Lords Sitting of 17 August 1883

MINUTES.
PURLIC BILLS—Second Rending—Labourers (Ireland) (183); Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (182), negatived; Bankruptcy (195); Isle of Wight Highways * (191): National Debt * (196).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) * (87–203); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) * (193).
Report—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (157); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (173); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (174).
Third Reading—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (200); Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations)* (166), now Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies, and passed.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Earl of Dunraven.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was intended to remedy what was believed to be a very great evil; and that was the absence of proper sanitary conditions in the cottages of agricultural labourers in Ireland, and the absence of a due regard for reasonable decency and comfort in their homes. He did not say that evil was confined to Ireland; but, at the same time, it was more intense in Ireland than in any other portion of the Kingdom. The Bill provided that the
  926
  sanitary authorities should be empowered to obtain and lay out monies on the security of the rates to improve sanitary deficiencies in existing dwellings; and, if necessary, to erect new buildings for agricultural labourers. It gave the sanitary authorities very full powers, and amongst them that of taking up land compulsorily if necessary. The powers granted, however, were very carefully guarded, and there was not the slightest possibility that there could be any infringement of private rights or damage to private property. In the first place, the sanitary authority must be moved by a petition signed by 12 ratepayers; and their Lordships would see that the petition precluded the possibility of any rates being levied except for this purpose—where one or two landowners paid the whole of the rates of the district. The sanitary authorities then, on this petition, could go into the matter; and if they found it desirable and necessary that the dwellings should be improved or additional ones erected, they could formulate a scheme for that purpose. That scheme had to be submitted to the Local Government Board in London; and they, having inquired into the matter, and being satisfied that all the requirements of the Bill had been fulfilled, and also of the necessity of the case, could make a Provisional Order confirming the scheme of the sanitary authority. That was so when it was sought to put the Act in force under ordinary circumstances; but in the event of there being any objection to the scheme—that was to say, any objection lodged by any ratepayer of the district against it, or in the event of its being contemplated to take up any land compulsorily, then the Provisional Order of the Local Government Board would require an Act of Parliament to make it valid. He thought, under these circumstances, their Lordships would see there was not the slightest risk under the Bill that private property would be interfered with in any way, especially as it was also provided that demesne lands should not be interfered with. The only objection he could conceive to the Bill was that it was feared it would not do much. He did not think it could be shown by any possibility that it would do any harm, and the only doubt was whether it would do as much good as it was anticipated and hoped it would do. The labourers

  927
  themselves would have no power to put the machinery in motion or take any part in the matter. That was an objection; but he could not see any possible way of avoiding it, or, under existing circumstances in Ireland, any other machinery that could be substituted. His own impression was that if the Poor Law Guardians acted as they should do, and if the landlords and gentry of the country districts themselves looked after the operation of the Bill, it might do a great deal of good, and might possibly be of great service in ameliorating the condition of the agricultural labourers in Ireland. Under those circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD VENTRYsaid, that all would sympathize with the noble Earl in the object he had in view. So much had been said and so little done up to the present time for the labourers of Ireland that he thought this Bill should not pass through the House under false pretences. The title of the Bill as it stood was the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, but in the body of the Bill its effect was strictly confined to agricultural labourers. He would, therefore, suggest that the title should be changed to the Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) Bill, so that it might be clearly understood what the object of it was. One point to which the noble Earl had referred was the exemption of demesne lands. He thought it would be more satisfactory if the words "or home farm" were added to the clause. There were other Amendments required which he hoped would be proposed in Committee.
  EARL FORTESCUE, as one who had taken an interest in sanitary matters for the last 40 years, considered the Bill unsound in principle and practically dangerous. He did not place implicit confidence in the discretion of the Boards of Guardians, for he had observed that there was far greater readiness in Ireland to borrow money than to pay regularly the interest accruing upon the loan. As it was, he apprehended considerable danger from cottages being erected in over-populated districts where it was important that people should not be encouraged to remain, and where there was a poor soil with a surplus population. It
  928
  would be a great misfortune if the moderate amount of money available in that country was to be employed in building cottages in places where labourers were already too numerous, and ought, as soon as possible, to be removed to places where they would be likely to earn better wages, and become a source of profit to the community, instead of, as at present, under the slightest pressure of bad seasons, being liable to become a heavy charge upon the rates. He was glad to see that the Bill contained a clause giving facilities to Boards of Guardians to enforce the provisions of the Land Act in respect of building and improving labourers' cottages and making allotments of land thereunder. Cottages had been repeatedly ordered to be erected by the tenants when the Commissioners reduced their rents; but in the execution of those orders the most scandalous neglect and delay had been permitted. Hence the necessity for further powers.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he considered that it was impossible not to see that if the principle of the Bill that a sanitary authority, which meant the State, should erect cottages for the labouring classes in Ireland was sanctioned, its extension to England and Scotland was only a matter of time. This seemed to him a wild scheme, and one which their Lordships ought to be cautious not to sanction. If the State built houses for the working classes, he did not see why they should not undertake to clothe them also. He must enter his protest against the principle of the Bill.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that with this Bill the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act was meant to be, and ought to be, concurrent. He thought that this Bill was applicable to other dwellings than those of agricultural labourers. In England the General Act authorized, when any houses in towns were unfit for habitation, that the sanitary authorities could call upon the owner to put them in repair; and, on his refusing, they might undertake, by purchase or otherwise, to do the work themselves, and levy the expense on the local rates; but they were bound to get rid of any property which they might have so acquired afterwards. In this Bill permission was given to the sanitary authority to let or sell; but they were not com-

  929
  pelled to do so, and might retain any property taken in hand. The latter he thought a questionable proceeding.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he must complain that their Lordships were really so pressed by a plethora of legislation that Members of the House had not a moment given them to consider the principle of the Bills placed before them; and he must protest against that method of conducting the legislation of the House. He was quite aware of the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in the other House; but it was partly the fault of their Lordships that they should consent to be so pressed at the eleventh hour of the Session with a mass of Bills, some of them involving the most important principles. He had really not had time to go into this Bill; but from the cursory glance he had given it he thought it was a Bill on which they ought to have the guidance of the Government. The Bill was introduced into their Lordships' House by a Nobleman for whose judgment he had a high opinion; but he (the Duke of Argyll) looked upon it as a measure full of objection and danger. One comfort he derived from the Bill was that, in his opinion, it would be wholly unworkable, owing to the great complexity of its machinery. It was, no doubt, the duty of the owners of estates generally to spend money largely in building labourers' cottages; but it should be remembered that under the Irish Land Act all the powers of administration in regard to property were destroyed, and one consequence of that Act would be that the State would be driven, as it was hourly being driven, into the necessity of doing that which would otherwise be done by private funds and private enterprize. He had been told that morning on good authority that all outlay in the shape of improvements upon Irish laud had absolutely stopped, because, under the provisions of the Irish Land Act, no landowner could count upon getting an ordinary return. That applied much more to cottages; and he could understand that in those circumstances they would be obliged to proceed more upon what wore called socialistic principles, and to insist on local authorities building cottages. Therefore, he was not prepared altogether to object to that Bill; but they ought to have had more time to consider its complicated details. There was, however,
  930
  at least this security—that where compulsory powers were exercised, and landlords or others were compelled to give up their property for the erection of cottages, then nothing could be done without coming to Parliament for a special Act. That would, no doubt, prevent any injury being done; but he was afraid it would also prevent anything of a practical nature being done in the way of erecting cottages.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he believed that the Boards of Guardians would endeavour to see that the provisions of the Bill were carried out, as they had control over the rates. He was, of course, not responsible for the lateness of the period at which that Bill came before their Lordships, and he much regretted that it had not reached them earlier. He offered to postpone the Committee stage till Monday or Tuesday, in order to meet their Lordships' convenience as far as he could.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return of number, names, salaries, and general duties of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors now acting in England and Wales, and in Scotland, under the several Government Departments, and the scale of retiring allowances, and showing what were the salaries of those officers, and giving a short statement of their duties. His object in asking for that Return was to show the extent to which the system of inspection had increased, and was increasing in this country. The fact was, if this sort of legislation went on at the rate it was going at present, ere long every man would have his own and the shadow of an Inspector at his back. He observed that the mania for Inspectors was growing so much that the Trades' Union Congress, at its next meeting, was to demand three additional Inspectors.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for a Return of number, names, salaries, and general duties of Inspectors and Sub-inspectors now acting in England and Wales, and in Scotland, under the several Government Departments, and the scale of re-
  931
  tiring allowances, specifying the Department; n umber of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, with to tal; salary, with total; scale of retiring allowances; short statement of duties."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL FORTESCUE, in supporting the Motion for the Return, said, that the Local Government (Scotland) Board would add another shoal of Inspectors.
  Motion agreed to.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 182.)
(The Lord Balfour.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 182.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he fully concurred with what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) as to the short time at their disposal for considering any new Bills; but this was a very short one, the object of which was well understood. It only consisted of three clauses, and its object was to put down the so-called sport of pigeon-shooting. For that purpose, it came before the House as an amendment to the Cruelty to Animals Prevention Act of 1849–50. It provided that certain penalties should be imposed on persons who engaged in pigeon-shooting, and the method of inflicting them would be the same as that under the Cruelty to Animals Prevention Act. He called the practice of pigeon shooting so-called sport, and he did so advisedly, because he was extremely anxious to dissociate it from what might be called legitimate field sport. Their Lordships would, he thought, agree with him that in matters of that kind it was not desirable to legislate in advance of public opinion; but he believed it was quite clear that public opinion had been decidedly pronounced in favour of that measure. Pigeon-shooting was a cruel sport, and perfectly useless. If evidence were required in favour of the Bill, he might point to the majority by which the Motion for the second reading was carried in the other House—a majority of 155, the numbers being 195 for the second reading, as against 45 on the other side; and that, although blocked as many Bills of private Members were, no serious attempt had been made to oppose it at any of its subsequent stages.
  932
  He, therefore, thought that in assenting to the second reading their Lordships would be acting in accordance with public opinion. Cruelties had been proved on many occasions to be the accompaniment of the practice; he did not say on all occasions and in all places, because he knew there were places at which the practice was engaged in, in the presence of many who would by no means be parties to such cruelties as had been indicated; but it was impossible to deny that many and serious cruelties were practised, and he did not see how it was possible to dissociate the places where they were, and were not, practised from one another. Anyone who read the newspapers must be convinced that on many occasions, and in many places, these cruelties were practised. Some would say that was an argument that the existing law was sufficient to deal with cases of cruelty; but that was not so, for, as a matter of fact, in order to get a conviction, it was necessary to show that the person charged had maltreated the particular pigeon shot at, and it was found very difficult to convict the perpetrator. No one would deny that, had it not been accompanied by betting, the practice would long ago have ceased to exist; and it was undoubtedly betting in connection with pigeon-shooting that gave rise to many of the cruelties that were perpetrated. Since it became known that he was in charge of the Bill, he had been told that it was the first nail in the coffin of legitimate field sports; but it was because he wished to dissociate this so-called sport from other and legitimate sports that he had taken charge of the Bill. A continuance of the practice of pigeon-shooting would be likely to direct public attention against field sports in general; and it was because he desired to get rid of this weak point in sporting amusements that he had undertaken the duty he was now performing. On that ground, as much as any other, he asked their Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill, because it was a Bill coming under a false name and false pretences. The Bill, in effect, declared that shooting at a bird with an

  933
  intent to kill it was a cruelty. The noble Lord had said that pigeon-shooting was carried on with great cruelty; but he believed that in most instances it was carried on without any cruelty whatever. What the noble Lord desired was to make shooting at birds cruelty by Act of Parliament. But it would be said it was just as cruel to rear pheasants for the purpose of being shot at. If this sort of principle was to be acted upon it would lead to difficulties beyond measure. It was a fact that many who supported this measure were practically opposed to all kinds of sport whatever. It was impossible to draw any distinction between pigeon-shooting and any other kind of sport, for there was no cruelty in it beyond what there was in other cases. It ought not to be laid down as a principle that because there had been a few instances of cruelty in a particular sport, therefore that sport ought to be put a stop to; and it would be most objectionable if, by passing this Bill, their Lordships came to any such conclusion. The law, as it stood, was sufficient to deal with cases of wilful cruelty; and, therefore, he bogged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he thought they were asked to give their sanction to a really sweeping piece of legislation. He was not a pigeon-shooter himself; but he quite agreed in what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just sat down. From what he understood of the debate which occurred in "another place," a charge was made out that there was an ever-present cruelty inseparable from pigeon-shooting. That he could not admit was the case. He would not enter into the demerits of pigeon-shooting; but he certainly thought this was a hasty measure. If it was cruelty to shoot pigeons, the same might be said of hares and rabbits, or even buffalo-hunting. If persons thought that taking the life of animals for sport was cruelty, then he was perfectly willing to admit that pigeon-shooting was cruel; but he did not think their Lordships' House, which had never been considered a
  934
  purely sentimental organ, would ever take such a sentimental view of the matter as that. He felt perfectly certain, from the names of the gentlemen connected with the great gun clubs, that they would not sanction any acts of cruelty being perpetrated at their matches. A far better plan than the passing of the Bill would be, in his opinion, to strengthen the hands of the gun clubs by giving them a licence, or else appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject. That would be far better than sweeping away a sport which had been going on for some time.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he believed that pigeon-shooting was less cruel than driving grouse; for Mr. Gordon, the late respected gamekeeper to the Duke of Rutland, had told him that afterwards many wounded birds were picked up. This lingering death might be prevented by public opinion, but could not be prevented by legislation; indeed, he was ashamed of taking up time on such a subject. There was a certain amount of pain in every field sport. He had himself killed 12 sparrows out of 19, out of a trap, when a boy; but, as he never could afford to have a very good gun, he had given up shooting. He had once told an hon. Member of Parliament that he had been hunting with Baron Rothschild; and he was told by the hon. Member that stag-hunting was cruel. Not long after, a noble Lord, brother of the hon. Member, had the control of horses and hounds; and he (Lord Denman) mentioned this conversation to his Lordship, who said—"Oh; but it gives pleasure to so many." At the end of the season a stag, in deep water, was nearly drowned by the hounds. The noble Lord, on a tall horse, did not go into deep water to rescue him; but it was loft to him (Lord Denman) to go in, upon a cob, and whip the hounds off. He (Lord Denman) had began hare-hunting—70 years ago—at 8 years of ago, and always tried to be "in at the end," to save the hare unnecessary pain, by a blow at the back of the neck. The only sport which his lamented Predecessor enjoyed was coursing; and if their Lordships had seen him, in 1823, at Holkham, enjoying a good course, they would have said it was a very innocent enjoyment. It must not be imagined that he was doing anything in humanitarian in voting against this Bill. He had killed 25 horses,

  935
  which could not work, without pain; and he was sure, if all the accounts alluded to by the noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill were true, pigeon-shooting could not be called sport, but a very cruel practice.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, a distinction was to be drawn between field sports and pigeon-shooting. So far he agreed with the noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill. He was one of those who believed that the love of the chase was one of the original instincts of the human race, and he did not believe that the progress of civilization would ever extinguish it. It was, however, one of the essential incidents of this love of the chase that it should be in respect of an animal which was valuable for the purposes of human consumption, and could not otherwise be conveniently obtained.
  A noble LORD: What about foxhunting?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Well, he did not regard fox-hunting as coming within this category, because that was merely riding across country, which was a most pleasant and enjoyable exercise. He remembered once, and for the first time and the last, seeing one of the most exciting sports that he knew of, and that was an otter hunt. Anything more exciting he never saw; but when he came to the death—with 25 dogs tearing at the animal's throat and body, and dragging it in every direction—anything more disgusting he never saw. The mere death of the animal was hideous, and no sport at all. But the chasing of the creature through pools of water, mountain scenes, and the beautiful action of the dogs as they followed the scent—those were full of interest and excitement, and it was impossible that they could fail to interest. So it was with many other sports. But in regard to pigeon-shooting these considerations were absent. So in regard to fishing. They all felt in regard to fishing that it was no amusement or sport to catch a fish that was useless for their table, and if they caught a foul salmon they threw it back into the stream again in disgust. The peculiarity of pigeon-shooting was that the birds were set at liberty merely for the purpose of being shot. He, therefore, did think that those particular forms of sport at which the Bill was directed were deficient in all the higher
  936
  elements which made them natural to mankind; and he should, therefore, support the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, although he was very fond of the gun, he never shot a pigeon, with the exception of a wood pigeon, in his life. He should vote against the second reading of the Bill, because he believed the Bill was intended by those who supported it to be the germ that, they might depend upon it, would develop into the stopping of sport of all kinds. All he could say in regard to the cruelty was this—no doubt there might be cruelties practised; but he believed them to be very exceptional, and not at all the accompaniment of pigeon-shooting in general. As regarded the mere cruelty of the death of the animal, he was quite certain that if they gave a pigeon the option of being shot by Earl de Grey or having his neck twisted by the noble Lord who had brought in this Bill, it would prefer being shot by Earl de Grey.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he thought that the accusations brought against even well-conducted clubs of cruelty ought to be substantiated, or else the clubs should have an opportunity of defending themselves. Had it not been for the late period of the Session at which this Bill was brought under discussion in their Lordships' House, he should have felt inclined to move for a Select Committee, in order to give an opportunity to those who made these charges of proving their assertions. He had been in the habit of shooting pigeons in all parts of the world for the last 15 years, and he had never seen any cruelty beyond the actual taking away of the life of the bird. Her Majesty's Government had been unable to state the other evening how many prosecutions for cruelty at pigeon matches had been instituted; and he had found, on inquiry from the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that during the last 10 years only 25 persons had been prosecuted for cruelty on such occasions. The persons really guilty of cruelty were the persons who held cockfights, and it was no use trying to legislate for them. The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill had said that he objected to the practice of pigeon-shooting on the ground that so much betting was connected with it. Was there no other sport with which betting was connected

  937
  except pigeon-shooting? He maintained that coursing was more cruel than pigeon-shooting, and that there was more betting in connection with the "Waterloo Cup than took place at pigeon-shooting for the whole year. No one, however, even thought of prohibiting race and coursing meetings on that ground. In connection with pigeon-shooting which had existed during the last 25 years, industries had sprung up which depended for their very existence upon the sport. Clubs had been instituted in various parts of the country, which had leases still to run, and which had expended large sums of money on the improvement of their grounds. Was it fair to deprive those gentlemen, first of their sport, and then of the value of their grounds? Moreover, there was the class of the purveyors of these pigeons, the magnitude of whose industry might be illustrated by the fact that in Lincolnshire alone £30,000 worth of pigeons were sold. These birds, too, were an article of food for the poor, and in hot weather were hawked about the streets at about 2d. or 3d. a-piece; and he dared say that a poor man was as fond of a pigeon as a change as any one of their Lordships was of a grouse. The loss would come not only on the farmers, but on the landlords, because the farmer, deprived of his pigeons, could not afford to pay his full rent. This ought not to be done without fuller inquiry. There was also another class of people with whom the Bill would interfere—namely, those engaged in the gun trade; and when the Bill was under consideration in "another place," a very influential Petition was presented by Mr. Muntz, on behalf of that trade, with over 3,000 signatures. It was stated in that Petition that nearly all the improvements that had taken place in guns during the last 20 years had been made to suit pigeon-shooting. Pigeon-shooting required the very best article in the way of killing guns; and gunmakers had, consequently, been pitted against each other to produce the best article. Then there was the explosives trade. It was solely on account of pigeon-shooting that the Schultz smokeless powder was invented. Ten years ago he was the only person who used that powder. Now everybody who shot pigeons used it. Had not that been a great development of trade? He had the other day received
  938
  a letter from the eminent gunmaker, Mr. Purdey, in which he pointed out how great would be the injury to the gun trade if this Bill became law. The gun trade of London 25 years ago was not a quarter of what it was now, and the gun trade had to thank pigeon-shooting for these results. He could say a great deal more on the subject; but he thought he was not, perhaps, justified in detaining their Lordships at any great length, and he would therefore conclude by hoping that the Bill would not be read a second time.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have a very few words to say on the subject of this Bill; but it appears to me, like most other subjects, to be one in which there are arguments on both sides, though some of the arguments used against the Bill do not appear to me altogether conclusive. I cannot quite follow the argument that pigeon-shooting is the best mode of giving cheap and good food to the poor.
  LORD WESTBURY: I did not say it was the best mode. I said it was a mode.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Nor can I agree that it will affect very much the agricultural depression which exists, more or less, at the present moment, if pigeon-shooting is either allowed to continue or is put an end to. I am afraid, too, that if your Lordships reject the Bill it would not appear a very strong argument that several of your Lordships are members of clubs which encourage this sport. I am sorry to say that I have given up shooting for some time, and my hunting has been reduced to a very mild form; but I entirely sympathize with what has fallen from the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll)—namely, as to the belief of a natural instinct in man for the pleasures of the chase, and as to the belief and, I may add, the hope that legitimate shooting, hunting, and fishing will never perish altogether in this country. But I must say I think that some of the arguments that have been used rather endangers than secures this in the future. There is no doubt that there is a very strong feeling against this particular class of sport, and that was shown by the very large majorities in favour of the Bill in the House of Commons. I think it is extremely unwise, and I believe perfectly untrue, to do what most of the

  939
  speakers against this Bill have done—to declare positively that there is no difference between pigeon-shooting—sending birds out mutilated in some cases, and unmutilated in others, to be shot at without any test of endurance or excitement—in the enjoyment of which no physical endurance is required, and in which there is none of the excitement which attends other sports, and that wild and legitimate sport, of which so many of us are so fond. I think you bring very false arguments to bear if you insist on saying that the two things are exactly on the same footing. When the noble Earl told us that there is no difference between the cruelty of shooting pigeons and the shooting of a tame pheasant, I venture to say that is a sort of argument which can be met in another way; for who can say that it is less cruel than allowing two game cocks to follow the strong instinct they have, and to peck out each other's eyes. Parliament has prohibited that, and has also prohibited dogs from dragging carriages after them. I remember a long discussion I had with the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Argyll) some time ago, in which I took the practical and he the sentimental view of this question; and I remember two pictures which Sir Edwin Landseer offered to paint on the subject, one of which exhibited the intense delight of a dog merrily dragging a cart after him, and the other his intense disgust of being carried in a railway train. All these are cases of degree, and there is nothing so difficult as to draw an exact line in these matters; but I think your Lordships would be ill-advised if you make no difference between the artificial and those wider and more legitimate sports on which I should be most sorry to see any obstruction put.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that he had no sympathy with shooting pigeons from traps; but this was a frivolous Bill, and it was trifling with the time of Parliament to bring it forward. It put him in mind of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. When Parliament could not find time for proceeding with a Bill for the protection of girls too young to resist the temptations put in their way, it moved his indignation to see Bills of this sort pressed on at this period of the Session. If this Bill was not thrown out, it would act as an encouragement
  940
  to other crotchet-mongers and hobby-riders to occupy the time of Parliament when it ought to be spent much more profitably.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 30: Majority 13.

  CONTENTS.

  Camperdown, E.

  Fitzgerald, L.

  Derby, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Morley, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) [Teller.]

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Reay, L.

  Alcester, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalane.)

  Thurlow, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Winchester, M.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Denman, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Haldon, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun)

  Lovat, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Norton, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Poulett, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Melville, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Bagot, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Westbury, L. [Teller.]

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative; Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 195.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 195.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that this was a most important Bill; and, though he regretted the lateness of the time at which it had reached their Lordships' House, he did not think it was a case in which they should hesitate to pass the measure with such Amendments as might be required. It was a difficult subject, and one which, from the time of William

  941
  IV. down to the present, had seen many attempts at revision. That, perhaps, might be partly owing to some inherent and unavoidable difficulties on the subject itself, and partly to causes removable by better legislation. He Would not do more than simply mention the legislation of the time of Lord Grey, the legislation of 1849, or that of the year 1854; but in the year 1869 a General Act was passed, founded very much upon the apparent success of the Scotch system, which it was then sought to adopt. After the experience of 14 years, however, that Act had been found in many respects seriously defective, and particularly in relation to the administration of the bankrupt's estates by the trustees, and other persons entrusted with the management of the affairs of the bankrupt, and also in respect to the system of liquidation by arrangement, which it permitted as an alternative to bankruptcy. From time to time efforts had been made, among others by the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), with a view to remove the defects of the Act of 1869; but none of them had proved successful, and the present Bill was introduced with full knowledge of the evils which had preceded it, and with a determination to endeavour to go to the root of those evils which existed in the present system. The Bill had been carefully prepared and considered by the Government, and especially by Mr. Chamberlain, who, in his own Department, he must say, had been as industrious and efficient as any Minister could be. It was introduced in the House of Commons, and passed through a well-selected Grand Committee of Trade, presided over by his right hon. Friend Mr. Goschen, who conducted their labours with patience, judgment, and ability. The consequence was that the Bill, from its consistency, and from its well-considered details, would be found to deal boldly with the difficulties of the situation. Turning to the Bill itself, he would point out that considerable differences of administration were introduced by it. It separated the judicial arrangements for bankruptcy business from the administrative business in a way never before attempted. The judicial business was to be conducted by the High Court. One particular Judge, selected by the Lord Chancellor, would be specially charged with bankruptcy business. Under him there were to be
  942
  the Registrars in London and County Courts, with their Registrars, in the country. The administrative control was to be vested in the Board of Trade; the Controller and other administrative officers, with the Official Receivers, would all be officers of the Board of Trade. The Bill abolished the debtor's summons, and, instead, made suffering execution to issue under any judgment, or nonpayment of a judgment debt after a certain notice. With respect to the initiation of proceedings, the Bill restored the right which formerly existed, but which was taken away in 1869, for a debtor himself to petition that he might be brought under the law, admitting his own insolvency. When a petition was presented, either by the creditors or by the debtor himself, it would go to the Court; and the Court issued, if it found that there had been an act of bankruptcy, what was called a receiving order, placing the bankrupt's estate in as much security as if there were an immediate adjudication of bankruptcy. Under that receiving order the Official Receiver—an officer of the Board of Trade—would at once have the powers of a trustee in bankruptcy, and would take possession of the property, would appoint a manager in certain cases, and would take the necessary preliminary steps to convene the creditors, and put the Act in operation. Next, the creditors were to meet, proofs were to be taken of their debts, and there was to be a public examination of the debtor, who was to make a full disclosure of his affairs. The meeting of the creditors was to have an option whether they would proceed by way of composition, if a composition were offered, or by way of bankruptcy; but it would depend upon the decision of the Court whether their option should be confirmed or not. Under the present law, in regard to proxies, it had been found that persons with no interest in the bankruptcy could get a sufficient number of votes to carry the appointment of the trustee or other appointments; and that system had been much and justly complained of. Under this Bill there were safeguards provided against the abuse of proxies. The meeting of creditor's would choose the trustee, and the Court would then have to determine whether it would approve of a composition, or whether the debtor was to be adjudicated a bank-

  943
  rupt; and it would be the duty of the Court to reject the composition if it found that it would not be beneficial to the creditors generally, or that the debtor had been guilty of acts of that kind which might deprive him, if bankrupt, of the right to his discharge. Again, if the composition were allowed, and if anything afterwards appeared to show that it ought not to have been sanctioned, there was a power to revoke the composition, and to proceed as in the case of bankruptcy. The Bill abolished the system of liquidation by private arrangement, which was established under the Act of 1869—a system which had proved to be one of the greatest defects of that Act. Under the Act of 1869 the proportion of liquidations to bankruptcies became enormous; and debtors had by those means too great facilities for evading proper inquiry into their affairs, and of making such arrangements as suited their own purpose and convenience. Under the present Bill they could not escape a public examination into their affairs. Then, with respect to discharge, when the debtor had fulfilled the duties that were required from him by the Act, he would, after a certain time, be able to apply for his discharge. If he had committed any acts of fraudulent bankruptcy, or carried on trade in an improper way, then his discharge either must or might be refused. If he had done any of these things, his discharge might also be granted on conditions. The Act of 1869 made it a condition of the discharge that a dividend of a certain amount should be paid. It had not been thought necessary in the present Bill to retain that provision; but it substituted a power for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to make the discharge conditional, so that, if there should be reason for it, after-acquired property might be reached. By the Bill bankruptcy was made a disqualification for offices of trust and importance, and, among other things, for sitting or voting in this or in the other House of Parliament. Under the law, as it now stood, there were some differences between the case of a Peer and that of a Member of the House of Commons who had the misfortune to be made a bankrupt, and as to the conditions on which he was to recover his former position. Those differences were removed
  944
  by the Bill; and the conditions on which a Peer or a Member of the House of Commons who had become disqualified by an adjudication of bankruptcy would now be the same—namely, if the bankruptcy was annulled he was restored to his former status; and, again, if he was discharged with a certificate that his bankruptcy arose from misfortune, and not from misconduct. Turning to the subject of administration, certain debts were, under the Bill, to have a preference. These were rates and taxes due for not more than 12 months; clerks' and servants' wages not exceeding £50; labourers' and workmen's wages not exceeding two months, and a landlord's distress for not more than one year's arrears of rent. Then, certain short periods were fixed for declaring dividends, subject to enlargement. When the bankrupt's estate was not more than £300, there would be a summary administration, the Official Receiver was to be the trustee; and the functions of the Committee of Inspection, who, in other cases, might be appointed by the creditors, were then to be exercised by the Board of Trade. Again, when the total debts did not exceed £50, the County Courts were to have powers of administration, and might provide for payment by instalments. The estates of deceased persons who died insolvent were also brought within the purview of the Bankruptcy Law. He would now mention the functions the Board of Trade was to exercise. In the first place, in all cases the trustee in bankruptcy must give security, to be approved by the Board of Trade. Then the Board of Trade was to have power, subject to the opinion of the Court, to reject the trustee chosen by the creditors, if it appeared that the creditors voting at the meeting at which he was chosen had acted in bad faith, or if the person chosen were unfit to act as trustee, or had shown partiality. If the creditors appointed no trustee, the Board of Trade was to appoint one; and if the creditors did not appoint a Committee of Inspection, then the Board of Trade might exercise the powers of a Committee. The costs of all solicitors, and the charges of all managers, accountants, auctioneers, brokers, and other persons acting professionally in a bankruptcy, were to be taxed, and the accounts of the trustee were to be audited by the Board of

  945
  Trade. All balances were to be paid into the Bank of England, or into a country bank, authorized by the Board of Trade, unless, for special reasons, power was given to retain the whole or part of any balance; and, besides these provisions, the Board of Trade was to exercise over the trustee general powers of superintendence and inquiry. He thought he had stated the provisions of the Bill sufficiently to show their Lordships that it proposed a reform likely to be very beneficial in the Law of Bankruptcy. The most novel feature in that proposal was giving the superintendence of a bankruptcy to the Board of Trade, which possessed this advantage—that it entrusted the administration of bankrupts' estates to a public officer, who would be answerable to Parliament, who would have a sufficient staff for the purpose, and who was incapable of being actuated by partial or interested motives. He believed that the Bill, as a whole, was approved by the mercantile community. It had been passed through the House of Commons with great care and great skill; and he hoped it would commend itself to their Lordships. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmerely wished to say a few words respecting the introduction of the Bill into their Lordships' House at this period of the Session. He thought that the introduction of such a Bill at such a time was a practice against which their Lordships should enter their protest; and if he had observed that there had been any disposition on the part of the House to differ from the principle of the Bill, he would have been inclined to suggest that they should take even some stronger action. They had, besides the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, nine Law Lords in the House; but he observed only one present in addition to the Lord Chancellor. He took it that the silence of that noble and learned Lord meant consent to the second reading, and that the opinion of the very strong body of Legal Authorities, which it was the pride of the House to possess, was in harmony with the proposals and provisions of the Bill. The question of the Bankruptcy Law had been before their
  946
  Lordships more than once, and both sides of the House had had their share of legislation upon it. He believed it would be generally admitted that the noble Earl was correct when he said that the consideration given to the Bill in the other House had been most careful and exhaustive; and, therefore, notwithstanding the somewhat scandalous time at which the Bill appeared in their Lordships' House, he would not oppose the second reading.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must complain of the mode in which the House had been treated. His opinion was that the discredit cast upon the House was as nothing compared with the public injury caused by withholding from so large a number of eminent Legal Authorities as had seats in that House the opportunity of bringing their great knowledge and long experience on the Bench to bear on the measure, and so making it more perfect in its details. The noble Leader of the House had, on several occasions, declared, no doubt with sincerity, the deep interest which he felt in the honour and credit of that House. He (Earl Fortescue) would be sorry to believe that his noble Kinsman, after all his services to the Liberal Party, had less influence in the Cabinet than his right hon. Colleague in the other House, who had made no secret of his contempt for their Lordships' House, or even for Royalty itself. He, therefore, believed that the Prime Minister himself had thrown his strong authority into the scale, and had deliberately kept back from this House the many important measures which had been crowding into it during the last week or so. The House had on various occasions, and, he believed, with the approval of the country, set itself in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman. Their Lordships would remember that they appointed a Committee to inquire into what they believed was the injustice perpetrated in many instances on landowners under the Irish Land Act. The Prime Minister then induced the House of Commons to pass a Vote of Censure on their Lordships for so doing, after having wasted a week in the discussion; and the only result was that the Vote of Censure was never mentioned by any Member of either Party without a smile—in fact, it fell dead upon the country. Their Lordships had not been forgiven the

  947
  obstacles they had placed in the right hon. Gentleman's way; and the consequence was that a number of important measures were brought up to a certain stage in the House of Commons, and none of them were finished in time for convenient consideration by their Lordships' House. During the 40 years he had sat in Parliament he had seen several Bankruptcy Bills passed, and many more brought in by different Governments. The question was confessedly one of great difficulty as well as importance. But, at the present moment, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack was the one Law Lord who was here to initiate, carry on, and close the discussion on this Bill, with regard to which the judicial experience and high legal knowledge of the other Law Lords would have been of the greatest advantage.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that what he objected to, as to this Bill, was that it had been too little discussed. A Bankruptcy Bill, in 1832, had been brought in by his noble Relative, when Attorney General, and he had been much blamed in reference to it, and it had been greatly altered since; and yet it inaugurated a far better system than previously was administered by Commissioners of Bankruptcy. In order to obtain full discussion, he would remind their Lordships that it was in their Lordships' power to adjourn the consideration of the Bill to any period they might think fit.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that, as he had been appealed to as one of the Law Lords, he wished to say that the Bill had only reached him at 1 o'clock that day; and he could not, on such short notice, take upon himself the responsibility of criticizing its provisions. He thought it was extremely unreasonable to ask the House to read the Bill now. He felt himself in some degree humiliated in being asked to assent to the second reading of the most important Bill that had come down to their Lordships' House this Session, and which affected the interests of the whole community, without having had an opportunity of considering its principles. What seemed to be the main principle of the Bill was one of a perfectly novel character—namely, the transference of the superintendence from the creditors to the Board of Trade. There was no doubt that some alteration was necessary, and it was very likely that this would prove a very efficient
  948
  measure; but he must say that none of them there—unless, perhaps, those who had followed the debate in the Grand Committee of the House of Commons, if those debates had been published—were in a position to pass judgment upon the Bill. Their Lordships were, therefore, placed in this position—either they would be passing a measure with which they were unacquainted, or if they rejected it they might be destroying what would be a very wise and beneficial measure. In the circumstances, he could only agree to the second reading in the hope that if any alterations were necessary to make the Bill acceptable to their Lordships, Amendments would be introduced in Committee with that object.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he would remind their Lordships that some time ago he asked the Government whether this and other Bills, which had been before Grand Committees, could not be brought up and printed, so that they might be considered by their Lordships. If that had been done, there would have been no cause for complaint. He had always protested against the manner in which that House was treated at the end of the Session.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 200.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 200.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  The Queen's consent signified.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD DENMANobjected to its being generally believed that this Bill must pass, without any alteration, by a certain time very close at hand. He thought it might be improved by a free conference between both Houses; and, if no agreement could be come to, he thought there could be no cause for regret if the measure were rejected.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, as a matter of form, he would move that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.)"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?" Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord President.)
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out ("made") and insert ("executed"); page 2, line 1, leave out ("and in") and insert ("In") at the beginning of a new paragraph; line 2, leave out ("such") and insert ("these"), and after ("cases") insert ("the tenant"); line 3, leave out ("a") and insert ("the"), and leave out ("he"); line 4, leave out ("such") and insert ("the"), and after ("improvement") insert ("which he has executed"); Clause 4, page 2, line 40, after ("outlay") insert ("in the said period"); line 41, leave out ("in the said period") and insert ("such annual sums to be recoverable as rent "); Clause 5, page 3, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("contract of tenancy") and insert ("lease"); Clause 6, page 3, in the heading to the clause, leave out ("estimates of") and insert ("compensation for"); page 4, line 16, after ("rates") insert ("interest, monies payable in respect of drainage, premiums of insurance"); Clause 7, page 4, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("Provided always, as regards 22 and 23 of Part III. of the Schedule") and insert ("in the ascertainment of the amount of compensation payable to the tenant in respect of manures"); Clause 25, page 10, after line 15, add as a new paragraph:—
  (Price of entailed land may be applied to improvements and compensation.)
  "The price of any entailed land sold under the provisions of the Entail Acts, where such price is entailed estate within the meaning of those Acts, may he applied by the landlord in respect of the remaining portion of the entailed estate, or in respect of any other estate he-longing to him, and entailed upon the same series of heirs, in payment of any cost incurred by him in pursuance of this Act for executing or paying compensation for any improvement mentioned in the first or second parts of the Schedule hereto, or in discharge of any charge with which the estate is burdened in pursuance of this Act in respect of such improvement;"
  Clause 27, page 10, line 30, leave out ("the landlord's interest") and insert ("interest of the landlord, his executors, administrators, and assignees"); Clause 29, page 11, line 19, leave out ("three") and insert ("two"); line 36, leave out from ("Provided") to ("date") in line 38 inclusive; leave out side note of Clause 29, and insert instead ("Notice of termination of tenancy "); Clause 36, page 14, line 5, after ("specified in") insert ("the"); lines 6 and 7, leave out square brackets and insert ordinary brackets.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, as an Amendment to Clause 2, to add the following as a new paragraph:—
  "Provided that no compensation shall be claimed under this section in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the Amendment quite consistent with the principle of the Bill.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he had objected to the Amendment on the English Bill, and he must oppose it in the case of the present Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he rose to move an Amendment in Clause 4, which he had suggested on the previous day, to the effect that instead of fixing a definite rate of interest to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for money expended on improvements, it should be left open to the landlord to charge such a rate of interest as he would have to pay for the money borrowed. He was himself perfectly content with the 4 per cent interest allowed by the clause; and he would not press the Amendment if the Government thought the clause was better as it stood.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 41, after ("period") insert ("or if he shall have borrowed the outlay or any part thereof at such rate of interest for the sum borrowed as he shall be bound to pay for the same.")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Government thought 3 per cent interest was sufficient; but their Lordships had changed it to 4 per cent. The effect of

  951
  the words proposed by the noble Duke would be to remove any limit to the rate of interest that might be charged, and to enable a landlord to borrow at any rate of interest and charge it upon his tenant. It was, therefore, impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, after the remarks of the noble Lord, he would not press the Amendment; but he should like the House and the country to observe that this was a case where the Government were proposing that one should lend his capital to another man at a lower rate of interest than that at which he could borrow the money, that other person being quite certain that he would receive a very large profit on the money so lent. He could not conceive how such a proposal should be passed by any House in its senses. It was an invasion of all the principles under which men dealt with their own capital, and it would constitute an alarming precedent, which might be extended to other forms of capital. Suppose the landlord wanted to spend his money in a more profitable investment, he would be compelled to see his tenant deriving, perhaps, from 12 to 30 per cent on the money expended on the improvements, while the landlord was losing largely by his money being locked up at a low rate of interest. He thought the objection was rather overstrained, that by his proposal a landlord would be allowed to charge any interest he chose, because he would have to borrow from the Land Improvement Companies, and the rate rarely exceeded 6½ per cent. Many tenants would willingly pay that to have their land properly drained. He had himself tenants quite willing to pay it, because they benefited largely by the transaction; but, as he had said, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  On Motion of The Duke of ARGYLL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 12, after ("may") insert ("in terms of the lease or otherwise ").
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Pour o'clock.