Lords Sitting of 29 May 1876

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Huntingdon, after the death of his Father.
Public Bills—First Reading—Merchant Shipping* (99); Consolidated Fund (£11,000,000)*;Customs and Inland Revenue*.
Second Reading—Treasury Solicitor* (76).
Select Committee—Union of Benefices* (64), nominated.
Committee—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Chapel-en-le-Frith, &c.)* (59).
Committee—Report—Trade Union Act (1871) Amendment* (73–98).
Third Reading—Inns of Court* (47); General School of Law* (48); Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Ferry, &c. (No. 4)* (87); Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5)* (88), and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 91 and 92 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.—VIVI-SECTION.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, it would be convenient if the Government stated what course they proposed to take with the Cruelty to Animals Bill, which stood for Committee that evening.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he did not intend

1341
to ask their Lordships to proceed with the Bill that evening. Within the last few days he had received several communications of an important character in relation to the measure, and had seen several persons who took a great interest in the subject. He had not as yet been able to come to anything like a conclusion on some of the suggestions which had been made to him. Consequently, if their Lordships went into Committee that evening, they would necessarily deal with the Bill in an unsatisfactory and perfunctory manner. Under these circumstances, he thought the best course would be to postpone the Committee until after Whitsuntide, and in the meantime the Government would have an opportunity of considering the bearing of those representations that had been made to them.
Committee on said Bill accordingly put off sine die.

CRIMINAL LAW—THROWING STONES AT RAILWAY TRAINS.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the report of a case in the Salford Borough Police Court, which case was heard on Thursday, May 18? The case was that of a boy who was convicted of having thrown a stone at a railway train. The stationmaster, in his evidence, stated that the company to which the train belonged had received continual complaints that stones were thrown at the trains, that the carriage windows had frequently been broken, and passengers injured in some cases as a result of those acts. Officials, he added, had been specially engaged to apprehend the boys, but had not succeeded in capturing any offender until the present case. The detective superintendent stated that the mischievous practice of throwing stones at railway trains had become very common, and that on the London and North Western and the Lancashire and Yorkshire lines injuries to passengers had resulted. Having heard that evidence, the magistrate inflicted a penalty of half-a-crown, which he thought their Lordships would regard as very inadequate to the offence. If this sentence were to remain unnoticed he feared there would be no protection against a repetition of the offence, which might be attended with serious—perhaps
1342
fatal—consequences. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would not allow the inadequacy of the penalty to pass unnoticed.
Moved, for Copy of evidence given before the Court.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sorry he was not able to give a copy of the evidence taken before the magistrate—nor indeed to give his noble Friend any further information than that of which he appeared to be in possession. No doubt the practice of throwing stones at railway trains was attended not only with annoyance, but also with danger. When, however, it was stated that stones were frequently thrown at railway trains it did not follow that the offence had been frequently committed by the boy convicted before the borough magistrate at Salford, and it would have been a hardship to inflict a penalty on that boy for offences committed by others, and out of all proportion to the particulars of his own case. As a rule the magistrates who administered local justice had before them circumstances which influenced them in deciding penalties, but which might not be stated in newspaper reports. Half-a-crown was a small sum, but a fine did not always adequately represent the amount of the punishment, because even such a penalty, in addition to costs, might have been a considerable amount to the parents of the boy. Of course, he could not say that it was; and, now that he knew the point to which his noble Friend wished to direct attention, he would cause inquiries to be made. Should his noble Friend not be satisfied with the result of those inquiries, he might move in the matter again.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, their Lordships would remember that on Friday evening a noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr), moved for a Return of landowners of 500 acres and upwards in each county of England and Wales,

  1343
  showing those who had contracted themselves out of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to June in the present year. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) objected to the granting of such a Return on grounds which, he submitted, would not apply to a Return which he now begged to move for. It was a Return of the Public Departments which hold land as Owners or Occupiers in England and Wales, specifying whether they have or have not contracted themselves out of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act up to the 1st of June, 1876.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that on a former occasion he expressed an opinion that to accede to the Motion of his noble Friend (Lord De La Warr) would lead to considerable inconvenience, that Motion having been for a Return which would have involved an inquiry into the arrangements between private owners of land and their tenants under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Of course, the same objections did not apply to a Return respecting arrangements made by public bodies. He took it there were three public bodies to which the Motion now before the House could be taken to apply—namely, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Woods and Forests. As to the first—the Return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—the information sought for by his noble Friend would be found in Returns already produced in the other House of Parliament, and which could very easily be laid on their Lordships' Table. The following paragraphs from that Return would put their Lordships in possession of the advice given to the Commissioners by their Surveyors with reference to the Agricultural Holdings Act:—
  "Under these circumstances we advise that each of the Commissioners' tenants have notice that their tenancies remain unaffected by the Act, but that each notice he accompanied with an intimation that the Commissioners themselves have no objections to the Act, and will be prepared to arrange with each tenant for the addition to his agreement of such portions of the Act as may be deemed expedient.
  "We continue of opinion that the Act will prove very advantageous to the interests of the country through the adaptation of its provisions to the circumstances of each tenancy, but it will rarely be in the first instance adopted."
  Next as to the lands held under the
  1344
  Duchy of Lancaster. He found that they were about 37,000 acres in all. Of those, 30,000 were held on lease; so that only 7,000 came under the operation of the Act; and of the tenants of these lands, 44 were perfectly content with existing arrangements. The case was therefore narrowed to about 3,000 acres. These had been put out of the operation of the Act because of the very great improvements being made by the Crown on this portion of the property. And when he told their Lordships that the rental of these 3,000 acres was only 7s. 6d. an acre, their Lordships would very readily understand that they could not be in a very high state of cultivation, or be very valuable as regarded farming interests. More than that—of the rental of 7s. 6d. per acre the Crown had to lay out 2s. 6d. per acre. The third case was that of the Woods and Forests. With regard to this land he had an answer from the Crown Receiver by which it appeared that very nearly the whole of the land managed by that Department was let on leases for terms of years. In the cases where the land was not so let the Agricultural Holdings Act was allowed to operate.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought there could not be much good in the Act seeing that the tenants were so very little anxious to take the benefit of it. But there were other public bodies beside those mentioned by the noble Duke which had the management of lands—such as the Duchy of Cornwall and Greenwich Hospital.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had been under the impression that he was giving the noble Earl all the information he asked for; but perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough in an amended notice to enumerate the Departments respecting which he desired information, and he would give it him.
  Return of all the Reports made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by their surveyors relative to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord President.)
  Return presented; and to be printed. (No. 97.)

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL [H.L.]
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury.

V. Cardwell

E. Devon.

L. Bp. Exeter.

E. Stanhope.

L. Bp. Oxford.

E. Chichester.

L. Colchester.

E. Powis.

L. Stanley of Alderley.

E. Nelson.

L. Hartismere.

E. Kimberley.

L. Coleridge.

The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 14 th of June next, at Twelve o'clock; and to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.