COUNTY COUNCILS & SMALL HOLDINGS 227 

 ings Act of 1892 is a most unmitigated failure, and is, to 

 all intents and purposes, as dead as a kippered herring. 



It is equally clear that if County Councils have, for the 

 insufficient reasons referred to in Land Reform, practi- 

 cally killed a useful Act, which was intended to give some 

 relief to the people, they have committed a grave offence 

 against the commonweal, and it follows, in logical 

 sequence, that where an offence is committed, condemna- 

 tion should follow, not condonation and excuse. 



No great military commander in the world's history 

 ever won his battles by excusing and condoning the 

 faults and failures of his lieutenants; and no nation can 

 remain great and prosperous that persistently exone- 

 rates its office-bearers from all blame attaching to mal- 

 administration of public affairs, and glosses over every 

 offence against the commonweal. Such an attitude is 

 worse than mawkish and imbecile; it is positively de- 

 structive and wellnigh criminal, and the sooner we accept 

 this plain wholesome fact, the better it will be for us. 



The men who serve the State on these corporate 

 bodies were not pitchforked into their position, whether 

 they liked it or no. All rate-payers are acquainted with 

 their methods of candidature, and know full well how 

 eagerly every seat in the council is competed for. 



These municipal councillors spare no pains in getting 

 elected to the position they occupy, and when they have 

 secured what they covet, it is only fair to expect that 

 they will do their duty. 



This Small Holdings Act of 1892 affords a striking ex- 

 ample of municipal administrative failure of a grave 

 nature, and of insubordination to the Imperial Govern- 



15^ 



