole parish. The Amendment of the hon. Member goes beyond that; he would permit a 6d. rate in addition to the 1d. rate for the county. This certainly contemplates a large rate, but I do not see why it should not be inserted in a permissive form, for there is a great deal to be said in favour of special areas of taxation. The only question is, whether you should have a smaller area than the parish, and whether there would not be bookkeeping difficulties in the working of the scheme. It would tend very much to remove difficulties if the County Council could come to terms with a parish, or those who desire the outlay, by which those particularly interested should take upon themselves voluntarily an extra rate. Under such circumstances, I think you would have more works carried out by the County Council, and I think perhaps a 3d. rate would be sufficient. I do not think very much harm could be done, for it would only apply within a special radius, and to one or two parishes, for, of course, a harbour might benefit adjoining parishes. The decision should be arrived at by a decisive majority of the ratepayers—say three-fourths or two. thirds —and, of course, the machinery for this would have to be provided. It could not do much harm, and it might enable the County Council to carry out schemes for the benefit of a particular parish, which otherwise they would be unwilling to undertake. I am in favour of some proposal of this kind.

The proposal of the hon. Member is that a 6d. rate should fall upon one district after the whole of the county has been assessed at ld., the 6d. rate not being exacted by the County Council. I think the logical mind of my hon. Friend has overlooked the objection there is to this. A heavy burden might be imposed upon the Island of Lews, from which the mainland would be exempt; and the island would have but a fractional share in the administration, to the extent only of its representation on the Council. There is, I think, the gravest possible objection to the scheme, on the ground that it would make one set of people administrators while other people were to find the money. I do not think that it is necessary, plus the rate which the Bill proposes, to hold out the prospect of a 6d. rate; not only is it unnecessary, but the idea would have an injurious effect by frightening people as to future taxation. The prospect of a 6d. rate would, I think, have a tendency to rather retard than advance an improvement.

There is nothing novel about the proposal to impose an exceptional rate on a particular district; it is precisely what we have in the Public Health Act. I am anxious that this amount of money should be availed of to the fullest extent, and that works should not be hindered, because they will confer a benefit only on a limited area, the county, as a whole, not being interested. Of course, the 6d. rate may seem a large addition to the already heavy local burdens; but the effect of making harbours will be enormously to add to the industry and well-being of the people, and the consequence will be that there will be less poor rate to pay. That is the meaning and intention of the proposal. But, of course, I do not wish to interpose any obstacle in the way of carrying out the scheme of the Government. I suggest this as a means whereby I think works would be undertaken and carried out through the increased interest in a locality. I have no wish to press the proposal. (8.38.)

I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment in order that the matter may be considered before Report, and because the hon. Member for Nairn, and another hon. Member who is interested, are not here. The hon. Member for Sutherland has only one island; I have only one, and my hon. Friend sitting near me (Dr. McDonald) has only one. The islands will be seriously affected by this; and as there is no machinery for ascertaining the opinions of the people, who should be largely in favour of it before they are taxed, I think it would be better for the Amendment to be withdrawn at present so that the subject can be raised again on Report.

I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that the Amend, meat should be withdrawn for the present. It is true, as the hon. Member beside me has stated, that I represent only one island, but that island is a large one, containing 7,000 people, and it is important that they should not be sat on by the mainland. And yet that will happen in the case of all the islands unless something is done in the direction of this Amendment. I think, however, that we should take the matter up on Report in a much more drastic manner than we do now, and provide means to prevent the islands from suffering injustice.

There is a provision in the Bill whereby a rate may be levied on those using the harbour. That may be right, but what we want to insist on is that these harbours will be of immense service to the mainland within a certain area. The landed proprietors will derive benefit from the works being in their neighbourhood, and yet there is no power to compel them to subscribe. The object of the Amendment is to impose a certain taxation on those who certainly will reap enormous benefit from the works. Taxation should be imposed not only on the landlords, but on the tenants. I recognise that we should require a large amount of machinery for the creation of the necessary Local Authority to carry out the Act within the district to be benefited. That machinery can only be provided by a succession of clauses to be introduced on Report. With the object of giving an opportunity for those clauses to be prepared I withdraw the present Amendment. The Government will understand that I do not wish to place any obstacle in the way of the carrying out of the Bill, but that my desire is to make the measure more efficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to propose an Amendment to permit the County Council, if they think proper, to use the special grant made under the Local Government Act, 1889. Under that Act £10,000 was given to the counties, a limit being attached to the use of it. This Amendment will enable them to make a special subscription towards harbours, piers, or boat slips from that money. There will also be a Supplementary Estimate giving to Scotland an equivalent to the assisted education grant in England. This will probably be only for one year, and the great bulk of the work will be carried on for only one year. This Amendment will permit the County Council to use the sum during the year for the development of the piers and harbours. It is only a permissive clause. I do not know what the supplementary grant will be, but I understand there is to be one given to Scotland, and I therefore wish to give them permissive power to spend it in this way.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 14, after "gift," to insert "The county council may also use their portion of the ten thousand pounds granted to them by the first sub-section of the twenty-second section of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' and any sum that may be granted to them by the Supplementary Estimate making a grant to county council in Scotland equivalent to the assisted education England grant as a subscription towards the construction of any small harbour, pier, or boat slip."—( Dr. Clark. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

As regards the Supplementary Estimate, I do not think it would be wise to adopt any such proposal. The Government have indicated to the House the proposals they are prepared to make on the subject, and it would be departing from the very general and entirely uncontroversial proposal which has been made—as to the application of the sum to be given to Scotland—if we were to accept an application to any specific purpose, such as the hon. Member suggests. I therefore hope that the House will not encourage the suggestion. As to the sum of £10,000 granted to the Highland counties under the Act of 1889, I have something quite different to say. I cannot help thinking that that is a very good idea. I believe the hon. Member for St. Rollox has made a suggestion of a more general kind in a new clause he proposes to move. In the Amendment under consideration the hon. Member proposes to authorise any County Council, if so advised, to take its share of the £10,000 and give it as a subscription to a proposed new harbour. The Member for St. Rollox in the new clause proposes that in place of that the share of the county shall be available for the purposes of the Act. I do not suppose the hon. Member for Caithness attaches any special importance to a county taking the initiative, and paying down as a subscription its share, and probably the hon. Member is in general sympathy with the Member for St. Rollox. The best plan of harmonising these views, and giving effect to the hon. Member's own idea, would be to invest a power in the County Council at the end of Sub-section 26 to make available their share of this money for the making up of any deficit which might arise upon the construction of harbours, of which the County Council were the administrators. I would therefore propose to insert, at the end of Sub-section 26, the following:—

"Provided also that for the purpose of meeting any such deficiency the county council may apply any moneys falling to thorn under the provisions of section 22, sub-section 1, of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' as if such purpose were one of the purposes to which such money may be applied under the provisions aforesaid."

In general, therefore, I accept this Amendment, but I should propose that the words I have quoted should be inserted at the end of the sub-section.

I do not think that would serve the object I have in view. What I desire is that if the County Councils want to get the Government to spend money for harbour construction they shall back it up by themselves, giving a proportion of the special grant which is given only to those counties. I want the County Council to have this money, and to be able to give a subscription or a grant towards any scheme which they think ought to be carried out. They have now the power of using this £10,000 for any purpose they think proper in reducing taxation. They also have the power of using the residue of the grant either for the purpose of reducing taxation or for technical education. I desire that they should be able to use the sum given by this Bill either for promoting the establishments of piers and harbours or for reducing taxation. The 26th clause only affects works that have been constructed out of money granted by Parliament, which money has not been sufficient to defray the whole cost of construction. I want to go beyond cases of that kind.

The £10,000 was granted to the Highlands in connection with exceptional works, and if this Bill had been before Parliament at the time there is no doubt that the sum would have been specially appropriated to the objects mentioned in it. As it is, the £10,000 might be held not to apply to the purposes of the present Bill. It is true that if the money is applied to other purposes there will be less taxation, but there is this difficulty: that Sub-section 26 applies to any case of deficiency in construction. I intend to move to leave out the sub-section altogether; and, therefore, I can hardly consent to a proviso being added to a proviso which I think had better be left out altogether. The object of my Amendment is to give to the County Council the power to apply the £10,000 to the purposes of this Bill in the same way as money is applied by the Local Government Act to the purposes of that Act.

I should be inclined to accept the hon. Member's proposal with this modification, that in lieu of the words "purposes of this Act," the words shall read "purposes of Sub-sections 25 and 26 of this Act." I agree with him that what we aim at is to strengthen the resources of the counties referred to out of this fund for the purposes of harbours, and I ask how can we do that better than by placing at their disposal for the purposes of the Act the moneys in question? You will give them good heart to enter on these works by the additional resources placed at their disposal.

Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman means for the cost of harbours as well as for the construction of harbours for the purposes of the Act?

The hon. Member surely does not suppose that Sub-sections 25 and 26 will have that effect.

I will wait and see what else may be proposed, and, in the meantime, will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.