I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies is there any truth in the statements made by the Colonial Press that notwithstanding the undertakings in the various Conventions of 1881, 1884, and 1890, made with the South African Republic, each containing a declaration that the Swazis should remain independent, and in view of the necessity of further repressing the sale of female slaves still carried on in Swaziland, Her Majesty's Government have made a promise to the President of the South African Republic to cede Swaziland to that Republic before the expiration of the Convention of 1890; is he aware that about six millions sterling of British capital have been invested in Swaziland on the strength of the statement made in the House of Lords on the 4th August, 1890, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to hand over Swaziland to the South African Republic; and is he also aware that Mr. Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape of Good Hope, has proposed to obtain the consent of the South African Republic to join a Customs Union of all the South African Colonies and States in exchange for Swaziland?

Her Majesty's Government have made no promise to the President of the South African Republic to cede Swaziland to that Republic. The Secretary of State is not aware of the amount of British capital, if any, which has been invested in Swaziland since August, 1890. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Secretary of State has no knowledge of any such proposal.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the supervisors of Inland Revenue, who are generally between 45 and 56 years of age at the time, have, in order to obtain promotion to the position of Inspectors, to submit themselves to competitive examinations lasting three days, six hours each day, and consisting of the writing out of statements in the nature of essays; whether at such an examination recently held at the Custom House in Dublin, the late supervisor of Middle-ton, County Cork, who was 52 years of age, after having been for a short time in the examination room, fell dead in one of the corridors attached to it, and left a widow and family; whether it is necessary to subject this class of public servants, at such a period of their lives, to competitive examinations, in order to ascertain their fitness for promotion to Inspectorships, or whether there is any other method; and whether, in such latter event, he will consider the desirability of abolishing a system which involves competitive examinations of the kind five years only, in some cases, before the compulsory retirement, on the ground of age, of those who have to submit themselves to them as the only means of obtaining promotion?

The examination is a pass and not a competitive one. The essays which have to be written are on subjects connected with the official duties of the candidates. The unfortunate death alluded to in the second paragraph was the result of natural causes, and in no way connected with the examination. The system has been in force for 50 years with satisfactory results. It is acceptable to the members of the Department generally, and I cannot suggest any improvement upon it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state at what date the County Galway Infirmary Bill will be introduced, in pursuance of public notice given in December, 1891, and in accordance with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; if he is aware that through that advertisement no steps were taken to elect a surgeon in the usual way, and, as a consequence, an election is now impossible owing to the death of a governor this year, which renders the number of qualified electors below that of an official quorum, and leaves the Infirmary derelict at the present moment; and whether he is aware that, in support of the proposition that the Bill should be passed as an unopposed measure, resolutions were passed by the Grand Jury of the county, the Town Commissioners, and by the citizens of Galway, at a public meeting convened by the Lord Bishop?

The hon. Member will probably have noticed that I have put down a Motion to bring in the Bill to-day. The only thing I can say in regard to the question is, that no steps were taken to elect a surgeon in the usual way not because of any advertisement. The appointment was not made in consequence of the impossibility of making a quorum.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have requested and received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, as promised in answer to a question put in this House on 9th April of last year, a Report showing the effect of the McKinley Tariff Act upon the wages, employment, and cost of the necessaries of life of the working classes in the United States of America?

Her Majesty's Minister at Washington informed us last year that the Commissioner of Labour, Mr. Wright, a gentleman of high reputation for fairness and intelligence, had been directed by the Senate to report,

"On the effect of the tariff laws of the United States upon imports and exports, the growth, development, production, and prices of agricultural and manufactured articles, and upon wages, domestic and foreign."

Under these circumstances it was not thought necessary to call upon Sir J. Pauncefote for another Report. Mr. Wright's Report was only presented to the Senate yesterday, but as soon as it is received here a copy of it will be placed in the Library.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis may be expected to issue its Report?

I am informed that it is hoped that all the experiments will be completed by the autumn, but then some time must elapse before the whole of the information obtained by the Commission can be fully examined and reported on.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the delegates appointed to represent Her Majesty's Government at the Conference invited by the United States "to consider by what means, if any, the use of silver can be increased in the currency system of the nations," will be permitted to treat the adoption by this country of a legal fixed ratio between gold and silver as an open question?

I think I may inform the hon. Member that it would be contrary to precedent and also to expediency that a premature declaration should be made as to instructions to be given to delegates at any Conference appointed to represent this country. I am unable to inform the hon. Member what instructions will be given, and I may further add Her Majesty's Government have not yet themselves considered the precise terms of the instructions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say when I might with propriety ask the question? When the instructions have been given, will he allow the question to be asked?

I think the hon. Member will find that in the past the practice has been observed not to make known the instructions to delegates while the Conference is sitting. Suppose negotiations were going on and our delegates were instructed to obtain some particular solution, the realisation of this solution might be compromised if those taking part in the Conference knew precisely the instructions given to our delegates. Confidence must be reposed in Her Majesty's Government, the House, of course, being at liberty to disallow any arrangements that may be come to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consent to amend the Return of the hon. Member for South Oxfordshire (Mr. Francis Parker) on convictions for drunkenness, by adding a column to be filled in by the number of convictions in each locality of publicans for supplying intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, or permitting drunkenness on their premises?

The Return of the hon. Member for South Oxfordshire has been ordered and could not conveniently be extended in the way desired. Moreover, the information which the hon. Member speaks of in his question appears already in the annual volume of judicial statistics. In the volume for 1890, issued last year, he will find this information on pages 25 and 32.

Do the statistics make distinction between districts?

They show by districts in counties and boroughs the number of persons proceeded against, but of convictions they show only the totals. I may say the whole question of the form of these judicial statistics is under consideration, and the subject raised in the question of the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

had notice of the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, as the perpetual rent-charge payable by a tenant purchaser under Clause 5 of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill is to be only of an amount to include the yearly interests which the County Councils have to pay on the corresponding debt which they have incurred, but is not to include any yearly contribution to a Sinking Fund in repayment of the principal of such debt, from what source are the County Councils to provide the sum needful to repay the whole of the principal of the debt within 50 years, as provided by Clause 12 of the Bill; and if the said perpetual rent-charge is to include a yearly contribution to a Sinking Fund for the gradual repayment of the principal of the debt, what will be done with that yearly contribution after the whole of the debt incurred in respect of the sale of a holding has been paid off?

The question of the hon. Member for Elgin is not in Order, inasmuch as it is of an argumentative character, having reference to a Bill now before the House and actually in progress in Committee.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what reply he is prepared to give to the memorial addressed to him from workmen employed in his Department in St. James's and Hyde Parks and in Kensington Gardens, praying that wages, hours of employment, and holidays may be granted to them on similar terms to those granted to the employees of the London County Council?

The memorial from workmen employed in St. James's and Hyde Parks and Kensington Gardens referred to in the question is receiving my careful consideration, and I am making inquiries on the subject; but the hon. Member is doubtless aware that only two years ago we added £1,000 to the Estimates for the purpose of improving the pay of labourers employed in the Royal Parks. When I have been able to reply to the memorialists I shall be happy to answer his question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix a day upon which the Government will place the House in possession of the results of their consideration of the question of alien immigration into this country?

A Bill on this subject is in charge of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I believe he will be in a position to introduce it soon.

; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can fix a day for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill?

I am afraid it will hardly be possible to find time for the discussion of this measure, which, however, I the less regret, as a very full discussion on the same subject, though in a less comprehensive form, took place in the House a short time since on the question of eight hours for mining labour.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman might it not be possible for him to find some time—I will not say a day—after the Whitsuntide Recess?

I am afraid I cannot give any promise. If once we begin to give way in favour of any particular Bill we shall day after day have other appeals from other hon. Members in favour of measures in which they may be interested, and it would be impossible for the Government to attempt to distinguish between the relative value and importance of the different claims put forward.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if he is aware that, since the passing of the Infants (Betting and Loans) Act, numerous advertisements have appeared in the newspapers, inviting the persons to whom they are addressed to borrow money from the advertisers, and that many of these advertisements are directly addressed to minors, clerks, and reversioners; and whether it is an offence under the Act for any person to send, or cause to be sent, to infants newspapers containing such advertisements?

I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's question. I cannot say whether the sending of a newspaper containing such advertisements as the hon. Gentleman refers to is an offence. That would depend upon the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as stated by the Staffordshire Evening Post, that—

"The reforms so persistently advocated in some quarters of stamping the value of all coins upon them has not been adopted in the new designs which the Coinage Committee have recommended for adoption";

if so, what are the coins on which it is proposed to omit any expression of value?

I do not think it would be quite fair to disclose the recommendation of the Coinage Committee on one point before the Report generally is ready for publication. That Report is in an advanced state, and very soon it will be possible to lay it on the Table. So far as I am acquainted with the views of the Committee on the question of indicating the value on coins, I feel sure they will commend themselves to practical persons of banking experience. There are three bankers on the Committee, who no doubt will give the fullest attention to the question of having the value indicated on coins where confusion is likely to occur.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing the great influence that the presence and movement of the two torpedo vessels on the Zambesi belonging to the Navy has exercised in maintaining order and assisting in the stopping of the slave trade, it would be possible to transfer those vessels to Lake Nyassa where their operation could be even more useful?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but there are great difficulties in giving effect to his wishes in the way he suggests. The gunboats maintained for service on the Zambesi are only adapted for river work; they cannot be taken to pieces and carried overland; moreover, their services cannot yet be dispensed with on the Zambesi. The Government have, however, decided to build two gunboats specially for service on Lake Nyassa; orders have been given for their construction, and arrangements have been made for sending them out as soon as the depth of water in the river permits of their ascent, which will be early in the autumn. The presence of these vessels on the Lake will, we are confident, be of material assistance in arresting the slave trade at one of its sources.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom, under existing Treaties with Spain, is entitled to its imports into that country coming under the Most Favoured Nation Clause until 30th June of the present year; whether the tariff on linen yarns imported into Spain from Austria-Hungary is equal to 27·42 pesetas for Nos. 1 to 20, and whether a Circular issued by the Director General of Customs in Madrid on 11th April last ordered that such numbers of linen yarns must pay 45 pesetas, not only in future, but retrospectively on all imported since 1st February last and which had been cleared at the lower rate of duty, whereas the notice which appeared in the Gazette of 10th February last stated that

"The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Spain and Austria-Hungary of 3rd June, 1880, is prolonged and shall remain in force until 30th June, 1892, except as regards spirits and alcohols,"

and in a telegram sent by the Minister of Finance at Madrid on 1st February to the Collectors of Customs at Barcelona and other Spanish ports it is stated that goods from Austria-Hungary should enjoy the tariff annexed to its Treaty, subsequent to which up to 11th April British yarns were admitted at the same rate; whether it has been brought to the knowledge of the Government that British merchants, acting on the notice in the Gazette and the telegram of the Spanish Minister of Finance, entered into contracts and transactions which have involved serious inconvenience and loss, consequent on the sudden and retrospective increase of the duty on linen yarns imported from this country into Spain since 1st February; and whether, in the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain compensation from the Government of Spain for the injury British merchants have suffered, or will press for the admission of British linen yarns until 30th June at the Austria-Hungary tariff rate, in accordance with the Gazette notice and the instructions of the Minister of Finance in February last?

The answers to the first and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. As to the series of questions contained in the second paragraph, the Spanish Government state that the special rates for linen yarns, stipulated for in the Austro-Hungarian Treaty of 1880, ceased to exist on the 14th March, 1887, at the termination of the period agreed upon for the duration of those special rates. The general tariff for linen yarns then came into force and remained in force until the 1st February, 1892 when the present tariff became operative. Her Majesty's Government have not found themselves able to accept the contention of the Spanish Government, and they have consequently adopted the second alternative suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what was the number of accidents occurring in the streets of the Metropolis during the year 1891; whether there was any increase or decrease on the number recorded during the year 1890; and how many accidents resulted in death and how many in personal injuries?

The total number of street accidents during the year 1891 was 5,784, being an increase of 56 as compared with the total number in 1890. The number of fatal accidents in 1891 was 147, being an increase of three as compared with the number in 1890.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to diminish the number of accidents since his attention was called to the matter a year ago?

It is not easy to take any steps to efficiently diminish the dangers that must necessarily attend such crowded streets as we have in London. The number of points at which the police do their best to check and regulate the traffic have been increased during late years.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given private notice. Is it true, as reported in a Times telegram to-day, that the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill lately passed by the Queensland Government for the resuscitation of the traffic with Kanaka, which has been called the "White Slave Trade"?

I have seen the telegram, which is substantially correct. A telegram has also been received through the Agent General of Queensland, which I will read—

"Governor of Queensland out of reach of telegraphic communication. Act has been assented to. Merely repeals prohibition of issue of licences after '90. Present regulations remain in force until amended. Revised regulations, still more stringent, ready. Will be issued immediately on Governor's return. Government fully recognise necessity stringent regulations. Fully determined to prevent infringement. Many return Islanders waiting passage to Islands. It is proposed to issue recruiting licences under conditions of revised regulation to ships taking them. Sugar industry already shows great revival. Matter of importance to afford every facility for supply of labour as soon as possible."

Considering the deep interest taken in the country on this question, will the right hon. Gentleman not telegraph for these revised regulations, and have them laid on the Table of the House?

I cannot promise to do that. The hon. Member will see from the Paper which I shall shortly present that, as I have already stated, immigration has for the last five years been carried on without any complaint. Before licences can be issued, the regulations are to be made still more stringent. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the assurances contained in the telegram I have read, Her Majesty's Government do not entertain any doubt as to the efficiency of the safeguards proposed by the Queensland Government.

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether or not the Royal Assent has been given. He said the Governor's assent had been given. I suppose that can be overridden by the Royal Prerogative? Has the final assent of the Crown been given?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Bill has become law; and unless it is disallowed, it is in force.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the High Commissioner of the Pacific will look after the recruiting? Will the recruiting outside of British dominions come within the cognisance of our Agent?

I think the explanation I have given to the House is satisfactory. I have no reason to doubt for a moment the sincerity of the assurance given us by the Queensland Government.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the establishment of a District Registry for the issue of writs of summons in Belfast, whether the conference of the Judges, as promised before the Recess, has yet been held on the subject; and whether he is aware that the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and all other mercantile bodies in Belfast, desire the immediate establishment of such a registry there?

I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has conferred with the Judges on this subject, and so far as they are aware there is no practical inconvenience under the present system. He has not received any communication from any body in Belfast, either mercantile or legal. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor does receive such a communication he will give it his careful consideration, and it may be necessary afterwards to communicate with the Treasury on the matter.

Has not the Lord Chancellor received a communication from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce on the subject?

So far as I am aware, the Lord Chancellor has not received such a communication. If he did, it would of course be a communication of great importance, and would receive his very careful attention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that copies of the resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce were sent to hon. Members of this House; is it not a fact that in England there are eighty district registries; and does the right hon. Gentleman know there is great inconvenience in Belfast owing to the absence of a registry, as at present it takes three days after the issue of a summons before service can be obtained?

The Lord Chancellor did not express any opinion on the merits of the question, but he is giving the matter his careful consideration. I may point out that the Lord Chancellor is not a Member of the House.

He was a Member.

; I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Imperial Government have arranged to advance £150,000 to the Government of British Columbia for the purposes of colonisation in that country; if so, at what rate of interest, on what security, and for what period; in what sums and at what dates will the said principal sum be advanced; what will be the constitution of the authority to be appointed to carry out the details of the work; from what part or parts of the United Kingdom will the families to be colonised be chosen, and when is it proposed to commence to send them out; on what principle will such families or persons be chosen, and by whom; and is the work to be carried out entirely under Government supervision, or will the organisation of any private commercial company be utilised in any way for this purpose?

We have been informed by the Government of British Columbia that an Act has been passed by the Legislature of that Province to authorise the acceptance of the offer made by Her Majesty's Government of an advance of £150,000 for the purpose of crofter colonisation in that country. It is proposed that this sum should be lent in three instalments of £50,000 each, the second and third instalments not to be advanced until the first and second instalments have been spent. The rate of interest will be three per cent., and the security will be the guarantee of the British Columbian Government. Repayment is to begin after five years and to be spread over a period of twenty-five years. It is proposed to commence colonisation under this arrangement as soon as possible. The Government of British Columbia contemplate sending a Representative to confer with Her Majesty's Government upon the details of the scheme. The hon. Member will understand, therefore, that the details of organisation about which he asks are not settled yet. Legislation will, of course, be needed before the proposed advance can be made, so that the House will have full opportunity for considering the scheme when it is complete.

I wish to ask whether any families will be sent out this year?

That will depend on the representation of the British Columbian Representative who is coming over, but who has not yet arrived.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me some information as to the last clause of my question?

On that I shall have to confer with the Representative of the British Columbian Government. The point is not yet settled.

Will the First Lord say when he proposes to take the Indian Councils Act Amendment Bill?

If there is time I shall take it before seven.

Is the First Lord of the Treasury now able to fix a definite time for the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill?

The progress of the Local Government Bill for Ireland will depend upon the advance we make with the Bill we are now engaged upon—the Small Holdings Bill. We cannot take it before we finish the Committee stage.

Are we to understand that the Budget Bill is definitely fixed for Monday?

Perhaps I ought to qualify my previous answer. I understand it would be inconvenient to many gentlemen to begin the discussion of such a Bill as the Irish Local Government Bill on Tuesday or Friday, and therefore I cannot pledge myself on the point. Supposing business so fell out, some other business might have to be taken in order to commence the discussion of the Bill on Thursday or Monday.

When Progress was moved last night we were discussing this question, which really is one of very great importance; and now that I have had an opportunity of still further discussing it, I am more than ever impressed with the seriousness of the mistake the Committee will make unless something is done to meet the possibilities of the case we suggested last night. Let me remind the Committee that there are two interests we have to protect: the interests of the County Council—that is to say, of the ratepayers—and also the interests of the landowners who are concerned in this matter. I shall later show where we are all interested in protecting the interests of the landowners. In the first place, I will deal only with the case of the representatives of the community, who, under this Bill, are asked to run a very considerable risk and to expend public money for a great public service. That public service is the creation of peasant proprietors; and we pointed out last night that under the clause as it stands, after the peasant proprietors have been created by this Bill, it will be perfectly possible, after the expiry of ten years, for the owner of the land to sell it to speculative builders or other people, and to turn what was intended to be a great social reform into a mere speculation, which would in no degree fulfil the objects and intentions of Parliament. Therefore, I say in the interests of the ratepayers, we are bound to see that their sacrifices secure the object which we have in view. Now, Sir, I turn to the interests of the landowners, and I have said we are interested in protecting them. If we do not, what will be the result? If the landowners are to be injured or to run the risk of injury in selling their land for this purpose, of course—at all events so long as the Act is voluntary—no landowner in his senses will dream of selling his land for the purposes of the Act, and the measure will become a dead letter. The Minister for Agriculture, answering our objections last night, said that if the landlord feared any such possibility as I suggested, he had the remedy in his own hand—that he need not sell his land. Well, I may say, having thought the matter over carefully, I am of opinion that any landlord who does sell land, if the Bill remains in its present form, will be a very imprudent and a very foolish person. I must repeat what I said in order to make this perfectly clear. The owners of large estates may—and I hope will—in some number of cases be extremely willing to sell portions of their estates for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors. Having done so, ten years later, if the small owners either can themselves, or with the assistance of any other person, pay off the remaining instalments, they will then become absolute owners of the land; they can do with it what they please, and the conditions which we insert in the Bill against sub-dividing, sub-letting, or using the land for any other than the agricultural purpose which the Bill has in view—all these conditions fall to the ground, and the small owner is absolute owner. He can put up a factory, a row of small cottages; indeed, he can use it for any purpose, however objectionable to the owner of the estate. Is it likely that any landlord in his senses is going to put himself entirely at the mercy of a possible absolute owner of land which he might be willing to part with for the purpose of small holdings? What we have proposed is that the conditions, which I think everybody will admit to be reasonable—although, if we were to discuss them they might be capable of some variation—shall be made permanent, and that when the County Councils have advanced money for these purposes, they shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the purposes shall be fulfilled; or, if from any circumstances it is found impossible to work the land at a profit, or the land becomes necessary for an extension of the towns or villages, then, in that case, the profit ought not to go to the small owner, who has been created by the money of the State, but ought to go either to the County Council which has afforded him this opportunity with the funds of the ratepayers, or to the landowner who would otherwise have been entitled to it, and who has abandoned all the prospects of an im- provement in value for a public purpose which has ceased to be possible. We propose, therefore, to omit the words which make the small owner absolute owner, without any condition, at the expiry of ten years, or so soon as the instalments have been paid up. The Minister of Agriculture could not see his way to accept our view of this question last night. But he was not able—perhaps for lack of time—to show that I had in any way exaggerated the possibilities of the Bill as it now stands. I have been endeavouring to find some possible compromise or arrangement of this matter which might meet with the approval of, and at the same time not be inconsistent with what has fallen from, the right hon. Gentleman. Before coming to that, however, let me say that what we are now discussing is not a Party question. It has been to me a great surprise that a proposition which is made primarily of course in the interest of the ratepayers, and secondly in the interest of the landowners, should hitherto have received so little support from the other side of the House. The only difference between my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) and myself is as to the best way to accomplish the same thing. I understand he fears that a person desirous of becoming a small holder will be deterred from doing so if his ownership is clogged by any conditions, and that for that reason he opposes the Amendment. I do not understand that he is blind to the extreme possible inconvenience of the clause as it stands. Let me say in answer to his objection that I do not think it has any force, because, what is the position of the person who wants to be a small holder? At that time he has no conception of building speculation. He does not enter upon the land with any intention of making a profit by a probable increased value, nor does he intend to be an annoyance to the present landowner. If any idea of that kind ever arises in his mind it will be probably suggested to him by some outsider, by a jerry-builder, for instance, or some speculator in land, at a later period. But at the time he is desirous of taking advantage of this Act it will give him everything he can wish for—absolute ownership for the purpose of cultivation. The only way in which it restricts him is that it prevents him from changing his intention of being a cultivator of the soil and becoming a land speculator or builder. Now I come to the suggestion which I respectfully submit to my right hon. Friend, and it is this: if he does not see his way to maintain these conditions in the Bill permanently, he should, at all events, follow what has been suggested to him as the usual course where land is allowed to be taken by railway companies and by other public bodies, namely, that whenever a small holder, who has obtained land for a particular purpose, wishes to sell it for a different purpose he shall offer the right of preemption to the landowner of whom he has bought it, or to the County Council, who have also a claim since they have assisted him to buy it.

Or to the adjoining owner.

Quite so. If something of that kind is done—and I think it will be possible to introduce a new clause on Report—all temptation would be taken away from the small holder to do the thing which otherwise I think he will be tempted to do. Take the case of Birmingham, where the County Council might be willing to carry out this Act. At the present time you can buy land in most directions at a small distance from Birmingham at £100 an acre, and yet land almost contiguous is worth £500 or £1,000 an acre. It all depends upon accident, or whether or not large works have been established in the immediate neighbourhood. Now, all this land which could be taken for the purpose of creating small holdings at £100 an acre may in the course of a few years become the object of ambition on the part of some speculating builder, and the price may rise to £500 or more an acre. In such a case as this I think the small owner should not be allowed to part with his land for other than agricultural purposes. If he wants to give up his agricultural holding, undoubtedly he should offer it to the County Council or to the landowner from whom it was bought, or to both. My suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is whether it would not be possible to introduce a clause of this kind in the Committee stage, or possibly in the Report stage.

Before my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) replies to the speech which has just been made, I should like to say that I am not desirous of hurrying him into a reconsideration of the draft of this Bill, and I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that the subject should be carefully considered with the view of bringing up an amended clause is, perhaps, the best method of getting out of the present difficulty. I must say that I entirely agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend opposite as to the great danger we run of neutralising the objects of this Bill by the retention of the words now proposed to be omitted. As I understand it, the intention of Parliament is to enable small holdings to be created for agricultural purposes. It is no part of our duty to assist British labourers or mechanics to acquire eligible plots of land in order that they may make a profit by selling at an enhanced price. What we desire is that the land shall be held permanently upon the conditions now laid down; but as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill as it now stands to prevent a serious injury being inflicted upon the adjoining property. It seems to me that the fairest way of approaching this matter would be to follow the course adopted by railways when they cease to use land for the purposes for which it was obtained, but with some modification, because if I recollect aright, the adjoining owners have the right of pre-emption at a valuation. But a valuation must include other considerations, such as the possibility of enhanced value, and towards which the small holders may not in the least contribute. I therefore think that if a small holder wishes to sell his land for purposes other than agriculture, the owner from whom he bought it, or the owner of the adjoining property, should have the right of pre-emption at a price not exceeding that which he gave for it in the first instance, plus compensation for any obvious improvements. That seems to me to be a just method on which to proceed. I do not think the County Council would have any claim to the enhanced value of land in cases of this kind. Now, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, that while he is right in resisting any proposal that would have a tendency to discourage the acquisition of land, and while I agree with him that the purchaser should have a freehold for the purposes of agriculture, still I think he should not go further in that direction, and I hope he will not be hurried into any decision, but give this matter his careful consideration with the view of bringing up an amended clause.

I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to the effect of his proposal, that either the landowners who have sold the land to the County Council or the County Council itself should have the right of preemption in accordance with the usual rule that prevails when railway companies take land for their undertakings. Well, the effect of that would be that these landowners or the County Council would have the power to buy back ten years hence the land with the improvements. (An hon. MEMBER: Subject to compensation.) The hon. Member says, "subject to compensation" but only for improvements made by the tenant. But has he considered the difficulty of settling the difference between the improved value attributable to unearned increment, and that attributable to improvements made by the tenant? Has he considered the expensive law-suits he will land every one of those unfortunate people in who attempts to enforce his right to compensation against the right of preemption of the County Council, or the landowner who many years before sold his land to the County Council? If the County Council is to appropriate the whole of the unearned increment, it will be doing exactly what was decided in this House a few days ago it should not do when the Local Authorities (Purchase of Land) Bill was rejected. I contend that if you are going to import questions and considerations of unearned increment into dealings with these small parcels of land you will certainly terrify persons from having anything to do with land under the Bill. And I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General), who has had probably more experience in compensation cases than any professional gentleman in this House, whether the introduction of a clause of this kind will not hold out a future prospect in connection with every one of these small holdings of litigation of the most troublesome and difficult and possibly most expensive kind? The Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) artfully appealed to the sentimental feelings of the landowners who sit on the opposite side of the House, and he welds the two things together—the right of the landowner to have his land back, and the right of the Council to take land upon which public money has been risked, and to use it for public purposes. And he also associates with it the desire of gentlemen on this side of the House that this Bill should be used only to create and perpetuate a peasant proprietary. If the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is embodied in the Bill, the landowners may be sure that they will never be allowed to seize the unearned increment. The first instance of anything of the kind would result in such an expression of public feeling that the law would have to be altered. The proposition would absolutely deter any man of foresight and common sense from having anything to do with land to be acquired under the Bill. The proper course is to give the small holder the land as free from restrictions as possible, so that when he has paid for it he may do what he pleases, and look upon it as a property in which he has invested his savings for the benefit of himself and his family, and be encouraged to improve it. I think you ought to leave the question of whether any of this land may hereafter be required for cottage building or other purposes to be determined by the future necessities of the locality. I do not see such terrible consequences in land being used for cottages, nor even for the purposes of a manufactory. But these are special cases, and not once in five hundred times will any of the land be required for these purposes The land will, in the main, continue to be used for purposes of agricultural or market garden cultivation, and the man who buys in the first instance will cultivate or sell the land to someone else who will also cultivate. These terrible instances of the possible appropriation of the land to other purposes are mere inventions conjured up by the fertile imagination of people who are either ignorant of the effect of what they purpose, or who do not desire the Bill to pass, or who want to so injure it as to render it inoperative. I think the Government deserve every credit for having brought this Bill forward. The Bill is a good Bill, and will be very useful; and though it will not remove agricultural depression, it will provide a ladder by which the labouring man may climb into the position of a small farmer. It is, of course, an experiment, but if it is successful it will be extended and we may confidently hope to see considerable benefit from it accrue to a very large number of thrifty, industrious, and deserving people.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has met the objections of the Government to the Amendment that has been moved in so reasonable and temperate a spirit that I cannot do otherwise than attempt to meet him in the same spirit. The objections of the right hon. Gentleman are twofold. He wishes to guard against the object of the County Council and of the Bill being defeated, and he wishes to protect the landlords against some of the future consequences which he apprehends from the Bill, if it should pass in its present form. For my own part, I think the dangers are to a great extent exaggerated. It may be the case that when small holdings are created builders and speculators will go into the market and buy them with the object of devoting them to other purposes than those of agriculture. But if that is to be so, why is it that these same builders and speculators, being men of wealth and in a position to buy land at the present time, do not buy up land for those purposes now?

The landlords will not sell it.

That I do not agree with. I am a landlord myself, and I should be very glad to sell a great deal of land. As a matter of fact, there are large quantities of land in the market which would be available if there were any demand. That is one ground which makes me hesitate, and another reason, I think, diminishes the ground for any Amendment whatever. As a matter of fact, I think we may be fully certain that the payment for all these small holdings or the major part of it will not be made or completed until the expiration of fifty years from now. Most of them will be paid for by instalments, if not all; and fifty years is quite long enough for us to look forward to now. On the other hand, I own that there is something attractive in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he has not asked me to give any pledge on the subject or to do more than consider the matter; and I am bound to say I could not give a pledge because, attractive though it may be, I have some sort of suspicion, especially after listening to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. H. Bolton), that the proposal may be surrounded and encumbered with difficulties that have not been apparent to the right hon. Gentleman, and are not at this moment apparent to me. I am afraid these difficulties may exist, and therefore, in anything I may say upon the subject this afternoon, I cannot go further than this: that I will willingly undertake to consider with the utmost care the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and if I see my way to give effect to that proposal I will introduce a clause at a later period. More than that I cannot say this afternoon, and I make no pledge more than this: that I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is worthy of every consideration, and that consideration I am prepared to give to it before coming to a final decision. In the ordinary course, therefore, the clause would be carried as it stands, and any Amendments which would have been moved may be introduced when the clause comes up afterwards.

After the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has at last seen the importance of these Amendments, and has promised to consider the matter fully, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. With respect to the fear entertained by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), that money will be wasted in legal proceedings as to the settlement of the value of the holdings, they should bear in mind that the value would be as an agricultural holding, without any value for buildings or anything else, and would, therefore, be a very simple matter, and need involve but very small expense in the case of a transfer. With respect to compensation for improvements, the whole thing is quite clear, and I fail to see where the difficulty would come in.

I hope the Committee will think very seriously about this question of ten years. If this were a Bill to create small land speculators I could understand the contention of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), but it professes to be a Bill to create small agricultural holdings; and if we are going to create them, and at the end of ten years turn them over to land speculators, all the trouble that we have taken over this Bill will have been thrown away. We ought, I think, to take care that the Bill does not lend itself to the schemes of speculators and jerrymanderers. We ought, I think, to take care that there should be a preemption; and that so long as the County Council can use the land for the purposes of this Bill, they should have the pre-emption; and if they fail, by all manner of means let the preemption in the second instance go to the landlord who parts with his land voluntarily for the sake of this experiment and for no other purpose. A good deal has been said about this Bill being a ladder. We do not want to raise a ladder by which a few men may climb up and then kick the ladder away, and that is what will happen if this alteration is not made.

This question is of the greatest importance to every landowner. I do not think the cases which have been put forward are exceptional; it is quite possible that a public-house or a factory might be erected on one of these holdings, as after ten years there will be no control over them. In the words of a correspondent, a landowner may have on the edge of his property erections for Atheistical, Papistical, or Salvationist purposes. Therefore, I think the landowner or the County Council ought to have a right of preemption at the end of ten years. Without this security, the Bill will discourage owners from selling to the Council. I should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of this Amendment most earnestly.

As one of those who had a strong objection to creating a new system of tenure applicable for ever to a particular class of holdings I may be permitted to say a few words. It appears to me that the present proposal is of a very different character and not open to the objections that many of us felt to the previous proposal. I think it is worthy of very serious consideration; and without committing myself in any way to details, I am certain that nothing will be lost by giving the matter full consideration. I presume it would be necessary to determine at what price these holdings should be taken—whether it should be the price originally paid by the Local Authority or the present price. I suppose it would be the price paid to the Local Authority by the purchaser, but I do not imagine there would be much difficulty about that, and there might be an Arbitration Clause by which the improved value could be ascertained with as little difficulty. I would point out that this right of pre-emption only applies in the case of land bought by compulsory purchase, and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not be surprised if we ask for the right of compulsory purchase.

I seldom trouble the House on this Bill, because I am anxious to see the end of it. I am not one of those who conceive it to be their business to better the Bills of the present Government. When I discovered that the Government were not prepared to put in compulsion I thought it a mere waste of time to discuss or even to vote on the subject; and so far as I remember, with the exception of the compulsion ques- tion, I have not even voted once on any of these Amendments. But I have remarked that since yesterday a curious change has come over the Members for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) and West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). These Gentlemen have been complaining of obstruction, but who have been obstructionists during the last two days? They have obstructed Public Business to their hearts' content, aided and abetted by the Minister for Agriculture. I counted in the Times this morning no fewer than nine speeches delivered yesterday by the Member for Bordesley.

Short speeches.

No doubt they were short, but they were supplemented by long speeches by the Member for West Birmingham. What is the meaning of all this? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) says it is to improve the Bill. The Liberal Unionists need not come here to improve the Bill; they can talk it over quietly with their friends opposite instead of wasting the time of the House by long discussions. Why do not I do the same? I do not pretend to have the ear of the Government. They would not listen to me. I have not the advantages of the Member for Bordesley. I am not a persona grata with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to legislate for fifty years hence. I object to come down here and waste time in legislating for three months hence.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is making observations which hardly have reference to this Amendment.

I will not continue; they were somewhat general.

I move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out the words "by the owner." If these words are retained it will be impossible for the owner to let his holding.

If the Amendment were carried the holding could be cultivated by anyone who was not the owner.

The next sub-section says that the holding shall not be let without the consent of the County Council.

My Amendment is to insert after "used," in line 11, the words "as building land or." The object of the Amendment is twofold. First, to make a clear prohibition of the use of this land for building purposes mainly; and, in the second place, I want to get rid of the restriction in the second part of the clause that no dwelling-house shall be erected on a small plot of land. I believe that restriction will be found objectionable in practice. Of course, the view of the Committee is that these holdings should not be used for building purposes mainly; but where the holding is bonâ fide used for agricultural purposes, we should do nothing to prevent the owner making his home thereon. I think the limit of an annual value of £25 for a holding on which a dwelling-house can be erected will be most unsatisfactory. That annual value might represent 50 acres where land is of small value, and surely in such a case the owner should not be prevented from erecting his home on the land.

I think the object of the hon. Member is met by the clause as it stands. Sub-section b provides that the holding shall not be used for any purpose other than agriculture, therefore the insertion of the words "as building land or" is unnecessary. With regard to the second point, I propose, when we come to Sub-section d, which provides that no dwelling-house shall be erected on a holding not exceeding £25 annual value, to make a suggestion which will abolish that limit altogether, and I hope, to some extent, meet the views of hon. Members opposite.

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Hitherto we have discussed the conditions under which the owner of the land shall hold it; this Amendment deals with the conditions under which a sub-tenant shall hold the land if the owner lets it. I propose that if the owner lets the land the tenant should have perpetuity of tenure at a fixed rent, and the right to assign the tenant right.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Forfarshire that we have already passed words making the limitation only apply to ten years, or so long as anything remains unpaid. It would be inconsistent with that to insert a limitation which provides that a sub-tenancy or sub-lease should be in perpetuity.

Do I understand that it is not competent to move the Amendment?

The hon. Member will have to modify his Amendment to make it consistent with the words already passed.

I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the remarks I made on the Second Reading with regard to the point dealt with by my Amendment. As far as Scotland is concerned, if the limit of £25 is retained, it would make the Bill entirely inoperative, which I am sure is not intended. I do not take exception to the restriction to one dwelling-house, though in a holding of 100 acres at 10s. an acre a workman's cottage in connection with the house would be an advantage. I think it would be well to hear what concessions the right hon. Gentleman will make, and then discuss them.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of stating at once what I suggest. He is perfectly right. I do recognise the objections to this clause he pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have considered the matter and come to this conclusion. I think the first part of the sub-section—

"Not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding"

commends itself generally to the Committee. The main objection is to the proviso which forbids the erection of any dwelling-house upon a holding not exceeding £25. I am bound to say there is no good reason that can be assigned for any specific limit, and what I would suggest is that the clause should run in this form. I should propose to divide the sub-section into two—

"Sub-section (d)—not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding.

"Sub-section (e)—Where the County Council declare that in their opinion a small holding is not sufficient to enable the occupier thereof to maintain in comfort himself and his family by the cultivation thereof, the holding shall, during the period aforesaid, be held subject to the condition that no dwelling-house shall be erected thereon without the consent of the County Council."

That, I think, ought to meet the views of many hon. Gentlemen who raised objections on the Second Reading, and it appears to get over the difficulty I was anxious to avoid, that buildings should not be erected all over the country on small plots of land on which it was impossible the owner could maintain himself and his family.

I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as I think the question is one which should be left to the County Council. Congestion has been caused by the erection of houses on small holdings where there was not sufficient to keep the family, and no other work to be got, and the consequence was that the places became, to a certain extent, pauper settlements. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I would point out that, so far as I caught the words, the question is not left in the discretion of the County Council. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman means that it should be left to them, and it would be more satisfactory; but there are words binding the County Council.

The County Council will have full discretion.

I fully recognise the spirit of conciliation in which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet us, but I do not think his proposed Amendment is altogether satisfactory. It appears to me to raise a very strong presumption against the erection of houses. As I understand the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the County Council will have power to prohibit the erection of dwellings if they think the occupier cannot live on the land. I think it would be better to say that no dwellings should be erected on holdings under £25 without the consent of the Local Authority, and give them no other direction whatever. I can imagine nothing more likely to make labourers and artisans remain in the rural districts than to encourage them to erect houses on these holdings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go a little bit further and remove the instruction to the County Council, saying merely that dwellings shall not be erected on holdings under £25 without their consent.

It seems to me it would be rather difficult for the County Council to say whether a house is really desirable under the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I would suggest, rather than throwing on the County Council the duty of determining whether the family could be properly maintained on the holding, that the question should be put in a negative form—that the house should be erected when the County Council were convinced that the nonexistence of the house would be a serious obstacle to the successful cultivation and occupation of the holding. I think that would make the task of the County Council less difficult.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman leave it further to the discretion of the County Council, by omitting the words "in comfort"? The idea of comfort in agricultural districts varies, and occasionally clergymen tell my constituents that with eleven shillings a week they should keep a wife and family "in comfort" and be contented. I do not want differing views as to what is "comfort" to be discussed by the County Council, and we may trust the County Council on the matter.

Might not my right hon. Friend put the presumption the other way, and say that the County Council might forbid the erection of a house?

I think it would be desirable that there should be no presumption against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings on small holdings. In reply to the deputation which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday, the First Lord of the Treasury acknowledged the shortcomings of the Crofters Act in the Highland districts, and said that these shortcomings would be met by the provisions of this Bill. Small holdings in the West Highlands consist not of twenty-five acres merely, but of fifty acres, and sometimes of two or three or four hundred acres; and if you put in a presumption of this kind against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings it would make this Bill absolutely a dead letter. If the shortcomings of the Crofters Act are to be met by this Bill, I think the least that can be done is to make a full concession in this matter of the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings. Over the greater part of Scotland—the Highland area is the largest—but over the whole of this area the crofter families do not support themselves on their crofts. It would be absolutely impossible that they could do so in comfort, or in any other way. They supplement their income by fishing or by various other methods; and I think that it would be very unreasonable that in that large part of Scotland the Highlands, where the agrarian question is the most acute, you should put a spoke in the wheel of the County Council, and prevent them from carrying out one of the necessary portions of their duties. I think it is very desirable that this Small Holdings Act should in the end supersede very largely the working of the Crofters Act, so that there may be but one system in the country. That can only be done by making a concession of this kind. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite plain that there will be no presumption against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings on these small holdings.

I think we are all in agreement as to the object to be carried out; but it is as to the means whereby that object is to be carried out that we disagree. I think, however, it is a mistake to say that there is anything in the sub-section which appears to raise a presumption against the erection of houses on small holdings. Perhaps the Committee would let me read it again—

"Where the County Council declare that in their opinion a small holding is not sufficient to enable the occupier thereof to maintain in comfort himself and his family by the cultivation thereof, the holding shall during the period aforesaid be held subject to the condition that no dwelling-house shall be erected thereon without the consent of the County Council."

The County Council are not bound to declare anything. That is absolutely in their discretion; and if they do not make a declaration to that effect at the sale, then the purchaser is perfectly free to erect a dwelling house on the holding, however small. But, even if they did make that declaration, then a building can still be erected if they give their consent. I do not think the provision could be drawn upon much broader lines, or could give a more full and complete discretion to the County Councils. I am, however, perfectly ready on this point to accept any suggestion which appears to me to be a better one, or which would give fuller effect to the object we have in view.

I would suggest that we should leave the matter to be regulated by the rules to be made by the County Councils. If we gave a direction to the County Councils that a man should be able to maintain his family out of his holding before he was allowed to erect a dwelling-house, they would very likely in many cases prevent the erection of houses; and the result would be that they would draw a wrong line and injure a really good class of small holders.

Whether a man can maintain himself in comfort on land for which he pays £25 a year or on twenty-five acres or not depends upon the man himself, upon his capacity, and upon the particular cultivation of his holding. I happen to live in a district where there are a great number of small holders, and tenants of my own live in very considerable comfort on less than twenty-five acres. They pursue a special cultivation; they devote themselves to special modes of industry on the land. As to the cultivation, I suppose it is desirable to encourage a certain amount of market-garden cultivation in connection with small holdings near towns. Market-garden cultivation is carried on by a great many tenants on less than twenty-five acres, and twenty-five acres is a considerable market-garden—or even a holding of £25 a year valuation. In my neighbourhood, in Sussex, there are some hundreds of holders living upon small quantities of land by means of poultry, butter, and market-garden produce. They send it to Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne and neighbouring towns. They are living in reasonable comfort. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill wants some modification in the direction of greater freedom. As to this particular proposal is the owner for the time being to go to the County Council and represent his personal qualifications, and give information as to his means and experience, and explain what he proposes to do, before he gets permission to build or to change his cultivation? This is one of the conditions I have been protesting against from the first. I think the right hon. Gentleman is here throwing a very awkward and difficult duty upon the County Councils, and is seriously embarrassing the Bill.

What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true, and I can corroborate it from my own personal experience. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is possible for a man to make a living out of 17 acres of land. I have a tenant myself who is not only doing that, but is able to live in greater comfort than a great many of the farmers surrounding him, because he is a man of great industry and practical experience, and turns to account every bit of land under his control. I am sorry my hon. Friend did not press his Amendment. If we want the people to come back to the land, if we want them to make their homes on the land, I think we ought to enable them to build where they please, on any quantity of land, and anywhere they like; and I think it is unfortunate that the Amendment has not been pressed.

It seems to me that the words which I have suggested are best adapted to meet the necessities of the case. I think we should not say anything about maintaining a family in comfort, because the County Council might have some difficulty in deciding what is comfort. It depends upon how many there are in the family; it also depends upon what some members of the family are bringing in—these are all matters which it seems to me are entirely outside the scope of a Bill of this sort. It seems to me that as we are all agreed upon what is required, the best way of getting at it would be to insert the words inline 18, page 4—

"Unless the County Council consider that the want of a dwelling-house occasions a serious obstacle to the successful cultivation of the holding."

I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he should omit this part of the clause, and bring up an Amendment on a future occasion.

I beg to move—

In Page 4, after Sub-section (e), insert the following sub-section:—"(f) That no dwelling-house or building on the holding shall be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors."

I do not think there will be any objection to this Amendment.

I beg to move—

In page 4, line 23, after "overcrowding," insert, "In the case of any dwelling-houses so to be erected within the area of any borough the requirements of the County Council shall not run counter to or be in substitution for the bye-laws or sanitary and building requirements in force in such borough."

The Bill as it stands in no way recognises the jurisdiction of the corporation of a borough within its own area. I venture to submit that it is extremely undesirable that there should be any conflict between the Sanitary Authorities if any new buildings are to be erected. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that the County Council should not come to interpose in matters affecting the bye-laws and sanitary requirements of the borough.

I am in agreement with the hon. Member so far as I understand his wish; but I do not think the Bill is drawn in any way to interfere with the jurisdiction of the borough authorities within their own area. It is quite clear that should the County Council lay down certain regulations for this purpose they cannot over-ride or in any way interfere with any sanitary regulation which the borough authorities may choose to make. I think that is perfectly clear as the Bill has been framed, but if it is not I shall make it quite clear.

I think the difficulty would be met by modifying my hon. Friend's Amendment in this way—

"Any dwelling-house erected on the holding shall comply with the requirements of the County Council or Borough Council if such dwelling-house be within the boundary of the borough as fixed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882."

A small holder under this Bill might be put to the expense of complying with the requirements of the County Council after having previously gone to the expense of satisfying the regulations of the borough authorities.

I do not believe there is any necessity whatever for putting in rules with regard to these sanitary matters. Any tenant or proprietor would be amply protected against any infringement of the sanitary regulations by the general law.

I shall look into the Bill, and make it quite clear on this point.

I beg to move in page 4, line 24, leave out the word "may" and insert the word "shall." Sub-section 2 says that if there is any breach of these restrictions the County Council may, after giving the owner an opportunity of remedying the breach, if it is capable of remedy, cause the holding to be sold. The object of this Amendment is to make that obligatory on the County Council.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to this, to take away from the County Council all discretion in the matter. I can conceive that this Amendment, if adopted, might work a very serious injustice to the particular persons who might be the owners of property of this kind. There might be a good deal of property in the market and it might be depreciated, and to oblige the County Council to insist upon immediate sale might work a very great deal of injustice upon poor, unfortunate persons whose parents had perhaps put their little all in these small holdings. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to this.

I rather hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I think discretion should be allowed to the County Councils, and I can conceive cases in which, if it is made positively obligatory, great hardship will be done to the owners of small holdings.

After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Clause 7. As the clause stands it refers to where the holding is sold free of these restrictions, and any man with sufficient capital might buy the holding and get clear of the restrictions entirely and do what he likes with the holding then and there. If that is the case, I should suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put in some such words as I have proposed on the Paper. I move the Amendment.

The object of the hon. Member is provided for in the last three lines of the section as it stands now—"and in either case the provisions of this Act with respect to the purchase-money shall apply in like manner as if the sale were the first sale of a small holding under this Act." That is to say, it is to be sold subject to the conditions provided in this clause.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in case a man purchases the holding—if it is for sale and he pays off the whole of the purchase-money—will he not, under this clause, become free of all restrictions?

No.

In view of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I would point out that if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to a preceding section, he will see that the word used is "let." This Section relates back to the preceding portion, and the word "lease," which appears in the 13th line, should, therefore, be "letting." "Letting" will cover and include "lease," but "lease" will not include "letting." Therefore, I would suggest that the word should be "letting," and I move the alteration.

I only rise to call attention to a point which I think is really one of drafting. I think the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Forfarshire received rather scant attention, and if the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to Sub-section B, he will see that it provides that the holding shall be cultivated by the owner. If he then looks at Sub-section C, he will see that there is power to let with the consent of the County Council. Supposing the property to be let with the consent of the County Council, I cannot help thinking that, as the Act stands, unless the lessee employs the owner to cultivate the land, he will not be able to cultivate it at all. Of course, it is simply a question of drafting, but I thought it right to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to it.

I will see to it.

The Amendment which I have to propose is, in page 5, line 26, after the word "loss," to leave out all the words to the end of line 30. As the first clause stands at present it is—

"Any such letting shall be at the best annual rent that can be obtained without any premium or fine, and on such terms as may enable the Council to resume possession of the land within a period not exceeding twelve months."

Anyone acquainted with agriculture, as the right hon. Gentleman is, will know that that would render it very difficult to let any land such as this for agricultural purposes. If a tenant is to be turned out in less than twelve months—if this is perpetually hanging over him—there is not much inducement for him to put much in the land. Then, again, it is objectionable that there should be a disqualification on the part of the County Council to take any premium or fine, because I can well understand that the land might be thrown by some preceding tenant on the hands of the County Council with a tenant-right in it which would be of value, and which ought to be paid for, and which, if paid for, would be a security to the County Council for the performance of the conditions of the tenancy. But this clause, providing that no premium or fine is to be taken, might prevent the County Council availing themselves of this opportunity of securing a return for money, perhaps, which they had expended. Then there is the provision that it is to be let at the best annual rent that can be obtained. How is that to be arrived at—by advertisement or by putting the property up to auction, or in what way? I know a landlord who fancied that he could get a considerable rent for his land by putting it up to competition. He put up two properties by auction and got a considerable rent, but what was the result? The people gave more rent than they could pay, and the consequence was that both tenants got into difficulties and are now leaving. That is most unfair against the careful and prudent and thoughtful tenant, and calculated to encourage that unfair competition for agricultural land which is altogether opposed to the principle of this Bill. The man who gives most rent is not always for agricultural purposes the best tenant, and I hope the County Councils, consisting of persons living in the country districts, will be allowed discretion in this matter. I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will assent to this Amendment.

I have no objection whatever to omitting the first part of these lines; but I should not like to omit the words which enable the County Council to recover possession in twelve months, because this is a clause which enables them to get rid of superfluous land, and I want to provide for the use of this land until they can sell it. I shall be prepared to leave out—

"Any such letting shall be at the best annual rent that can be obtained without any premium or fine."

I agree to that, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether on Report he would not deal with the question whether liability to eviction at twelve months or less is not rather unreasonable, and whether he will not give a tenant a clear twelve months' notice from the ordinary date for payment of rent customary in the district. That would enable him to get his full tenant-right. Then also I would suggest whether he would not give a tenant who comes in under these circumstances the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard to tenant-right.

Will the Agricultural Holdings Act apply? If so will the County Council not be able to turn a man out at six months' notice?

What I propose is to modify the words twelve months, so as to give the usual notice to quit, whatever that may be.

I think it would be better to accept the proposed Amendment in its entirety, because the words proposed to be retained impose a restriction on the action of the County Council. They say that any lease or letting shall be on such terms as to enable the County Council to resume possession of the land within a period not exceeding twelve months. It is quite conceivable that the County Council might prefer to let the land on lease for a term of years, and I fail to see any advantage from keeping in the words that the right hon. Gentleman desires to retain.

I beg to move my Amendment. It will make the clause read thus—

"A County Council may delegate, with or without restrictions, the powers of the County Council under this Act with respect to the adaptation of land for the holdings," &c.

The clause as it stands limits the delegation of this work to those cases where the holdings are of such a size that dwelling houses cannot be erected upon them. I think it would be much more advantageous to give the County Council a general power of delegation.

I am quite ready to accept the spirit of the Amendment, but I think the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) would be more suitable. The clause will then read—

"Where a County Council provide small holdings, they may delegate, with or without restrictions, the powers of the County Council under this Act," &c.

I will withdraw my Amendment.

I will not move my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will give me an assurance that there is nothing in this clause to prevent a County Council from managing a small holding through a Committee appointed under the Local Government Act in the ordinary course.

I believe that to be the case; that is my understanding of the Bill. I now propose the Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit). It is in accordance with the engagement which I made at an earlier period of the Bill, and it is in order to give to the Borough Authorities a place upon the Committee to whom the management of these small holdings has been delegated in those cases where the land is within their own district.

The Committee as constituted consists of five Members. If this Amendment is agreed to it will consist of seven.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean "the Mayor and one member" or "the Mayor or one member"?

It should be "the Mayor or one member." It should be so amended.

I would suggest that three members of the Council should be added to the Committee.

I think there is reason in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will therefore withdraw the Amendment, and will introduce another at a convenient opportunity.

This clause requires that three-fourths of the purchase-money shall be advanced; but the alteration that has been made in the amount to be advanced in the case of the creation of small holdings will necessitate some alteration in the clause. Therefore, instead of moving, as stated on the Paper, to leave out "three-fourths" and insert "eighty-five per cent," I will move to leave out "three-fourths" and insert "four-fifths."

I beg to move—

In page 7, line 19, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Providing always that one-half of the rate, or increase of rate, leviable in respect of such charge may be deducted by occupiers from the rent payable to their immediate landlords, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding."

In moving this Amendment, I do not propose to raise the vexed question of rates as between landlord and tenant, because it is one that has been before a Select Committee of this House as well as before the Royal Commission. The Select Committee on Local Taxation reported in 1870 in these words—

"It is expedient to make owners as well as occupiers directly liable for a certain portion of the rates."

The Members of that Select Committee were well known in the agricultural world, and included the late Leader of this House and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1882 also reported in favour of the same principle. They said that, without disturbing existing contracts, all the rates should in future be borne equally by owners and occupiers. Upon that Commission there were the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Minister for Agriculture, the present President of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney. Surely, then, I am entitled to say that a principle which was first started by Gentlemen of considerable eminence on both sides of the House should be accepted by it. It prevails in Scotland, where, I believe, it works well and satisfactorily. Now the Act proposes to raise ten millions of money on the security of the penny rate for the purpose of setting up small holders. But every holder that is set up will displace a tenant farmer. You are going, then, to substitute small farmers. This rate, which is a new one, must have been quite unforeseen twelve months ago; and I think it is entirely unfair, entirely unjust, to set up a class by means of it to compete with the present occupier. The tenant farmers may well say, "Save us from our friends." Who would have ventured eighteen months or two years ago to predict that the Minister for Agriculture would have introduced such a proposal as that we are now considering? Everyone will admit that this a just and a right principle which is embodied in this Amendment, and I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to it.

The hon. Member has raised a question which is undoubtedly one of great importance, and to the principle of which I have on more than one occasion, both in and out of this House, given my adhesion. I may remind the Committee that it was one of the recommendations made many years ago by the Commission of which I was a Member. But, although we have accepted the principle, I do not think this is a convenient or a fitting occasion upon which to raise the question. The hon. Member has talked about the burden we are going to lay upon the occupying tenant, and the risk the County Councils are going to run; but, unless I am altogether mistaken, the burden will be practically nothing. Unless the Act fails to fulfil our views financially, there will be no deficit or rate to be raised at all. In any case, I think we may look forward with confidence to the working out of the Act in that respect. I ask the Committee, therefore, whether it would be wise to introduce such a large question on this occasion?

I consider that this is by far the most important Amendment that has been moved in connection with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has confidence that there is no risk in the measure. Well, Sir, I do not entirely share that confidence. I do not think anyone could go into the question of the principle involved without feeling that it will have a much larger extension than that which is given to it in the Bill. You cannot begin a system of this kind without going a great deal further than this tentative measure—as it has been called—can go. Everyone must see that as regards tenant farmers the Bill is not being received with enthusiasm. They regard with natural jealousy the fact that a class of competitors will be introduced by it into the agricultural market. "What do they say? They say that the whole of the burden is to be cast upon them. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out just now, because the question as to whom the burden is to fall on is one which ought to be considered. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has very clear and definite ideas upon the subject; but I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes so far as he does upon this point. Now, this is a new rate; it has now been proposed for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the justice of the division of the rate in Scotland—I am not quite sure whether he does so in regard to Ireland as well—as between the owner and the occupier. Unquestionably, in the first instance, this rate will fall upon the occupier. Now, if you want to make this Bill more palatable to the tenant farmers of England than it is at the present time, you must do something to show them that you are not going to throw upon their backs the whole burden of this change. The right hon. Gentleman said this was not a convenient time to raise so large a question; but what could be a more fitting opportunity for raising it than upon a Bill which proposes to create it? We were all agreed some years ago in regard to the education rate, which has since been complained of both in town and country. If you now create a new rate for the purpose of manufacturing holdings, and borrow large sums of money on the security of the rate, you will take a step which will have serious consequences. Therefore, I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is not a convenient and fitting time upon which to raise the question. But this is a fitting occasion for imposing a charge of the kind, and indeed there seems to be no dispute as to the justice or policy of the case. You are creating a charge by this Bill, and, therefore, it is just that the charge should be divided. This is the only occasion for the assertion of the principle, and I trust, therefore, that the hon. Member will take a Division upon this question, than which no more important subject can be raised within the four corners of this Bill.

The question now before the House is one that may be divided into two branches—one as to the policy, and the other as to the possibility of putting that policy into practice. As regards the policy, I think the House will not deem this a convenient opportunity for discussing the question of the division of rates. The Government, I may remind the House, have more than once expressed their entire willingness to consider and adopt the principle of the relief of rates; but it is clear that a mere division of rates without taking into consideration the question of the representation of the owners would not be fair or proper. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) shakes his head, but he knows quite well that on the County Council the owner is not represented at all. He does not even have a vote, and it is, of course, quite a question—one I should be prepared to argue—whether if he had a vote that would be adequate representation. I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman himself would consider that it would be unjust and unfair to put a portion of the rate upon the owner without making arrangements by which he is to have some kind of representation. I ask the Committee whether this is not an inopportune occasion for taking in hand the amendment of the law in regard to the question of representation upon the County Council, and upon all the various other bodies, that will have to be considered in connection with this subject? It would, I submit, be exceptionally inopportune at the present moment, because this particular subject is now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, which is discussing the subject and propriety of altering the representation of these bodies if the relief of rates is taken in hand. The Members of the Committee are now discussing not whether the owner shall have representation—that is admitted by all—but what degree of representation the owner shall have if there is to be any division of rates. But there is another difficulty in connection with the subject. The county rate is a rate which embraces many things. While it is not necessary for me to set out in detail the purposes for which a county rate is levied, I desire to point out that it would be absolutely impossible to distinctly and definitely lay down what portion of the county rate ought to be divided to meet any demand made upon the rates in consequence of this Bill. There is one observation the right hon. Gentleman made which I hope will be taken note of. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion it would be unjust to put the whole of these rates upon the tenant farmer. Well, Sir, that is quite contrary to much of the argument used in regard to the Government Motion as to the relief of local taxation. It has been asserted by his colleagues that the relief which has been given by the Government to local taxation has been relief not to the tenant, but to the landlord.

Hear, hear!

The assertion of the right hon. Gentleman is that it will be a farmer's rate.

I said it was a very disputed question as to how much of the rate fell upon the landlord and how much upon the tenant. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture said the whole fell upon the landlord; but I have always accepted what I believe is the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as regards the whole rates they fell more upon the farmer than the tenant.

I do not think my observations have been affected by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. However that may be, it is clearly a very hard question, and one that cannot be adequately discussed in Committee on this Bill, and it would be unwise and improper for the Committee to accept the Amendment now proposed.

This is a most important question to the tenant farmers of England who hold their farms under lease. Although I feel the force of what has fallen from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), yet I want to know when this sort of thing is going to stop? We were told exactly the same some years ago when the educational rate was imposed. In some instances that meant something like 2s. in the £1, and consequently was at the time a very serious matter to the tenant farmers. This, I know, will not be a such serious matter, but still the principle remains. I have not been influenced very much by what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in his new-born zeal for the tenant farmers, since I remember that he did not stand up in vindication of the tenant farmer when the education rate was being imposed upon them, and remember also that not long ago we heard from those Benches that the land was not sufficiently rated. That, of course, meant that the tenant farmers were not sufficiently rated. What has weighed with me is, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board correctly, the intention of the Government to deal with this question as a whole. Of course, we know that is the intention of the Government, but we are nearing the end of this Parliament, and consequently the statement must be taken with a certain degree of caution. If I can be assured that this is not a mere dangling of the subject, but that it is the intention of the Government to look into it in a wide sense when a suitable occasion arises, then I shall support the Government. Of course, we know what Gentlemen opposite will do; they are pledged to go into this matter, and if I have the honour to be in the House I will, under certain circumstances, remind them of that pledge.

The hon. Member (Mr. Gray) has said that he would be satisfied if the Government would indicate their intention to deal with the subject in a large way on some future and suitable occasion; but he has not even received that paltry assurance. As far as I can make out the Government admit the principle, but do not deem this a proper occasion for carrying it into practice. This, they say, is not a convenient time. Why? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pointed out, this is a perfectly new burden, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the Amendment, as this is the only opportunity we shall have of expressing our view as to how the rates should be imposed.

I regret that this question should have been raised in connection with the present Bill. The whole thing is an experiment, and I think it should be conducted at the expense of the State, and not at the expense of any one class of owners of property. As a matter of principle, I am in favour of the equalisation of rates between owner and occupier; but the question now to be considered is, Is this a convenient occasion to deal with the matter? Something has been said about a convenient occasion by hon. Members opposite, and I should like to ask whether the present time is more convenient to deal with this question of the division of rates than was 1870, when the educational rate was introduced? I maintain that if ever there was a time when the rates should have been divided it was when the Liberal Government brought in their Education Bill. I am afraid hon. Members on the other side of the House have lost sight of the clause as it stands. The first section imposes on the County Council the duty of fixing the purchase-money or rent at such a reasonable amount as will, in their opinion, guard against loss. County Councils are, therefore, bound to take care that their ratepayers are not saddled with a loss. It will be seen, too, that the maximum amount of the rate fixed by this Bill is a penny in the pound, and there is every probability that the rate levied will be very much less, perhaps only a farthing in the pound. I venture to say that the cost of collection and account keeping connected with the division of so small a rate would be more trouble and expense than it is worth, and on this ground I shall oppose the Amendment.

I should like to point out that the farmers have a double grievance in this case, inasmuch as every penny they pay will be appropriated for the purpose of endowing a class of persons who will compete with them in the ordinary markets. The farmer will not only be handicapped, but he will have to pay the expense of the handicap. I submit that there is no sort of parallel between this case and the educational rate, because in the latter instance no body of ratepayers were paying to create a class of men that would be their direct competitors in business. We cannot have a case that constitutes a greater hardship than this, and I think it is one Parliament ought to deal with.

It is a fallacy to say that this rate will be entirely paid by the tenant farmers. I contend that inasmuch as in Scotland the occupier and the landlord share the rates, no real burden will be imposed upon the farmers. Besides, I am satisfied that the tenant farmers in Scotland will consider this as for the national benefit, and that they will not object to pay any additional rate of a trifling character.

The hon. Member who has just spoken says that in Scotland the rates are divided between the owner and occupier. That is not so in England, and considering this Act applies to both countries, the English farmers, under those circumstances, will be at a disadvantage as compared with the Scotch, and that we do not wish to be the case. The hon. Baronet's reference to the Education Act of 1870 is altogether misleading, because that Act applied to England, only. But I should like to point out that public opinion has advanced during the past twenty-two years, although some hon. Members opposite have remained stagnant. Opportunities have occurred during the present Parliament to deal with this question. It was brought forward in connection with the Local Government Bill of 1888, but it was rejected notwithstanding the expressed desire of the Party opposite to deal with the question.

The tenant farmers are to be congratulated on their newfound champion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). I notice his support is generally forthcoming when he thinks he can inflict some injury on his opponents. I do not rise, however, for the purpose of dwelling upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but to reply to the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Gray). And I may say that I have my right hon. Friend's (Mr. Ritchie's) authority for saying that the Government are prepared to consider and adopt this principle, and that the occasion upon which they do so will be, no doubt, to use the language of the hon. Member himself, a suitable occasion. I may add that it is the wish of the Government that the whole subject of the revision of rates should be considered and dealt with by Parliament. We have been asked when it will be a convenient occasion to deal with this question. Well, my right hon. Friend has pointed out that this question cannot be dealt with alone, as it involves the question of representation as well, and he has pointed out, too, the difficulty of separating this particular fractional rate from other rates I think that is a conclusive reply to those hon. Gentlemen who ask if this is not a fitting occasion to deal with this particular matter.

I should like to reply to one or two objections that have been urged on the other side of the House against considering this question at the present time. And let me say, first of all, that it never is a convenient time for the Party opposite to carry out a reform of any kind. That is a commonplace which need not occupy us for a moment. It is said that this rate would be a small and infinitesimal burden. If so, why not agree to my Amendment? It appears to me that that is not a valid argument. Then it has been said by an hon. Member opposite that the Liberal Government did not divide the education rate. In 1870 this question had not been considered, the Royal Commission and the Select Committee had not reported in its favour, and therefore at that time it was by no means ripe for solution. But, Sir, there was an occasion when it might have been considered, but when it was refused consideration by the present Government and by the Conservative Party. When the Local Government Bill was passing through this House, the hon. Member for Northampton moved an Amendment for this special purpose, but the Government did not find that a convenient occasion. They did not support that Amendment, and I say that under the circumstances they are not entitled to twit the Liberal Government of 1870 with not dividing the educational rate. The main argument in favour of the division of the rate in this case is that you are going to tax the tenant farmer in order to provide him with a competitor, a step which I feel sure he will warmly resent.

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Under the Local Government Act the borrowing power of the County Council is restricted to one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the county. Under this Bill the County Council will be able to raise, under Clause 11, the sum of £104 for every £1,000 of annual rateable value. The figures were given me by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and the effect of those figures is that if the County Council exercises to the full its powers under this Bill they can borrow rather more than one-tenth of the annual rateable value. If they borrowed that sum for the purposes of the Bill they would be unable to borrow for any other purpose whatever without a Provisional Order or Act of Parliament. I should like to know if the President of the Local Government Board desires to put them in that position, or if he will accept my Amendment, which provides that the borrowing powers under this Act shall not affect the limit of borrowing powers under the Local Government Act.

I see no strong objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend; but, at the same time, I do not think it is necessary, for I can hardly conceive that the very large powers of borrowing possessed by the County Councils under the Local Government Act are likely within a reasonable distance of time to be exhausted. It must be remembered that the County Councils are not like Sanitary and Urban Authorities, which require to borrow large sums for many purposes. If, however, the Committee are of opinion that the Amendment is desirable, we do not offer any strong opposition to it, though we do not think that the large amount they can now borrow is not likely to be sufficient.

I hope the Government will not give way in this matter, because it is very undesirable to extend the borrowing power of the County Council.

I am afraid I did not make my case clear to the House. The Bill has sanctioned special borrowing powers for new and important purposes, and these powers if fully exercised will amount in every county to more than one-tenth of the total annual rateable value, and that is the limit of the borrowing powers for all purposes under the Local Government Act. Do the Committee intend that the borrowing power under this Bill should not only be restricted by the limit of a penny in the pound, but should also be restricted to the amount left over between the actual debt of the county as it exists and the one-tenth of the annual rateable value? If that is not the intention of the Committee, these or some such words are necessary to enable the County Council to raise the sum which on the face of the Bill they are authorised to raise for this special purpose. I agree that the County Councils are not like Sanitary and Urban Authorities — desirous of raising large sums for many purposes; but this is an entirely new purpose, and if the Committee think it is important that small holdings should be created in large numbers it is obvious that the County Council must have power to raise large sums, and I only wished to make it clear that they would have such borrowing powers as appear on the face of the Bill. At present if the County Council exercised their full powers under the Bill and then wanted to build an asylum or do some other work they could not raise the money without a Provisional Order or Act of Parliament. The other day the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the County Councils complaining of the delay in issuing loans under the present system. Much greater delays may be expected in the future if they have to get Provisional Orders or Acts of Parliament to enable them to borrow.

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which appears to me to be a common-sense one. Evidently the total borrowing power of County Councils under the Local Government Act was fixed with regard to the purposes contemplated at that time. Now a new purpose has been created and a new obligation placed on the County Council, and surely to the extent of that new purpose and obligation the borrowing power should be extended.

As I gather that in certain instances the difficulties referred to might arise, I will accept the Amendment.

The Amendment I have now to move is to leave out the words which empower the Public Works Loan Commissioners to charge interest at the rate of not less than £3 2s. 6d. per cent. I propose to leave out that minimum sum, which will enable the Commissioners to advance money for the purposes of this Bill at a lower rate if the Treasury authorise them to do so. As the clause stands, though the Commissioners might have a disposition to lend at three per cent., they would be unable to do so; they would be compelled to charge more than they borrowed at, and the ratepayers would have to be overtaxed to that extent. There would be absolute protection in the clause as amended.

The terms of the clause were settled by arrangement between the Treasury and myself. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot accept an Amendment altering the terms of the clause as it is in the Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it between this and Report?

Yes.

I also had an Amendment down to strike out these words, but I wanted to substitute the words "two pounds fifteen shillings" for them. It appears to me that the money ought to be advanced to the County Council at that rate, especially when we remember that the rate fixed in the Irish Land Purchase Act was £2 15s. per cent. I think I am right in claiming for England, Scotland, and Wales that they shall have money advanced to them at the same rate as it is advanced to the Irish tenant.

I should be glad to see that rate of interest put in the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it, his eloquence must be more persuasive than mine. I will undertake to confer with my right hon. Friend on the question but it is open to the local authorities to borrow in any other quarter they may please if they can obtain money cheaper than they can from the Treasury.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter open till Report? It is a very important one.

I am satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the case of the Irish Land Act, for Irish purposes £2 15s. was put in as the minimum. Now, we are dealing with English Local Authorities, and I defy anybody to find better security than the rates of English Local Authorities. If it is safe and proper in Ireland to allow loans at £2 15s., I cannot conceive why, with such securities as the Bill affords, English Local Authorities should have to pay higher interest.

If the clause passes as it stands, will it be competent to take out these words on Report? We do not ask that any other words should be put in, but simply to leave the matter to the discretion of the Loan Commissioners.

The hon. Gentleman says we do not want to put in 2¾ per cent., but I do, and I shall insist on it so far as I can. The security offered by England, Scotland, and Wales is better than that offered by Ireland.

I think, in the case of Ireland, there was no power to loan at 2¾ per cent., but Irish Land Stock at 2¾ was created; that is not so good as the English Stock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on the point till he has conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will take the matter into consideration after he has conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

It is already provided by Sub-section (2) of the clause:—

"The Public Works Loan Commissioners may, in manner provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, lend any money which may be borrowed by a County Council for the purposes of this Act."

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.