The object of this Bill is to get rid of a grievance in Scotland of long standing, for the removal of which a succession of Bills have been brought before this House, but none of these has met with the fate it deserved. The grievance is undeniable, and the remedy is, I believe, acceptable. Therefore the Government introduce this Bill with the object of entirely removing the mischief. I understand that the principle of the Bill is accepted by colleagues who sit in all parts of the House. Humble folk such as working men, artisans, small shopkeepers, resident in many of the large towns of Scotland complain of the cast-iron rigidity of the house-letting system that prevails in Scotland. They say that they must make a binding agreement to take a dwelling-house four months prior to date of entry, and that after entry they must make a binding contract to remain in their dwelling-house for the whole of a year, however desirable it might be for them during that period to change their residence. They say that these conditions inflict upon them considerable hardship, loss, and inconvenience—that is to say, that when they take a particular house and enter upon occupancy, they should be compelled to remain for a whole year in the house, however necessary it may be to make a change. During the four months prior to occupancy and during the twelve months which succeed entry they say that many cases arise which render it desirable or necessary to throw up the house. Their means might increase, and they might desire to have a better house; their means might diminish and they might desire to have an inferior house; their family might increase and they might desire a larger house, or their family might diminish and they might desire a smaller house. Their occupation might change, demanding that they should remove to a different quarter of the town or to another town altogether. They might desire to retrench their expenditure on account of loss of work, or they might even die. In spite of all those various changes they are not entitled to shake themselves clear of their obligation, and if they do not occupy they are at least bound for the rent during the remainder of the year. We propose to remedy the grievance by making it illegal for a landlord or tenant to agree more than two months ahead of the date of entry that a dwelling-house shall be taken for a year succeeding that two months. If an owner and occupant make their agreement more than 60 days anterior to the date of entry it shall not be binding either upon the owner or upon the occupier. No longer shall a landlord be entitled to demand that the tenant shall let him know by the 2nd February of his intention to take possession of the house on 28th May. With regard to the second grievance—the excessive duration of tenancy—the Bill proposes that either the landlord or the tenant shall be entitled to give due notice of the termination of the tenancy at the next day when the rent becomes payable. As there are no terms for the payment of rent fixed at a distance so far apart as one year, it is generally agreed that this would remedy the second mischief which is complained of. The House will naturally ask: "What is due notice?" The Bill provides that in the case of leases for more than three months due notice shall be 40 days, and in the case of lets for less than three months or more than one month due notice shall be one-third of the period of the let. In the case of lets for less than a month five days' notice is sufficient. As the letting term is the 28th of May the Bill provides that where the rent is payable on some other day than the 28th the end of the tenancy shall be on the 28th of the month in the case of all lets for more than one month, but in the case of lets for less than one month the tenancy shall end upon the Monday. We have endeavoured to limit the application of the Bill to the class of workmen's dwellings in which the grievance is felt. Accordingly there is excluded from the operation of the measure all houses which are underleased at the date of which the Act is adopted in any town or borough. All houses which are let along with agricultural or horticultural land, all houses which are let for business purposes, like an inn or an hotel, all which are let with a byre, a stable, or a work-house, and last, but by no means least, all houses the rental of which is about £15.

Oh!

I hear an expression of dissent and I take the opportunity of saying at once that the limit of £15 is by no means rigid or cast-iron. It is not part of the principle of the measure. It is a question which is open to discussion in Committee, whether or not that limit fairly defines the type of dwelling-houses for which the Bill is designed. We have therefore, we believe, excluded altogether from the measure dwelling-houses with regard to which the grievance has not been felt, and we further recognise that there are some towns in Scotland where, if the mischief exists, it has not really created any serious dissatisfaction among the people. Accordingly we provide that the Bill shall be adopted in the discretion of the town council of any borough. The grievance is most acutely felt in the great city of Glasgow, in Greenock, in Paisley, and in towns in the West of Scotland, and it is not so acutely felt in towns in other parts of Scotland. Accordingly we have thought it best to make the Bill adoptive. The principal consequence is that a change will require to be made in the collection of rates. Our information is that it is most inconvenient for the working folks to pay their rates in November in one sum, because that is the period of the year when the strain and the stress of domestic expenditure is greatest. It is obvious that if, under the operation of this Bill, you find a succession of tenants in one dwelling-house throughout the course of the year, when the rate collector makes his demand the chances are he may not find the man who is truly liable in occupancy at the time. Accordingly it is plain if this change be introduced in the operation of the let a corresponding change must he made in collecting the rates. We have chosen provisions under which the owner will collect the occupier's rates and pay them over to the rating authority, just as the owner at the present moment collects the occupier's rates in the case of small rental houses. We think that on the whole a more desirable method than to enjoin upon the rating authorities a more frequent collection of the rates throughout the year, which might entail considerable changes in the law and perhaps considerable changes in practice. I see here my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Glasgow. He knows, as I know, that there has been to some extent a more frequent collection of the rates in Glasgow throughout the year than in other burghs. At all events there has been attempted a system by which the rates are collected at intervals of two or three months apart. The House will see that you cannot really enjoin upon rating authorities so frequent a collection of the rates as might be necessary to meet the case of very short lets. [Cries of "Why not?"] For this obvious reason, that the rating authority really cannot make a monthly collection of the rates conveniently with the present system, and it seems as if the more rational way would be to ask the landlord when he collects his rents to collect the portion of the rates at the same time. That is done across the Border, and, I understand, is done with success, and without serious inconvenience, or so I gather from the evidence given before the Commission to which I have referred. But whether that be so or not, we have it in operation you must remember in Scotland in the case of these smaller houses, and no satisfactory reason has been given to me as yet to differentiate between these smaller houses and the case of dwelling-houses to which the Bill is to be made applicable. So far as the occupiers are concerned, they obviously prefer to have both rates and rents collected at much shorter intervals, and they, on the whole, prefer that the owners should collect the rates along with the rent, because it obviously avoids delay, expense and inconvenience in their case. The great municipalities naturally desire that the owners should perform the duty, and the owners naturally desire that the duty should be thrown upon the great municipalities. I have yet to learn that there is any insuperable objection to the owner collecting his rate along with his rent at short intervals, as is done in England at present. But we recognise that if this additional duty is to be thrown upon the owners and factors they must have, at any rate, remuneration. At the present time in various statutes there is a percentage provided to compensate the owner for the trouble, expense, and loss that may be incurred in collection, and 15, 20, and even 25 per cent. have been allowed. We, on the whole, think that is not a satisfactory method of fixing the remuneration if this additional duty is thrown upon the shoulders of the owners and factors. We say that in the various towns and industrial communities circumstances vary, and the trouble is greater or less, according to the character and quality of your population, and we therefore think that the most satisfactory method of fixing the appropriate remuneration will be to leave it in the hands of the sheriff, and we enjoin that before he fixes the amount he shall hear the parties and be fully informed of all the circumstances, and that he shall carefully consider everything that can be said on both sides before he gives his decision. That decision, when given, we propose shall not be disturbed for a period of five years. There are certain incidental provisions in the measure which are greatly for the advantage of both landlords and tenants. First of all we meet the challenge frequently made that if the owner collects the rates then the occupier's love of economy and sense of responsibility for expenditure will be weakened. We meet that by making clear provision that the occupier shall on each occasion of rent collection be duly and accurately informed of the amount of rent as apart from the amount of rates which he is called upon to pay. We further provide that the fact that the owner collects the rate shall not have the effect of disfranchising the occupant, and that it will have no effect at all upon his electoral rights and privileges. We provide further that the owner's right of hypothec shall be restricted, and we think reasonably restricted. The right of hypothec shall not, we provide, apply to all bedding material, as well as all tools and implements of trade, and furniture and plenishing to the value of £10. We think there, again, if any hon. Member is dissatisfied with the proposed figures that is a matter for discussion in Committee, certainly not for discussion on second reading to-day. We think that the owner of a house should not be put in any more favoured position than the other creditors of the occupier, and it is a great hardship indeed if he is to be allowed to carry off tools or implements of trade or furniture and plenishing above the amount I have mentioned. On the other hand, we think that the owner should have a more rapid, a more efficient and cheaper method than exists at present of getting rid of a bad tenant.

Accordingly we provide, if any tenant is seven days in arrear with his rent, then the owner may give him 48 hours notice of ejectment, and if at the end of 48 hours the rent is not paid the owner may summarily eject him from the premises. We give the owner access to the borough court, as well as to the sheriff court for an effective remedy, and we make provision for a very cheap, rapid, and efficient operation in both courts to which the owner may resort in order to recover his rent or get rid of a bad tenant. These are the incidental provisions which are contained in this measure, and the House will see, that the grievance being admitted, as it is admitted and the remedy being approved, as I think it is approved by all the representatives from Scotland, that the only matters which remain are questions, which are very fit for reasonable, businesslike discussion, when the Bill gets into Committee. Let me say before I sit down that my figures and my periods are in no degree sacrosanct. There is no particular advantage in 14 days or 7 days or 48 hours. There is no particular virtue in any particular day of the month or week, and there is no question of rigidity. I can assure my hon. Friends especially who represent divisions of Glasgow that the £15 limit is a question upon which I at the present moment hold, and shall continue to retain, an entirely open mind, until I hear the views of my colleagues expressed in Committee. My one and only object is, let me assure the House, not to have a timid, half-hearted, paltering measure as a remedy for this grievance, which has been too long in coming. My desire is that this Bill should be a final and complete cure for a mischief, which has seriously affected, I believe, a great number of humble but very respectable people in Scotland, who are well entitled to look to this House for a remedy for the grievance.

I do not rise in any spirit of hostility, or indeed in any spirit otherwise than of friendship to the Bill, because I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate has just said, that the existence of the grievance has been long continued, and that there is practical unanimity among the Scottish Members who sit for the towns concerned in the Question, as to the main lines of the remedy which this Bill contains, apart from one or two important matters which I shall have to deal with. The Question has been before the House in many Bills for nearly twenty years, and I think all these Bills have had this feature in common—that they have been brought in and backed by Members sitting on both sides of the House, so that it is not in the least a measure which will arouse any party political controversy.

I agree also entirely that in the main the questions as to which there is difference of opinion are questions which are well suited for being disposed of upstairs, and do not raise any point which would, properly speaking, be regarded as a second reading point. The Lord Advocate referred to the £15 limit. That has varied a great deal in the Bills which have been proposed. It has ranged from £15 to £25. The Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Guthrie, recommended £20 and the Government have accepted the £15 limit. Representations have been made to me on both sides. Some say £15 is too much and that it should be reduced to £10, others say £15 is too small and it should be raised to £20 or £25. There again, I think that is not a matter which one need discuss now.

There are other proposals in the Bill dealing with the main Question as to the collection of rents, the process of removal and ejectment, and so forth, as to which I do not propose to say a word, but there is one important question of principle which is involved in the Bill as to which, though so far as I am concerned I do not propose to divide the House, I desire to express my views. I regret exceedingly that the Government have loaded this Bill with the clauses about the compounding of rates. I quite agree that compounding of rates exists to some extent in Scotland, and I believe to a greater extent than in England, but I have never found any Committee which inquired into it which approved of it. The Departmental Committee came to the conclusion that if the principle of compounding was bad, apparently it was inevitable. My position with regard to that, and the position I intend to maintain all through the stages of the Bill, is that that is a blot upon the Bill and ought not to be allowed to remain in it. I regret exceedingly that the Bill has been loaded with these clauses, because I think they were quite unnecessary. This matter inquired compounding has been very recently inquired into, so far as the whole country is concerned, by a very strong Commission—the Poor Law Commission—and there is not one word they say in favour of this principle. It is not a case in this Bill of keeping the compounding, bad as it is at present, but it is positively a proposal to extend the application of the principle. I say that is absolutely indefensible.

I should like to refer to one or two sentences in the report of the Poor Law Commission of this year. The particular chapter dealing with this matter is cap. 8, page 583. The Committee was representative of all the three kingdoms, and the representatives for Scotland included Mr. Patten MacDougall, the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, a man of very large experience; Professor Smart, of Glasgow University; and Mrs. Bosanquet. A name which will be appreciated as an authority on these matters is that of Mr. Stewart Loch, Secretary of the London Charity Organisation Society. When they came to deal with this question of compounding of rates, having before them all that had gone before, they condemned it root and branch. They say, for example, referring to the Commission which reported in 1901: — up for the deficit caused by the man who does not pay his rates. The Commission concludes thus: — able saving in the amount which the rate-payer has got to pay. I confess I cannot understand the bringing forward of a proposal in this House, constituted as it now is, to put a heavier burden on the ratepayer for machinery purposes. Of course what some ratepayers say is that it is handy to be able to pay rates as at present, but I cannot see that there should be any difficulty whatever in the municipality having an official to collect weekly or fortnightly. Therefore, what is proposed in the Bill is objectionable on grounds of public policy, it is objectionable in the interest of the ratepayer, and it is objectionable in the interest of the landlords. The landlords say, "Why are we to have this burden put upon us? We prefer to collect our rents and leave the rates alone. We think it is because it is a little more difficult, and perhaps more expensive, to the municipality." The landlords ask. "Why should not the municipalities take their share of carrying out that work?" I understand that originally the landlords did not care much one way or another about this Bill. As I understand, they accepted the principle of it. They say now, "Do not put more on us than is necessary. Do the work yourself." [An HON. MEMBER: "They will do it at a price."] They do not want to do it at all. The ratepayers say, "You are going to make the landlords do it at a price, and that price is going to come out of our pockets." I am quite certain that hon. Members will find that that is the view which the ratepayers take. They say that if the landlords collect rates at a price, the cost will be much more to them than if they paid the rates to collectors appointed by the municipality. I hope that this proposal will be amended in Committee, for it is contrary, as I have stated, to public policy and to the interests of ratepayers and landlords. As the result of striking that out it might be necessary to make such arrangements as would enable the rates to be collected at more frequent intervals, but that would mean a great saving to the municipalities. I do not know whether it could be done from week to week or only once a year. But if the municipalities collected at frequent intervals, they would have their money in hand from time to time, and they would not require to go and borrow as they do now. On these grounds I take the strongest possible exception to the proposal to extend the principle of compounding rates. I would ask the House to remember that this is the only occasion, so far as I know, in recent years, when a general measure has proposed that that vicious principle should be extended, and I do not understand why that should be done in the face of the pronouncement of the Poor Law Commission, which recommends that, instead of extending the principle, efforts should be made to discontinue it. I agree that this is a matter for discussion in Committee upstairs. But I put it to the House on the Motion for the second reading because there are solid and sound reasons for disagreeing with that part of the Bill. I think that no countenance should be given at this time to a proposal which is open to the objections which I have indicated.

I desire, as one of the representatives of the city of Glasgow, to offer a word of welcome to this Bill. I am glad to think that there is practical unanimity on the matter on both sides of the House. The measure is calculated to remove a long-standing grievance, and it will give much satisfaction to a great body of working men, not only in Glasgow, but also in the other large towns of Scotland. I have not the same knowledge and experience as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott-Dickson), who states that there has been a demand for this Bill for twenty years. I know that in going through my candidature three years ago there was no matter which excited greater interest on the part of the ratepayers than this one. It does not appear a small matter to the working men of Scotland; nor is it a small matter. The present system interferes with the fluidity of labour. It prevents a man from following a job by tying him up to a particular district. It is felt to be especially hard to tie up a man in Glasgow at a time when the industries of that city are going down the river and extending far beyond the city boundaries. This is inflicting a grievous hardship on many men, and I am glad to know that at last there is a possibility, indeed a probability, of that being remedied. There is another consequence of the present system which causes inconvenience. Removals all take place at one time of the year—namely, 28th May—and the consequence is that there is an enormous demand on that day for transit facilities. That grievance has been greatly felt, and I think the provisions of the Bill are very well calculated to meet the difficulty. I have had no opportunity of con- sulting anybody regarding the proposal as to the missive system, but so far as I am concerned I see no reason why the period should not have been a little less than two months. At present the period of four months is an intolerable injustice, and I am glad to know that the Bill proposes to reduce it by half. It seems to me that a period of two months is more than sufficient, and I should not be at all sorry to see the Bill amended in Committee by making the period one month, which I think ought to be quite sufficient to enable landlords and everybody else to look around them and get their premises let. In regard to the second point—the length of the tenancy which is bound up in the notice—that is a matter for further discussion, but it does seem to me that in those cases where the rent is collected at long intervals there may be some cases where the rent is collected, say, once in twelve months, in which there may be some grievance, and the Bill, it seems to me, is based on the expectation of a continuance of the practice as to landlords collecting the rent at short intervals. If it be general that the rent is collected at intervals of three months then the Bill, as framed, would of course provide that three months would be the maximum term of let. But I think that the Bill can bear some amendment in this way. I, for my part, would prefer stipulating in a definite manner for a definite maximum term of let.

In regard to the third point—the limit of application of the Bill—I was glad to see that there was dissent from both sides of the House about the £15, and that it was the general view that that was too low, especially in view of the fact that rents are increasing, I think, more rapidly in Scotch towns than elsewhere during the last few years, and that the increase has been so rapid that the rents of workmen's dwellings now in Glasgow are almost as high, if they are not quite so high, as they are here in London. I have some figures issued by the Glasgow Corporation, which came to my hand only this morning. There is a statement of the numbers of houses let at from £10 upwards. Of course, those let at £10 form the vast majority. This is unfortunate, because I believe that under present conditions no man can get a decent house for £10; but still, in Glasgow, there are 97,000 houses let at £10. As the scale goes up in amount of rent the numbers are reduced, but from £15 to £20 there are still 21,235 houses let, and there are 7,320 let at from £20 to £25. I would suggest that this Bill should bring all those in. They are all tenanted by workmen. There are very many workmen now paying up to 10s. per week rent in Scotland, and that would amount to £26 in the year, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill that this matter is really a very important one, and that this £15 should be raised to £26, or 10s. a week, because no house can be got in Glasgow for much less to decently accommodate a workman and his family. Therefore I suggest that when this Bill comes to be discussed in detail the £15 limit should be raised to £26. I have had a lot of letters in regard to the option clause. My mind is open in the matter. I may say that I have been asked by workmen's associations in Scotland to urge that this Bill should be made, not a matter for the choice of the town council whether or not it should be made operative in any particular area, but that it should be compulsory all over Scotland. I am not going here and now to commit myself one way or the other. I should like, of course, to fall in with the views of those who have sent me letters on the matter; but, on the other hand, I know that there are some districts in Scotland, especially those in which miners are concerned, in which a strong view is taken on the other side; and I am inclined at the moment to agree with the Bill because I think that if there is a great demand, as there is in Glasgow, and there is in Paisley and Greenock as far as I know, in any particular district that the Bill should be made operative, then the Town Council ought to be urged in any particular district to adopt the necessary Resolution in order to carry it through; so that, unless I hear something to the contrary, or unless my mind changes, I am inclined to vote for the Bill as it stands on this particular matter.

Another matter is the £10 limit in regard to the right of the landlords. I think that that is far too low, especially when we have regard to the fact as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill that the landlord is to have the right to eject after seven days' arrears of rent and only 48 hours' notice, as far as I can gather, of that ejectment taking place. In view of these drastic provisions it seems to me that £10 to cover bedding and other articles of apparel and tools of a man's occupation is miserably inadequate, and ought to be at least doubled. The last point I wish to refer to is the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. With all due deference to him, I am inclined to think that it is a case of much cry and little wool. I think it necessary that some change should be made in the collection of the rates in consequence of this Bill. Hitherto rates have only been paid at long intervals of time, and therefore it has been an easy matter for the tenants to pay the rates separate altogether from the rent; and that on the whole is a good plan, because as the right hon. Gentleman says it induces and encourages interest to be taken in local administration on the part of the tenants who pay the rates. But if we are going to have, as I hope we shall have, greater frequency of men leaving particular districts or particular houses, all involving as it will shorter tenancies, it is quite obvious that it will involve some change in the system of payment of rates or else you will have an army of people collecting these rates. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the public authorities should employ officials to go directly and collect the rates. It does seem to me that that is quite an unnecessary burden to cast upon tenants, because after all the tenant will have to pay the lot. If you can combine the benefit of the system whereby the tenant knows exactly what he is going to pay in regard to rates as distinct from rent, and thereby produce the sound interest in municipal administration for which we hope, with the most economic system of collecting the rates, then it seems to me very desirable that that should be done; and it seems to me that that is effected by this Bill. The landlord is going to collect the rates. I may say that at the present time in Glasgow they are paid once in four months, according to the recent provision made by the town council; and it seems to me that it would be the best plan if the landlord is made to collect these rates, and given a small fixed percentage for so doing, and that at the same time, as provided by this Bill, the tenant would know exactly what is paid on his behalf by the landlord, so that the landlord would not be able to tell a fairy tale that the amount is greater and put up the rents. So long as the two things are retained, as they are retained in this Bill, I see no reason why the landlords should not collect those rates, and thereby avoid the necessity of having two people going round to the tenant and badgering him, first for rent, and then for rates. I have nothing further to say on that point. Of course, there are many points in the Bill which may be the subject of discussion and amendment in Committee. I think that the £15 limit is far too low, and for my part I am going to exhaust all my powers in getting it raised very considerably. I suggest that £26 is a reasonable amount—10s. a week, which I know many thousands are paying. I think that the £10 limit for the right of seizure is far too low. On the other points I am inclined to give them, shall I say, favourable consideration. I conclude by again thanking the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill, promising him, so far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, that we shall do what we can to enable him to pass it into law, because we feel that it will deal with a long-standing grievance on the part of Scottish workmen.

The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, laid great stress on the fact that it is a measure to remedy a grievance which he said was a just one with regard to house letting in Scotland. It is true that he alluded to the compounding clauses. It is also true that my right hon. Friend below me alluded to them, and expressed surprise that they should have been introduced into a Bill which is ostensibly brought forward to remedy the grievance with regard to the period at which houses should be let. Really what this Bill does—and what to my mind is the most objectionable part of it—is to deal with the franchise. It is a Franchise Bill. I venture to say to my right hon. Friend below me that the real reason why this Bill is introduced at the present moment is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, knowing the precarious positions in which they are, and the difficulties in which within a short time they will be placed, like drowning men grasp at any straw, and positively we have two Bills brought in, one now and one a few days ago, both dealing with the franchise. One is to disfranchise the classes which are opposed to the Government, and the other is to enfranchise those classes who generally vote for them. ["Not always."] I said generally; I do not say that it is always so. I suggest that this is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite had in their minds when they introduced this Bill, but I do not say that it will have the result which they expect, far from it. I think very likely they will find that it will result in failure. As my right hon. Friend says this Bill has been before the House for twenty years; at any rate it has been before it ever since I became a Member of it sixteen years ago. I cannot remember whether or not in the earlier days this compounding was introduced; I speak subject to correction, but I think that certainly in earlier years this compounding was not introduced, though I believe that in the Bill last introduced by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. A. Cross) something of that sort was introduced.

The Lord Advocate tells us that it is to remedy a grievance, that the grievance is undeniable, and that the Bill will remove the mischief. What is the grievance? As far as I can make out if the owner wishes to let his house, he puts a notice in the window, or he places it in the hands of an agent. Someone who wishes to take it makes application, and an arrangement is made between them that the house shall be taken over on certain terms. So far as I know there is nothing in the law to say that it shall be taken for any given time. That is entirely a matter of arrangement between the tenant and the landlord. I gather that the custom of Glasgow, in a certain number of cases, is that houses shall be let for a year. That is a matter which has to be arranged between the landlord and tenant. I cannot conceive why it should not be so, nor can hon. Gentlemen opposite who are always bringing forward these Bills, apparently being under the impression that the working classes cannot look after their own interests, and that there must be a beneficent State to come forward and say that the rapacious landlord, or whoever is the unfortunate capitalist who is going to be mulcted, cannot make an ordinary and reasonable bargain without the interference of the State, with an ordinary and reasonable person—the particular workman I suppose who wants the house. Is it likely that the effect of this Bill—it is not the only one we have, because we have the taxes in the Budget on houses and land—will be to bring about a state of affairs in which there shall be an improvement in the condition of the houses of the working classes? Improvement in the condition of the houses of the working classes, and the reduction of the rents can only be brought about by facilitating the employment of capital in the building of house property. I venture to say that this particular Bill, though it may remove a particular grievance, will have this effect, that people will hesitate before they employ their money in the building or buying houses, especially houses of the class contemplated by the promoters of this measure. There seems to be an idea in this House that the profits on houses and land are so great that whatever this Assembly does in order to make the conditions more onerous under which he invests his money, the landlord will simply say: "After all, it is true that this particular Bill is going to entail hardships upon me; it is going to make it more difficult for me to manage my property; but the income which I get from it is so great I shall be prepared to put up with it, and go on investing my money in building houses or buying house property." The very reverse of the case is the fact. House property is not profitable. On the contrary, the troubles and worries of owning house property are so great, especially in the case of this class of houses, that people will be unwilling to put their money into that sort of property and will divert it to other forms of investment. ["Oh!"] Some Gentleman opposite says "Oh!" I do not know who interrupted me, nor do I know whether he has a large amount of money in house property; but I do know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite who are very anxious for this class of legislation are the very last persons to put their money into this kind of property. I have an instance in my own mind of a very wealthy hon. Gentleman opposite, the whole of whose money, I believe, comes from American bonds. It does not matter to him that he is very keen in regard to legislation of this sort. The vast majority of people with money will be inclined to put it into different forms of investment from that which is dealt with by this Bill. I do not say that houses which exist will disappear; that is impossible; but if the capital is not forthcoming to build more the only result will be that rents must go up, because the demand will probably increase and the supply will be less.

Up to a few years ago my business brought me into contact with people who had money to invest. I can assure the House that in the last four or five years there has been a great change in the habits of the investing classes. They used to come and ask me for investments in England, and occasionally in the Colonies, but in England always. Now generally investing people nearly always say anywhere but in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite, who have no experience whatever of that, laugh. It is easy enough to laugh, but before they did so it would have been wiser on their part if they had taken some trouble to ascertain the facts. The facts are very easily ascertained. I trust I am not in the habit of making statements in the House which I cannot substantiate. They can go to their own stockbroker and ask whether or not what I have stated is not the fact. The Lord Advocate said that a man's means may increase, and he may desire to have a larger house. But why on that account should he be allowed to throw back the house on the landlord's hands, and why should he not complete his bargain, as is essential, I venture to say, in any country where commercial prosperity is desired?

Then there is the question of the limit of £15. I observe that the Lord Advocate said that the limit of £15 is not rigid or cast-iron. It is like all the Bills which are brought in by the party opposite. They have not very strong convictions, and if they can please a section of their supporters they are prepared to do so. A responsible Government, in bringing in a Bill of this sort, ought to have made up its mind as to what the proper limit should be. I believe a limit of £15 instead of being too low is too high. Fifteen pounds is about 6s. per week, and the man who can pay 6s. per week for his house is not in such a very bad position that he is to be relieved of all the ordinary responsibilities that attach to the citizen, and that if he makes a foolish bargain that the State should come in. The proposition of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) that the limit should be increased to £26, or 10s. per week, seems to me to be perfectly absurd. A man paying £26 per year should be in a sufficiently good position to be able to look after his own interests. He does not want grandmotherly legislation to protect him. I should be rather inclined to advocate the reduction of the limit from £15 to £10. I believe the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division stated that 97,000 houses were let at £10 per year, and I should think that £10 would be the proper limit.

Before I come to the important and serious question of compounding I should like to say a word about the question of hypothec. There the limit is to be £10, and the tenant's tools and bedding are to be excluded. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said that the limit was too low, and that more goods belonging to the tenant should be excluded. He based his argument chiefly on the fact that 48 hours' notice only would be given if, after the rent has been in arrears for seven days, the landlord wishes to eject the tenant. I would point out that in a good many of the smaller houses 48 hours is a very considerable time in which goods can be removed, and the landlord, who is going to be put into the position of having not only to collect his rent but also to collect his rates, will have nothing left to distrain upon. The landlord is in a rather different position from an ordinary person who allows a person to contract a debt, because the landlord may have his property damaged. The tenant may be in possession, may pay no rent, may damage the property, and then move his goods or the greater part of them, knowing he cannot pay or will not pay, or, wanting another house, may think it is a good opportunity to get out without paying the rent. That is not at all an unlikely occurrence. The effect of this clause will be to practically prevent the landlord having anything on which he can recover in the event of the rent not being paid. It is the fashion in certain quarters of this House to consider that all landlords are rogues and all tenants are angels. It is not at all so, but, very often, the reverse is the case, and very often the tenant takes the house for short terms perfectly determined not to pay rent. I do not know about Glasgow, or whether Scotch people are different from English, but there are many cases in London where a man lives in different houses for many months, making a moonlight flitting and going to a different part of London, where he is not known, and without paying any rent. The result, I am told, is that that has been done for as long a period as a year without any rent being paid.

I come to now what is, to my mind, the most important part of the Bill, and that is the compounding part of it. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Scott Dickson) read from the Report of the Poor Law Commission some very pregnant paragraphs with regard to the mistaken policy of compounding. I have here a small extract from the Royal Commission on the Poor Law pointing out that: — It is quite true that in England there is a system of compounding, a voluntary system—that is to say, there is an option the same way as there is in this Bill. But the system of compounding has had this result, that it has increased enormously the extravagance of the municipalities. A friend of mind told me the other day that he was on a board in the East of London. It was commonly observed there by the local representatives he came across that they did not care what the expenses of the particular borough which they represented were. They said on more than one occasion: — municipality no doubt would welcome relief from the unpopular task of collecting the rates. Further, as I understand it, there is no provision in the Bill to absolve the landlord from paying the rate even if he cannot get it from the tenant. There is a clause which says that if a house is empty the landlord can recover from the municipality, if he proves to their satisfaction that the house was really empty; but he has to pay it in the first instance. That will entail considerable hardship on the landlord, because he may have any quantity of claims to make, but the officials of the municipality, having once got the money, will not be very eager to part with it. It certainly cannot be justified that the owner should pay the rate if he cannot get it from the tenant, and there certainly ought to be a provision enabling the owner in such cases to recover the rate from the municipality. The tendency in England is to do away with compounding as far as possible. There can be no question that the result of compounding has been bad from every point of view, and that wherever it is possible owners of property in England endeavour to avoid compounding. The case of Islington has been referred to, and there is the case of some of the Peabody buildings in London where compounding has been abolished, I believe with most successful results to both landlords and tenants. It is true that if the municipality had to collect the rate at more frequent intervals more officials might be required; but as one of the objects of every Bill brought in by the Government has apparently been to increase the number of officials, I do not think that hon. Members opposite would object to this Bill on that ground.

Now I come to what, to my mind, is the most serious part of the Bill. To my mind it is so serious that, notwithstanding the possible disapproval of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Scott-Dickson), if I can find another teller I intend to vote against the second reading. I refer to the parts of the Bill which increase the franchise. It may appear at first sight that such a statement is absurd, and that the franchise could not be increased by a Bill relating to house-letting. But I have here some figures relating to the City of Glasgow. I am informed that in 1907–8 the Parliamentary electorate of Glasgow was 91,139, and in 1908–9, 88,403—a reduction of 2,736, due, in the first place, to the exodus to the suburbs through increased transit facilities, and, in the second place, to the non-payment of rates. In this Bill there is a provision that though the rates are not paid the tenant shall still have the franchise.

It is so in England.

There are many things which are bad in England. What the hon. Gentleman should do is to bring in a Bill abolishing that condition of things in England. If he will do so, I shall have great pleasure in putting my name on the back of the Bill and in assisting him to pass it. I am informed that in 1908–9 the number of inhabitant occupiers in Glasgow who did not pay the poor rate was nearly 30,000. A considerable proportion of these were women, but, assuming 10,000 to have been women, there remains approximately 20,000 male householders kept off the Parliamentary voters register. If this Bill became law, those 20,000 in Glasgow alone would automatically become voters, with a result which can easily be imagined from the class to which they belong. That is the foundation for my earlier statement that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, knowing the precarious position in which they are, and being desirous of grasping at anything to prevent their being engulfed, as they soon will be, seize upon this proposal to add 20,000 voters of the poorer classes in the City of Glasgow, in the hope that they will remember the source from which their votes come and support the Liberal party blindly at the next election. I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend, with his usual acumen, does not see that. I do not know whether he wants these 20,000 added to the voters of Glasgow; but my own impression is that, though many of them will be persuaded by his talent and eloquence to vote for him, they will not all do so. In the main I have only been dealing with Glasgow. I have not the figures for the rest of Scotland. But if this Bill is going to add 20,000 to the electorate of Glasgow it must add a very considerable number to the total electorate of Scotland. I am afraid that what I am going to say now will not meet with agreement on all sides of the House; but I do not believe that that class of person is the proper person to exercise the vote. He has been unable to pay his rates. Practically he has no stake in the country. He is liable to be swayed by any eloquence which takes the form of offering him somebody else's property. He does not exercise the vote with that clear and cool judgment which in my opinion is necessary to be exercised when a man is voting for such an important choice as that of a Member of Parliament. He is inclined to be drawn away by the idea that he cannot lose much. He cannot pay his rates. He has nothing to lose. He possibly may gain something by some of the wild Socialistic legislation such as the present Government seem to delight in. I have much pleasure in moving to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I beg to second the Amendment. I do so not exclusively on the grounds on which my hon. Friend has laid so much stress—that of enfranchisement. I think that is a most important consideration, although I still differ from him as to the possible results of the enfranchisement of these persons. I have such confidence in the probable exercise of the franchise, when the time comes, in the City of Glasgow, or any other city in Scotland, that I have not the same misgiving as my hon. Friend as to this extension. At the same time, I think it is only just and right that the House should know what it is doing in this particular. No reference was made by the Lord Advocate—it may be thought from grounds obvious to himself or not. Neither was reference made to it by my right hon. Friend who is sitting on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Scott-Dickson). So that I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who has drawn the attention of the House to the fact; so that we really may realise what we are doing in reading this Bill a second time. But there are other considerations that, I think, are still more important than that. If we thought that this Bill would really relieve the workingmen of Scotland of any special difficulties which lie about their lives, and that this could be done without injustice to the owners of property referred to—then surely all of us would vote heartily for the Bill. But it is not at all clear that the Bill does anything of the kind. I am not at all sure whether, for instance, existing contracts are respected under the Bill. I should rather like to have the Lord Advocate's guidance on that point. He made no reference to it.

I did. I said that existing contracts are strictly preserved.

Strictly preserved throughout. That relieves me very much from, at any rate, one difficulty in the matter. Because we are so accustomed in this House, under the present régime, of having Bills brought in which tear up existing contracts, that where it is not clearly laid out—it is not at all clearly laid down here—we are naturally suspicious on the subject. Clause 20 says: "Any contract, bargain, or understanding in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be, and is hereby declared to be, null and void."

That is not very clear, though I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. Note clause 4 too: "No agreement, whether verbal or written, for the let of a dwelling-house shall be binding if the same has been made more than two months prior to the date of entry to such dwelling-house."

Hear, hear.

An hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Hear, hear." He approves of that. I daresay that the hon. Member thinks that in the main that that would be to the advantage of the tenant. But I am not at all clear that that would be the case. This will not affect the landlord to any extent. He can seldom recover anything from tenants of this class who decline to fulfil their contracts. It will prove a real hardship to the working men who, living in a borough which has not adopted the Act, removes to another district which has adopted the Act for fresh employment, and where houses are perhaps in considerable demand. For the provisions of the Act are optional and adoptive. Or it may be the other way about. And the working man may find himself in a very awkward position, for moving to a district where the Act is in force he will be unable to make a binding agreement for a new house unless he takes the occupation within two months of doing so. This is a point which I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider. We want to make sure that the Bill is to be of use to tenants of this class—a very large and estimable class. As this provision stands the man must trust the landlord's promise that he shall have a house, and as a result he may find himself out of the house which he has left, and unable when he gets to his new centre of employment to obtain another. So he and his family may find themselves lodging in the hedge or in the workhouse. Refer to clause 5: —

"Notwithstanding the date of entry to any dwelling-house all lets of dwelling- houses, except those for a shorter period than one month, shall terminate only on the twenty-eighth day of a month, or when that day is a Sunday, on the Monday following, and all lets for a shorter period than one month shall terminate on a Monday."

This provision will probably be quite harmless in the case of future lettings; but it appears to be unnecessary, and interferes with the rights of private contract. I have the very greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London in what he said as to interfering with contract.

I have had long years of experience of working men, and in the main I believe they can be well trusted to safeguard their own interests. They are very efficient in doing so. It appears to me to be unnecessary in this particular case to hung forward this sort of instalment of grandmotherly legislation; to put, as I have said before, the British working men into leading strings. Clause 6 provides that one month's notice only is to be given in the case of quarterly tenants, and 10 days in the case of monthly tenants. That is a real hardship to the landlord. Landlords in boroughs which have adopted the Act will be forced to put up their rents to compensate themselves for the risk of loss in the letting of houses. I foresee under the provisions of this Bill a considerable increase in the future in rents. Reference is made to the fact that this class of property is not a profitable one. I have built a number of cottages, and I never yet received any rent. I have no difficulty at all under these circumstances and conditions in finding tenants, and I do not find them showing any immediate intention to leave. I know when I try to get rent for these perfectly new cottages of the very latest type, as good as can be found in the county in which I live—I know quite well I would not get rent that would pay me 2 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Build smaller cottages."] If the hon. Member will come down to my district I will see what I can do to provide him with a cottage free. Clause 9, I think, constitutes a serious hardship to the tenants. The tenant who is seven days in arrear may be ejected at 48 hours' notice. That seems to be a distinctly harsh provision. It would be a very great hardship to poor people to be liable to be turned into the street on 48 hours' notice.

By section 11 the sheriff may not grant any delay, except on the ground that the rent has since been paid. Why convert the present month's notice into a 48 hours' notice? It cannot be in the interest of the workers and the poor to do that? I do not know whether it is intended as a sort of compensation to the landlords, but I think it cannot be any satisfaction to the landlords to feel that they may turn the tenant who occupies a house on a monthly tenancy into the street on being in arrears seven days in his rent. This clause alone will be sufficient to prevent the Act being adopted in the poorer districts, where rents are often chronically in arrear. Surely it is far better a man's goods should be taken by distress than that he and his family and household goods should be bundled into the streets within 48 hours' notice?

Passing on to clause 12, we find all the rates are to be paid by the house-owner. Well, I will once more impress upon the Lord Advocate the fact that everywhere the subject has been considered this system has been condemned. Why the Government should want to set up at this time of day a system already thoroughly condemned in other places it is very difficult to realise. I would also lay stress upon the consideration that it is increasingly important in these days that working men, whether they are living in houses of £10, £15, or £26 a year, as suggested by the hon. Member for Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), should be made increasingly conscious of the amount of the rates. Rates everywhere have a tendency to go up by leaps and bounds. We are naturally reminded of that when we go out upon the terrace of this House and see the new great palace—whether wanted or not I do not know—which is to be erected across the river, and which, I suppose, will altogether dwarf this modest Palace. That reminds us of the way in which from day to day new charges are put upon the rates. It is most important that that kind of thing in connection with our municipal affairs should be brought home to the minds of the working men, so that they may realise it and put a stop to it. A working man was put upon the town council of Nottingham some years ago with a view of stopping the erection of a wall round the cemetery. He succeeded in stopping it by drawing the council's attention to the fact that those who were inside the cemetery did not want to get out, and that those outside did not want to get in, and therefore there was no necessity for a wall. That is the sort of thing we want; we want men to stand up for common-sense and economy, and to bring their influence to bear on municipal authorities in the direction of economy. That will never be done unless the working man is made to realise the amount of his rates.

There is no doubt the owner of the house must raise his rent if he is to be held responsible for the rates and if he has to collect them. The mere fact of an abatement on the amount of the rates to the owner of the property will not remove the sense of insecurity on his part. Clause 15 says that the owner shall be entitled to have the rates paid on empty houses returned to him. That is already done in England. Then we have clause 18, which says that all objects, such as bedding and implements of a man's trade, and those of the members of his family, and also furniture up to £10 in value, are to be safe from distress. I am sure the House in every quarter will only contemplate with the utmost regret the necessity for distress for rates or rent upon a man's bedding or furniture and tools, but, at the same time, it is not very clear why this privilege should be granted to Scotland which does not obtain in England at the present time. Bedding and furniture in England up to the value of £5 are exempt. There is no doubt that landlords will be forced to demand payment of rent in advance, as is often done in the case of furnished houses. That would be a grievous hardship and would not be at all convenient to working men, who are accustomed to pay their rents when they are paid their wages. That is supposed to be a boon to Scotland. Clause 19 deals with the adoption of the Act, and provides that it may come into operation after the town council has adopted a resolution called for the purpose. Surely the question of the adoption of the Act ought to be considered at the time of the election, so that the existing authorities will not have the power of adopting the Act without consulting the wishes of the ratepayers in the matter. In seconding the rejection of this Bill I do so with a full sense of the responsibility which attaches to supporting such a Motion as this. I recognise that there are here and there in the Bill things which are good, but I object to the grandmotherly legislation underlying this measure. It interferes with freedom of contract on the part of the working people, who are perfectly able to look after themselves. No doubt it is thought that the Bill will remove some of the disadvant- ages which at present exist, but, as is often the case with legislation proposed by the Government, this Bill removes certain anomalies and sets up at the same time more serious drawbacks and anomalies. I have, therefore, much pleasure in seconding this Motion.

I am extremely sorry that the Motion of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has not drawn some expression of opinion upon this measure from hon. Members opposite, which at present looks more like a desert than anything else. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Opposition Benches?"] Personally, I am sorry that the hon. Baronet has moved the rejection of this Bill, because I do not think there is a single colleague of mine representing Scotland who does not approve of the Bill in principle and who does not wish to support a Motion of this kind. The supporting of the Second Reading of this Bill is quite compatible with holding certain objections to some of the proposals contained in the measure which, no doubt, can be dealt with in Committee, although one of them is of such importance that it calls for a considerable amount of discussion. Before proceeding with my criticism of the Bill itself, I wish to wholly dissociate myself from the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that this Bill has been brought in to enfranchise a certain number of people. I agree that, incidentally, it will do so, and to that extent it is objectionable, and I do not think that defaulting ratepayers ought to be allowed to exercise the Parliamentary franchise. I do not, however, suggest or believe that the promoters of this Bill have anything in their minds connected with that incidental circumstance. Serious and important as that effect undoubtedly is, it is, I believe, quite incidental, and I do not think that any unworthy motive of that kind is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who has brought in this Bill. With regard to the optional provisions, I think they are likely to cause considerable confusion. My opinion is that the law on this question should be uniform throughout Scotland. I do not think that optional provisions of this kind are either satisfactory or desirable, and one can imagine what confusion there would be if Edinburgh, for example, adopted this Act and Leith refused to adopt it, or if Glasgow adopted it and Govan or Partick refused. I believe the fact that Edinburgh adopted any Act would be sure to secure its rejection by Leith, and vice versâ.

That has all passed away now.

I am glad to hear it. Under such circumstances, the confusion would be very great, because in one place the landlord would pay the rates and in the other the occupiers would pay them. A man might have a long tenancy in one place, and the tenancy in another place might be a short one. It would be easy for a man to give up his tenancy in one place, but it might not be easy for him to get another house across the Border. The limit has been objected to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, but I would point out that in Glasgow the limit embraces no less than 133,992 out of 162,000 houses. That means that the Lord Advocate has only left 16 per cent. of the whole of the houses in Glasgow unaffected by this Bill. If the limit was increased to £20 it would leave only 7,000 houses in the City of Glasgow unaffected by this Bill, or something like 5 per cent. This shows how far the Bill really goes in protecting the class who have found the existing system extremely objectionable. I do not think the Lord Advocate would be badly advised in adopting a more moderate figure. We must not, however, deal with this question as if it only applied to Glasgow. Glasgow is only an incidental matter, and I do not think it bulks so largely as some hon. Members seem to think it does. There is no reason why an exceptional limit should not be granted to Glasgow, but it should not be applied to the whole of Scotland, because in small towns a £15 limit is very high. At this stage of the Bill I wish to put in a caveat against the right hon. Gentleman, even in his own mind, thinking that any increase in that direction ought to apply to every burgh in Scotland. With regard to the question of the compounding of rates, I do take a very strong view upon that subject. I agree with every word which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott-Dickson) said upon that point. I think it is a vicious system, which has been proved to be vicious in England, and I do not see why we should import and adopt a retrograde policy of this kind into Scotland. The Budget proposes to upset our valuation system in a most important respect, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with this proposal. The arguments which my right hon. Friend has used against this proposal could not be improved upon, and he went very fully over the whole ground. I think he was right in what he said about the landlords having some title to object to having a duty of this kind cast upon them. Ever since the days of Zaccheus and the publicans of Judea the tax-gatherer has not been popular, and why on earth the landlords of Scotland should be placed in that position and made the tax collectors for great corporations and municipalities throughout Scotland I cannot conceive. I think they have a right to object to any such duty being thrown upon them. Up to the present the result has been most unsatisfactory, and there has been a considerable loss of money. Does the House know how very small the amount of arrears and rates in many Scottish towns is? In small places it is extraordinary how rates are collected and how small is the number of people who are in arrears. I have in my hand a memorandum by the city assessor of Glasgow on this Bill. It is complained that the working out of the provision dealing with the repayment of assessments paid in respect of empty dwelling-houses "will entail a very considerable amount of labour on the part of the Corporation staff, who are to be responsible for dealing with the claims for repayment." It is further said: "It will be impossible to have an effective check on the periods set forth in the claims. It would be preferable if the deduction to be allowed to an owner could be fixed at such an amount as would reasonably cover the unoccupied periods." It is also stated, with reference to clause 17, which refers to notices of assessments to occupiers that "the object in view in inserting this clause in the Bill is, no doubt, to secure that an occupier shall have some official notice of the actual amount of the assessments which the owner is entitled to ask him to pay. It is quite right that an occupier should have some means of checking the amount, but it seems unnecessary to send an actual assessment notice to an occupier. A separate assessment notice for each separate dwelling-house could be sent to the owner or his factor, who, if asked to do so, should be bound to produce it to an occupier from whom he is asking payment of any part of the assessment therein referred to." Here, again, you have the cloven foot of the officials. The officials expect to be relieved of their duties at the expense of other people. The officials are paid, and they are crying out against the only protection which the ratepayers have to prevent themselves from being swindled and charged with a greater rate than they are entitled to pay. The clause is a bureaucratic clause. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there are cases which go to show that in addition to the risk of great extravagance we have farther difficulties and troubles to contend with. There is to be introduced into Scotland a defective English system which has given rise to "abuses and extravagances." You have an opportunity of arranging that rates should be collected by a central authority. You will not have county council rates, parish rates, and other rates. You will really have some chance of being economical, but the last thing which this Government thinks of is being economical. That is reserved for platforms. I do not think that there are any other clauses on which I desire to say anything at the present moment. What I have to say I shall reserve for the Committee stage; but I may say that I think we shall have from the other side of the House some assistance against the attempt to introduce into Scotland a vicious system. We in Scotland have hitherto been regarded as possessing a certain intelligence, and I think we shall not permit the introduction into our country of a system which may induce to extreme extravagance.

There are a few remarks I should like to address to the House. The Lord Advocate, in his speech, referred to the fact that this was a matter which mainly concerned those who live on the West Coast of Scotland. I quite agree. But this is not a new Bill. We have had one produced on these lines on many occasions of the last ten years. I can feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he and his advisers have taken in the preparation of this measure. Some of the points which have been raised in the course of this Debate would have been more properly raised in Committee, but I would like to say a word or two as to the extent of the Bill and of the landlord's hypothec, although, I repeat, these are matters for future consideration, and will no doubt receive due attention in Committee. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow gave as a reason for a considerable extension of the scope of the Bill that a very large proportion of the workmen in Glasgow pay 10s. a week in rent for their houses. That state- ment, I confess, is news to me, and, what is more, when I come to look at the figures issued by the Glasgow Corporation, I find that they do not bear it out. I made a comparison—a mental comparison—between the two sets of figures—those given by the Corporation and those in the evidence before the Departmental Committee—with regard to the variety of houses, and they seemed to tally pretty accurately. The conclusion I came to was this. It may be said that in Glasgow there are about 180,000 buildings, and of these no fewer than 160,000 are rented under 10s. per week, over 20,000 being over 10s. In fact, 88 per cent. of the houses in Glasgow let at rentals of 10s., and 12 per cent. over. I do not want to pursue the point in regard to the extent of the Act, as I shall be able to deal with that in Committee. The only thing I wish to emphasise is that I think there is a very strong case to be made against compounding, and while I am very anxious indeed for this Bill, I still feel very great diffidence about the acceptance of this principle which it proposes. I think it is to be regretted that we have not had an opportunity of hearing the unofficial views of hon. Members opposite. I am very anxious that this matter should not be treated in a party spirit, and I hope that before this Debate closes we shall have an opportunity of hearing the unofficial view of hon. Members on the Benches behind the Government. It seems to me that the system of compounding rates is one of the great drawbacks of the Bill from the point of view of the landlord, the tenant, the ratepayer, the local authority, and the State. I would point those drawbacks in each case. In the case of the landlord the difficulties are sufficiently obvious. It is a curious principle that the landlord should be made to do the work of the debt collector for the local authority, and I do not think he should be called upon to incur the odium which usually attaches to this task. From the tenant's point of view it is objectionable, because it deprives him of the knowledge of what is actually being done with his money, and we know that Mr. Bayley, of Glasgow, in his evidence on this subject, said: — to the view of the ratepayer. Somebody has said that the landlord will collect the rates, but it will be at a price. The whole point is that it is the ratepayer who will have to pay that price, and under the system which you are seeking to institute by this Bill the price will be an extravagant one. Then there comes the view of the local authority. It is suggested that there might be considerable difficulty in the collection of rates at shorter intervals. I do not think so; neither did the Departmental Committee think so; indeed the evidence given by a city treasurer was to the effect that it was quite feasible and quite easy. May I point out to the Solicitor-General that in the City of Glasgow at the present moment the rates are collected three times a year in certain cases, and the Committee, on page 19, stated practically that the increased cost of more frequent collection is more than compensated by the substantial benefits which result both to occupiers and to the local authority. And at the head of that paragraph they say they have not been convinced that there is any practical impossibility in the rating authority collecting rents from tenants under £20 a quarter. I hope when we have arrived at the Committee stage the opinion of the Departmental Committee will be considered, and that their point of view may receive the attention which should attach to it.

I say lastly, that I think compounding is objectionable from the point of view of the State, and I say that because I am affected by the consideration of what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). After all what you are doing by this Bill is to render it possible for a citizen who is in default to be allowed to continue to exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship. I am not sure that that is a step which we ought to take without the gravest consideration. I only draw attention to it now, because I know that before the Bill reaches its final stages we shall have full consideration of these matters, and we shall not be acting without full deliberation. The only other observation that I have to make is this: It is said that the Bill cannot be carried out without compounding. That is not stated by the Lord Advocate, because the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair, and said there were two alternatives; you might compound or have more frequent collections. He said the Government preferred compounding, but I prefer more frequent collections, but do not let it be said that you cannot carry this Bill out without compounding, because if there is one thing more clear than another it is the view of the Departmental Committee at page 10 in clear and explicit terms. They said that they thought the system of short renewals did not necessarily lead to compounding, and there did not seem any insuperable obstacle to half-yearly or quarterly collections by the rating authority, which would more suitably provide for the interests of the working classes, and would at the same time enable the rating authority to obtain the larger amount which more frequent collections would produce. I think I have said enough on this stage to outline the main grounds on which I think this system of compounding, as indicated in the Bill, in principle requires a great deal more to be said in defence of it before it is adopted. I have only to say, speaking for myself and a great many of my friends who represent Scottish constituencies, we wish the main principles of the Bill well, and we feel that we owe a certain debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for having explained its provisions so clearly as he has done and having taken the trouble to draw it up and introduce it in this House.

Question put. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 13.

Main Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made and Question put, "That

the Bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House."—[ Mr. Fell. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 155.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

moved that the Bill be re-committed, and the following further Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet: —"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to Ireland."

It has been quite interesting this afternoon to assist in this Scottish Parliament. Now I am afraid these foreigners from Ireland must interfere for a few minutes to settle a question of international policy. However, the interests of Scotland and Ireland in this matter are identical, and I do not anticipate any difference of opinion. The position is this. The Bill now before the House deals only with the case of Scotland. We are anxious to extend the measure to Ireland. It would have been extended to Ireland, I believe, in the beginning if it had not been for an oversight, and in any case everybody is in favour of the inclusion of Ireland in this matter.

On a point of order, may I ask whether it is in order to move this Resolution in reference to Ireland?

It is quite in order.

I am obliged to you, Sir, for giving the weight of your sanction to my proceedings. I ought to say, and I can do so with perfect truth, that the Committee upstairs were practically unanimous in favour of extending this measure to Ireland. The Irish Government is in favour of the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and their representatives on the front Bench opposite are giving the proposal their benediction. I have reason to believe that the Scottish Office has been squared in the matter, and that is a very difficult thing to arrive at. The Scottish Office is in favour of our proposal. Perhaps I ought to give a few reasons for the benefit of the uninitiated why this Bill should be extended to Ireland. It is an extremely good Bill, and the representatives of Ireland are in favour of it with one or two honourable exceptions. I do not know whether it is far Free Trade or Protectionist reasons, but, whatever they are, they seem to hold conscientious objections to the Bill, and I admit that they are quite right, from their point of view, to maintain their position. This measure proposes to make it impossible for trawling to be carried on in certain Scottish areas. The effect of closing the Scottish areas to the trawlers would be to send these gentlemen over to Ireland. We are very glad to see the trawlers, at a considerable distance off our shores, but we have a rooted objection to have them coming into our harbours and fiords to scoop up immature fish and interfere with the fishing industry. The situation is a somewhat serious one, because, unfortunately, the Irish fisheries are not properly policed. They cannot be properly policed, because, on account of the want of generosity of the Imperial Parliament, we are not allowed to have a sufficient number of cruisers. We have some boats going round the coasts endeavouring to protect the Irish fisheries as much as they can, but they find it impossible to put down altogether the depredations of the trawlers. We are anxious to assist them so far as we can and make their task more easy, and we believe that if this measure were extended to Ireland it would be a relief to them to some extent. I wish to put in a plea on behalf of Irish fishermen. The Government have done practically nothing for them. I have been in this House for many years, and, with the exception of two grants of money, nothing whatever has been done for Irish fishermen. On three-fourths of the Irish coast the fisheries exist merely on sufferance. This is an opportunity for doing something for them, and I am sure the House, which has always shown itself well disposed towards fishermen, will endeavour to help us in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done a great deal more for Irish fishermen, but I am sure the House will allow us to obtain the benefit of this Bill. I beg to move.

I beg to second the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend (Sir T. Esmonde). I have little to add to what he has said. I think on reflection most people will see that the attitude we have taken up in respect to this measure is only reasonable. That was recognised by the Committee upstairs, but owing to a series of complications and the activity of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London we were not able to move the Instruction which was deemed necessary in order to bring Ireland within the purview of this Bill. Our experience with regard to trawling legislation is this. When trawling legislation was first applied off the Scottish coast we raised certain objections, because we knew that if trawling was prohibited there the trawlers would invade our shore and do a great deal of harm, and events have justified our predictions. They have done a great deal of harm, and we have reason to complain of the way in which we have been treated in the past. When we predicted that our coast would be invaded by the trawlers we were told that protection would be given, and that the trawlers would be driven away. The Government never carried out that promise, and the result was that after the law was passed for the protection of the Scottish fisheries our coast was invaded and our fishing industries were injured. In this connection I congratulate Scotland on the persistency and consistency with which the Fishery Board have pressed their claims upon the Admiralty, and been successful in getting two or three cruisers to protect their fisheries. We have never been able to succeed in getting one cruiser to protect the Irish fisheries. At the head of the Irish Board of Agriculture we have at present a Scotchman, and we hope that we shall have the advantage of his pertinacity in getting in this matter the same advantages for Ireland as have already been obtained for Scotland. I believe if this measure is applied to Ireland it will be advantageous to Scotland also, because it would prevent the trawlers from finding a market in Ireland, which might be useful to them. I do not think they care to sell their fish in foreign countries, because the laws there are very stringent and punitive with respect to the sale of immature fish.

This Bill was read a second time on the understanding that it would apply to Scotland only. The position of Scotland in this matter stands on a different footing entirely from that of Ireland, and while no one in any part of the House desires to do anything to encourage illegitimate trawling, still I contend that Ireland is fairly protected under the law as it stands at present. They have all reasonable protection, and it is absolutely unnecessary to extend to Ireland this Bill, which was drafted especially for the case of Scotland. If our Irish friends want to deal with the case of Ireland, I contend that they would do it much better if they would bring in a Bill of their own specially drafted to meet the requirements, and the special circumstances appertaining to the Irish fisheries. Therefore I trust that this Amendment will not be adopted.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that there is no necessity for this Bill being extended to Ireland. I am in a position to say that there is very great necessity for this Bill being extended to Ireland. I belong to a Constituency where the fishermen suffer more perhaps than the fishermen of any other constituency in Ireland from the invasion of steam trawlers. They come across from Bristol and the Isle of Man and other places to the coast of South Wexford, and come into prohibited waters. We want this Bill extended in order that it may afford to Ireland the protection that is being given to Scotland. I have therefore very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wexford.

I take part in this discussion in order to point out that as this protection is being extended to Scotland there is a vital necessity for similar protection being extended to the Irish Coast, which in future, under the operation of this measure, if applied to Scotland only, would receive the visits of these trawlers that would be prohibited from trawling in Scotch waters. I confess that I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke suggest that this Bill passed its second reading stage on the understanding that it was to be applied to Scotland only, because I think that on the second reading it was made abundantly clear in this House that if such legislation was placed on the Statute Book, it would become necessary to have a similar protection extended to Ireland. I have the honour to represent a Constituency which, of all the constituencies in Ireland, lies—I think—closest to the coast of Scotland. The estuary of the Clyde is already protected, and could not suffer in future; but the estuary of the Foyle and the rich fishing banks, which are well known to hon. Members to lie in that district, would immediately receive the attention of the trawlers that would no longer be allowed to trawl in Scotch waters, and, therefore, I have a very great duty to discharge to the fishermen of my Constituency in this matter. They are fully alive to the danger which this Bill would have for them if applied only to Scotland; and I am most anxious to see that in this matter Ireland receives as much protection at least as is proposed to be given to Scotland. I hope that after what has been said as to the inadequate policing of our waters, we may, with the help of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, get some of that extra attention which has been extended to Scotland with so much success in recent years. I do not know that it is necessary to detain the House in this matter. Our case is so obvious that I cannot conceive an answer to it, that if this legislation is to pass for Scotland it becomes necessary, as a matter of fairness and justice only, that it should be applied to Ireland, and I hope that no difficulties will be put in the way.

I do not propose to offer any opposition to the proposal that has been made that the benefits of this Bill should be extended to Ireland. I rise merely for the purpose of saying that I think that the arguments which have been used in favour of extending the measure to Ireland are not sound in fact. The two hon. Members who spoke on behalf of Ireland referred to the fact that previous legislation affecting trawling in certain areas around Scotland had the result of banishing the trawlers from the Scottish waters and that the infesting of the Irish waters was the consequence. I beg to assure them that that is quite contrary to fact. Since the Act of 1889 was passed, prohibiting by Statute trawling within three miles, several subsequent bye-laws were issued by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting trawling in certain other areas, and the trawling industry in Scotland has developed enormously. I should think that we have now in Scotland at least three times the number of vessels which we had engaged in the same industry in 1892–1895, so that really I think that that is quite a fancied grievance on the part of my Friends from Ireland. However, I do not myself propose to offer any opposition to the suggestion that the Bill should apply to Ireland. I merely rose to point out that the arguments that have been used by hon. Members were not consistent with fact.

I think that the hon. Member who has just spoken has misunderstood the hon. Members below the Gangway who moved the Resolution and seconded it. What they said was that if this Bill passed in its present state—

I am sorry to interrupt, but what the hon. Member said was that when legislation was previously before the House the Leader of the Opposition undertook that similar safeguards would be provided for Ireland.

I am not quarrelling with the hon. Member in any sense of the word, especially as he is in favour of the Amendment; but we understand, on these benches at all events, that the object is to extend the Bill to Ireland, so that the advantages which it confers may also be conferred on Ireland—a very simple proposition. And I think that the fact of having this Bill introduced merely to deal with Scotland is one more illustration of the objection to dealing with one portion of the Kingdom instead of with the whole where the necessities of the case are equally great all round. I cannot conceive why Scotland in this particular instance should receive any more favoured treatment than Ireland. My hon. Friend below me represents a most important constituency, so far as the fishing industry is concerned. No doubt everybody in Ireland, in the North of Ireland at all events, believes that this Bill will have the immediate effect of driving the trawlers from the areas prohibited to the coast of Ireland. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the last few months I have been constantly putting questions to the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture about illegal trawling in my own Constituency, and, indeed, it has been found almost impossible to cope with it. I am glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is going to try and do something to prevent it. These questions have been asked over and over again, and it was necessary to ask them because of the serious number of cases of illegal trawling within the year. If this Bill becomes law the trawlers will be forced nearer to the Irish coast, and the evil will be increased. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Esslemont) stated that no arguments had been brought forward to support this proposal, but to that I would reply that so far no argument has been advanced against the extension of the measure to Ireland. Everyone is desirous that the fishing industry should be prosperous, and that fair and equal treatment should be meted out to all classes, whether in Scotland, Ireland, or England. It is not as if this proposal would be attended with any great difficulty. It is now only about three o'clock, and by five o'clock we might be able to come to some agreement. I do not suppose there would ever be a better opportunity of doing justice in a matter of this kind than that which now presents itself. The case is made out for Scotland, apparently, otherwise the Bill would not have been sent down from Grand Committee in the shape in which it is. Surely if these facilities are good for Scotland they should also be given to Ireland. An important question in connection with this matter is the overlapping of areas, to which I called attention last year. The Bill says that fish shall not be caught in certain areas in the seas adjoining Scotland. Those seas also adjoin Ireland, and I do not see why fish caught on one side of an imaginary line should be treated differently from fish caught on the other side of that line. I defy you to frame any regulations in a fair and common-sense way unless you are able to control the whole of the sea coast of the Kingdom. In the last twelve months the difficulties with regard to fishing in Ireland have been increasing, and I think it behoves everybody to do their very best to encourage the industry of line fishermen, who have no other means of livelihood. In some instances villagers can augment their incomes with the aid of cottage industries, but I think I can safely say that the line fishermen around the coast of Ireland have no such resource, and are wholly dependent on their own industry, which is already sufficiently hampered by illegal trawling. Anyone who knows the fishing villages knows what a struggle it is for existence in those places. Yet the men of those villages are always ready to lend aid in saving life, and in that respect there is no better class in the United Kingdom. Surely it is possible—especially as we have the hearty sympathy of the Vice-President and of the Minister for Scotland—to see that justice is done in this matter?

I rise for the purpose of saying a few words on behalf of the Government in support of the proposal of my hon. Friend. The position is extremely difficult, as at present the Irish Government is totally unable to control trawling. As a matter of fact, the law is persistently broken every day of the week. As an illustration of that, let me say that one steamer has been convicted six times within three months. The cruiser cannot be everywhere off the coast of Ireland at the same time, and at the present moment we are perfectly unable to do what ought to be done to control this evil. We are now face to face with the Scottish Bill, which proposes to close several areas in Scotland to trawlers.

was understood to dissent.

At any rate, they will not be able to dispose of their fish, which is practically the same thing. If trawlers are face to face with that difficulty the chances are that many of them will swoop down to the Irish Coast, and if we are not able to protect the Irish Coast now, how can we protect it in the circumstances which will arise? This is happily a case on which there is no difference of opinion in Ireland. There is very little difference of opinion in Scotland. We do not wish to stop trawling or the development of trawling, but we want it to be carried on in proper areas and not in illegal areas. That is the whole matter, and both the Scottish Government and the Irish Government are perfectly willing that the hon. Gentleman should have the recommittal of the Bill, and that Irish amendments should be inserted. It will do no harm to Scotland, and it will at all events do something to enable us to help Ireland.

As representing a constituency of Scotch fishermen, I am perfectly certain that the inclusion of Ireland in this measure will be heartily welcomed. It cannot do those I represent the slightest harm, and it may do them a great deal of good, because I think that the more influence the fishing communities can bring to bear on any Government, of whatever side, the better. There are many fishing questions that want looking into and that require the benevolent help of Members of Parliament. If we can get the Irish Members to combine with us there is no doubt of the fact that we shall be in a far stronger position than we are at the present time. I am perfectly certain that the generosity of Scotland will be heartily extended to their Irish comrades, and I hope that the measure will go through.

It seems to me that in this House this afternoon trawlers have very few friends, and that they are in as unfortunate a position as the poor motorist; in fact, driven from pillar to post. But the trawler is a fisherman as well as the line fisherman, and he is just as much entitled to a reasonable amount of sympathy as any other working man who is following a legitimate industry. If the Bill is a good one, I quite agree that the claim of Ireland for its extension to that country is a perfectly legitimate and proper claim, and I think should be granted. As one who consumes fish, who is interested in the consumption of fish, and who has no interest whatever in the capture of fish, except possibly a day's fishing on a river, I condemn this Bill and its provisions altogether. As one who is interested in the consumption of fish, I would ask the House to recollect that this Bill does not increase any prohibited areas. All this Bill proposes to do is to punish people by prohibiting them from selling their fish in the United Kingdom if they do fish in areas which they are frequently entitled under international law to fish in. That is all that this Bill does. The foreign trawler can go into the Moray Firth or he can go into the Irish estuaries—

On a point of order, is the hon. Member entitled to argue the general Question on the Motion which is to recommit the Bill in respect of the Irish clauses?

The general Question is not open to discussion now. The only question is whether the Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of adding clauses relating to Ireland. The hon. Member will confine himself to that.

I will endeavour to apply my reasons absolutely to Ireland. The foreign trawler can, if this clause is added to the Bill, go into the estuaries of Ireland and can fish there so long as he keeps within the three-mile limit. I think he will be able perfectly well, if this Bill is extended to Ireland, to sell his fish in foreign ports. I cannot conceive that the foreign trawler who may fish in Moray Firth is going to be sent to the Irish estuaries. For my part, I am against this Bill being extended to Ireland, because I object to the Bill altogether. For this reason I shall oppose the Amendment that is now proposed.

I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the hon. Gentleman opposite in this matter. He is well known to be a very good friend of Ireland and in sympathy with the Irish people. I would put it to him, in face of the absolutely unanimous feeling amongst the Irish Members on this occasion, that he ought not to press his objection, and that he ought to allow the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir Thomas Esmonde) to be carried. With regard to the last Gentleman who spoke, his objection, as I understand, is not to the inclusion of Ireland in this Bill, but that his objection is to the Bill altogether. While that is so, and, of course, he is quite entitled to hold that opinion, I submit to him that this is really not the time when he can raise objection to the Bill altogether. There were plenty of opportunities of doing so, and on this occasion the merits of the Bill are not so much before the House, but the question of the inclusion of Ireland, and I submit that under the circumstances he ought not to press his objection. The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken when he says the object of this Bill, and of the Members who support it, is to make indiscriminate war upon the trawling industry. Nothing of the kind. A great number of Members of this House are quite in favour of the trawling industry as long as it is carried out fairly, and does not interfere with the rights of the poorer fishermen.

The hon. Gentleman represents very worthily in this House the constituency of Islington (Mr. Waterlow). Of course, I suppose there is no trawling in it, and I do not suppose there is any line fishing there either; but I can assure the hon. Member if he were representing, as we do here on both sides of the Gangway from Ireland, constituencies on the seaboard where there are hundreds if not thousands of the poorest of the nation whose very livelihood and that of their families depends upon being allowed to conduct their trade without undue interference, he would recognise the vital necessity for this Bill. The Bill is undoubtedly a good Bill. It will not interfere with any legitimate industry at all. It will not place any hardship on trawlers. It simply says, so far as I understand it, that trawlers shall not have the right or privilege of landing and selling their fish, if in catching it they go into prohibited areas, and so break the law to the detriment of the poorer fishermen. Is there any man in this House from any part of the country who can say that that is not a fair thing? Let the trawlers keep within their proper limits, and this Bill will not affect them at all. Therefore it is surely a fair thing to say that this Bill should be extended to Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford pointed out that it is not often we can do anything for the fishermen. It is one of the hardest things, as Irish Members representing seaboard constituencies know, to get anything done for the fishermen. This small thing is at least something. The Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction confirmed the statement which has often been made, and which I submit is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs, the statement that he is unable properly to police the coast of Ireland. And why? Because, he says, there is only one ship. Why has he only one ship? It is because he has no funds at his disposal for the purpose. If we cannot provide proper funds, we can at least do something to help the fishermen. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to allow this Motion to be carried for Ireland to be included, and which will be for the good not only for Scotland but for Ireland and the fishing industry generally.

I represent a Constituency in the very centre of England, where there are no trawlers or line fishermen, but the whole of my Constituency eat fish. We have heard the interests of the trawlers considered and the interests of the line fishermen, but we have not heard the interests of the consumer. It does seem to me this Bill is a form of protection for line fishermen. I am not able now to deal with the Bill as a whole, and I can only deal with its extension to Ireland. I see one particular disadvantage, to which the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture has called my attention and which gives me an opportunity of saying something about this particular point. He showed how one skipper had been convicted six times of breaking the law relating to trawling in prohibited areas. He said it was absolutely impossible to enforce the law in Ireland. Does he think he is any more likely to be able to enforce this new law. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will try."] He has got one cruiser at present in order to stop trawling in prohibited areas, but under this Bill he will want fifty cruisers. There is no lack of law in Ireland. There is too much law in Ireland. As one who objects entirely to the Bill, the idea of preventing fishing by way of machinery for the protection of the old-fashioned fishing in small boats this seems to be rather out of date in this House. The particular objection I have to this particular Motion is that it is impracticable and could not be carried out in Ireland.

The object of the Bill originally was to deal with the Moray Firth, and in a Debate some time ago I made the suggestion that in dealing with the trawling question we should take up this subject of the Moray Firth. It was not intended for general application. I would like to say to my hon. Friends who object to the extension of the Bill that I do think its extension in the case of Ireland would not have any practical effect upon the food supply of England. I will tell them why. I had hoped that when the opposition of Grimsby had been overcome we might have passed the Bill almost unanimously. The limitation of trawling in the Moray Firth was introduced just as much from the point of view of the consumer as from any other point of view. The original restrictions were imposed upon the Moray Firth in order to protect it as a breeding ground with a view to increasing the supply of fish. I have no direct interest in the matter myself, but I know that the original idea of this legislation was to increase the fish supply, and it is upon that ground that I support it. In order to protect the fish supply it was necessary to make the original restrictions effective in the Moray Firth. As English Members may be aware, the restrictions applied to Scottish ports, but not to English ports, and trawlers could land their catch from the Moray Firth at any fishing village south of Berwick, which produced an absurd situation, and led to a direct evasion of the intention of Parliament, which was to increase the fish supply by protecting the fishing grounds in the Moray Firth. I doubt whether in the Moray Firth this legislation will have the slightest effect at the present time, but eventually I believe that it will tend to maintain the source of our food supply. I can assure hon. Members that that is the object of many of us Scottish Members who support the Bill. We are just as anxious as anyone can be for cheap fish and plenty of it. We know by experience how the narrow waters are being absolutely fished out. You could not protect the breeding places without restrictions of this sort, though they are much more difficult to enforce in the Moray Firth, because there you get on to extra-territorial waters. As regards the inclusion of Ireland, I do not think foreign trawlers are likely to go to that country, because the difficulty they would have in landing their catch at any British port would be much greater than foreign trawlers on the East Coast of Scotland would experience. I doubt whether the Bill will be of such practical interest in Ireland as in the Moray Firth, but if the Irish people wish it, I do not see any objection to the proposed extension being made.

When this Bill was proposed for second reading it was distinctly stated that its operation would be confined to the Moray Firth. The area is limited to Scotland, and that is proved by the fact that the present Resolution is necessary to extend it. There is a great deal to be said from the point of view of Irish Members who desire to have the Bill extended to Ireland, but there is also the point of view of the consumer to be considered. The Sea Fisheries Association, in my Constituency, do not view the Bill with any great love at all, but the extension of the area over which the Bill will operate must to a certain extent destroy the bringing of fish to the City of London and other parts, and consequently affect the provision of cheap food for the people, which I understood hon. Members opposite desired to preserve above everything else. If the Bill is extended to Ireland it will have to be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the result must be to drive away a certain part of the cheap fish supply which would otherwise come to England. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Monro Ferguson) says that foreign trawlers will not go to Ireland. That may be 3 but if they do go, they will be able to sell their catch in their own ports, and at the same time deplete the waters of the young fish. The reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Pembroke against this proposal deserve consideration. The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Russell) has brought forward one reason only for the extension of the Bill to Ireland, and that is that the Government of Ireland cannot control the trawlers. I am not surprised at that, because I do not know anybody whom the Government of Ireland can control. But if Bills are to be brought in to deal with everything the Government of Ireland cannot control, we shall be sitting here not merely to next October, but till October two years. I do not know what course the hon. Member opposite is going to take. I have considerable sympathy with Irish Members, because they see something which they think is a boon being given to Scotland, and they naturally wish to share it; consequently I presume Englishmen will have to take a back seat, as they have always to do under these circumstances.

I have no objection in principle to this Bill being extended to Ireland, but I do object very strongly to the procedure which has been adopted. Here is a Bill read a second time on the express understanding, set forth in the most explicit words, that it would apply only to Scotland. The Bill was discussed and amended in Committee on that basis, and at the last moment we are asked by recommittal to extend the Bill to Ireland. That seems to me to be an extremely objectionable and unfair method of procedure, because it does not enable the people and interests concerned in the extension to Ireland to represent their views properly on second reading or before the Committee. The Bill has been allowed to proceed under the impression that it applied to only a very limited part of the country, and now on recommittal it is to be extended to a very much larger area. That does not seem to me to be a good way of doing business. I respectfully submit that it is not at all in the interests of British trawl-owners. The West Coast of England is not being fairly treated at all. If it was the intention of the Government to make this Act to apply to the whole coast of the United Kingdom—which it might be a perfectly proper and right thing to do—they ought to have brought in a general Bill in the first instance, applying the measure clearly to the whole of the country, and so let us know where we were in discussing the matter. I object very strongly to the procedure which has been adopted. If the hon. Member for Pembroke goes into the Lobby against it I shall be very pleased to support him.

I would like to say that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is not quite correct when he says that this matter was not examined by the Committee in respect to its application to Ireland. It was practically unanimous so far as the Committee were concerned—

May I say that in the Committee upstairs, at my request, it was specially ruled out of order. The matter was not discussed by the Committee.

I am not going to say what was ruled out of order or what was not. But I was going to say that it was practically unanimous in the Committee upstairs that if it were possible that these clauses could be admitted, that they should be admitted. It was on the understanding that the matter would be raised on the Report stage that our hon. Friends from Ireland supported the passing of the Bill as amended in Committee. Therefore, I think it is scarcely fair to lay a charge against them of attempting to rush into the Bill clauses which would not have been considered upstairs if opportunity had arisen.

There is one reason which has been asserted that this Bill should not be passed into law, and that is by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington. He has told us that the great consideration which is in his mind is the question of the consumer. Well, I have some right to speak on behalf of the trawl owners of Great Britain, and I submit that this is not a consumers' question. I think if I mention that the total value of the fish sold in Great Britain is £13,000,000, and the total value of the fish taken from the Moray Firth and vicinity is not £100,000, that the House will see at once that it is not a serious question from the standpoint of the supply of fish. Further, may I say that I think we have heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City that this is a question of cheap food? But the main food drawn from these particular enclosed areas is not cheap food at all. It is not food for the poor, but food for the rich, who consume prime fish food. If these areas can be closed effectively I believe myself certainly that instead of contracting the supply of fish food, it will largely increase the supply of fish food. What we desire is that these enclosed areas, if possible, should be kept as breeding grounds, because in due course the smaller fishes find their way into the North and other seas, and are a splendid increase in the general food supply of the country. I think also that one or two Gentlemen who have spoken on this question do not realise that this Bill in the first instance was brought in to prevent a condition of things which was not creditable to the House of Commons, and I venture to say was not creditable to some of the Gentlemen who have been evading British law for a number of years. The vast majority of steam trawlers against which this Bill is aimed are called foreign trawlers. Well, they have been put under a foreign flag by Britishers for the purpose of getting the advantage of these enclosed areas which British law would not allow British ships to go to. Therefore I submit under these circumstances, even if some small disability was to be imposed upon a portion of the people, it is right that legislation should be brought in when it is to prevent those who are evading, as undoubtedly they are, a British Act of Parliament. This Bill, if the Lord Advocate's Amendment dealing with the area is admitted, will not only—if the words be put in—affect Scotland, but affect Ireland. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will be kind enough to look at that point. However, so far as I am concerned, speaking on behalf of by far the largest fishing port in Great Britain, I heartily support this Bill.

I would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to allow this Bill to pass through. So far as I can see, the opposition comes from a few Liberal Members—because I have not heard any hon. Members on the Opposition side speak against it—who wish to see this injustice to Scotland perpetrated. I should like to say that I have not heard the slightest objection from anybody to Ireland being included in this Bill. My own impression is that this measure ought to be considered in connection with unemployment, because trawlers to a large extent have destroyed the living of the line fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London spoke about the food supply of the City of London being largely connected with this Bill. That is so. But the Corporation of London are not opposing this Bill. Neither is Billingsgate, nor the salesmen there. Therefore I have a right to say, that so far as London is concerned, and as affecting the food supply of a very large part of the nation, London is not in any way opposing this Bill. On the contrary, personally I am aware that those concerned are anxious to stop the catching of immature fish, especially caught by trawlers, and are desirous for the benefit of the fishing interest generally. There is another thing to he said. There is not the slightest evidence that the present state of things has made fish cheaper in this country at all. I trust that Ireland may be allowed to be included in this Bill, and that hon. Gentlemen, seeing that we are nearly all agreed upon this matter, will allow it to go through to-day.

Ireland should be included owing to the advantages that this Bill gives to the fishing industry. I have taken some interest in the question of the fisheries on the West coast of Ireland, and I can assure the House that protection of the kind that this Bill offers is very urgently needed. There has been very serious and considerable damage done to the breeding grounds of the West of Ireland by the unlimited operations of the trawlers and especially steam trawlers. I can assure the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) that this trawling is done by British and foreign vessels, who both take their share in these depredations. This measure would, I think, be ultimately in the interests of the consumers of fish, and would afford protection to the breeding grounds, and if incidentally it maintains employment for a vast number of line fishermen—the very hard-working men connected with the West coast of Ireland—the Bill would be commendable for that fact. The industry is a very important one. I hope the House will consent to the passage of this Bill. My only misgiving is the confession made by the President of the Board of Agriculture of his failure to enforce the Acts now in existence for the protection of the fish. However that may be, we may live in hope that the day will come when there will be a Government in Ireland able to enforce the law on this Bill which it so greatly needs.

Question: "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a New Clause, providing for the application of the Bill to Irish prohibited areas."

Motion made, and Question, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill 'That they have power to extend the Bill to Ireland'"—[ Sir Thomas Esmonde ]—put, and agreed to.

I have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence from this day's sitting of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Emmott).

Bill considered in Committee,

in the chair.

I beg to move the following new clause: —

Application to Irish Prohibited Areas. —This Act shall extend to areas within which the use of the aforesaid methods of fishing in or from any steamer, or steamship, or vessel propelled by steam or petrol is prohibited by bye-laws made under section 3 of The Steam Trawling (Ireland). Act, 1889, and as regards these areas and fish caught therein shall have effect, subject to the following modifications: —

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put and agreed to.

Motion made and Question, "to insert in the title, after 'Scotland,' the words 'or Ireland'"—[ Sir Thomas Esmonde ]—put and agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments.

I move the following new clause: 52 and 53 Vic. c. 23.—( Definition ).—"In this Act the expression 'prohibited area' means any waters within which the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling are prohibited by The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, or any bye-law made thereunder, but does not include any such waters within three miles from low-water mark of any part of the coast of Scotland unless such waters form part of an area which, as defined for the purposes of the said Act or bye-law, extends more than three miles from low-water mark as aforesaid."

I think this new clause will meet the views of the Committee as expressed by the hon. Members for Grimsby, Pembroke, and Aberdeen, and gives effect to the undertaking which confines the operations of the Bill exclusively to areas delineated by the Fisheries Board, and excludes from the operations of the Bill the ordinary territorial waters of the coast.

Question, "That the clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Motion made and Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—( Landing and Selling of Fish Illegally Caught Prohibited ).—"From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful to land or sell in the United Kingdom any fish caught by the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling within the areas in which such methods of fishing are prohibited by the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889 (herein-after referred to as the Act of 1889), and bye-laws made thereunder; and fish so caught within such areas shall be added to the table of prohibitions and restrictions contained in section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and, upon being brought to land in the United Kingdom, shall be dealt with as goods imported and brought into the United Kingdom contrary to the said prohibitions and restrictions."

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words: "the areas in which such methods of fishing are prohibited by the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889 (herein-after referred to as the Act of 1889), and bye-laws made thereunder;" and to insert instead thereof the words "prohibited areas as defined in this Act."

This Amendment is merely consequential.

Do I understand that the Amendment restricts the area of the three-mile limit?

No; but it restricts the limit provided by this Bill to areas such as the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde, and excludes from the operations of the Bill the ordinary three-mile limit of the open coast, commonly known as " Territorial waters."

Question, "That these words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—( Fishery Board to Notify ).—The Fishery Board for Scotland shall from time to time notify to the Commissioners of Customs or to the officer or officers of Customs sta- tioned at such ports as may be deemed necessary, the names, numbers, or other means of identification of all vessels with regard to which the said Board are satisfied that on the date or dates specified in such notification such vessels were employed in fishing by the methods and within the areas aforesaid, or in taking on board fish caught by the methods and within the areas aforesaid, and such notification shall be in such form and regulated by such procedure as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, and shall be sufficient warrant for such Commissioners or officers to enforce the prohibitions and restrictions provided in section 1 hereof in the case of any vessel from which within two months of the latest date specified in the notification fish is landed or sold or attempted to be landed or sold in the United Kingdom."

I beg to move after the first word "Customs" to insert "Excise."

Amendment agreed to.

moved: After the second word "Customs" to insert "Excise."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—( Saving ).—"Nothing in this Act shall affect or derogate from the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 1899. Provided that in any case where the provisions of this Act are enforced, proceedings shall not be taken for a penalty under the Act of 1899."

moved to leave out the words "Act of," and to insert "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move "That the House do now adjourn."

On that Motion, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give the House any information as to when the third reading of this Bill will be taken?

I have been in communication with hon. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House in reference to the third reading, and I understand they are prepared to agree that it should be taken on Tuesday or Wednesday next. On the understanding, therefore, that the third reading is to be taken early next week, I now move the adjournment of the House.

Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next (15th June).

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at Six minutes before Four o'clock, till Monday next.