Lords Sitting of 28 July 1887

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Viscount Leinster (Duke of Leinster), after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision* (102); Escheat (Procedure)" (193); Secretary for Scotland Act (1885) Amendment* (194): Trinidad and Tobago * (195); Adulteration* (199).
Second Reading—Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation (155).
Committee—Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment* (159–196).
Committee—Report—Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (185).
Report—First Offenders (182–197).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Open Spaces Acts Extension* (190) now Open Spaces; Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) * (172), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Tramways (No. 1) (181); Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c.) (163).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BALLYSHANNON, &c.) BILL.—(No. 163.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Order made on the 3rd day of March last, 'That no Provisional Order Con-

279
firmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 1st day of July next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read a second time."—(The Lord President.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)called attention to the late period of the Session, and declared that it was important that such a measure as this should be dealt with at an earlier date. The Bill was brought up on the 11th July, but no effort had been made to pass it until now. He would impress upon the noble Viscount the necessity of dealing with these Bills as soon as possible.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that he was not responsible for the delay which had occurred. He had only moved the second reading on behalf of his noble Friend (Earl Cadogan)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS COMPENSATION BILL.—(No. 155.)
(The End of Winchilsea.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that an apology was due to their Lordships for his thus early intervening in their Lordships' debates. He hoped, however, that an excuse for him would be found in the fact that, in common with his hon. Friend Sir Edward Birkbeck, he was responsible for the Bill in the House of Commons; and as the Bill and himself reached their Lordships' House on the same date, he could not refuse the request of his hon. Friend to take charge of it. The Bill was a very simple one; but he would like, with their Lordships' permission, to say a few words with, regard to its scope, its necessity, and the machinery by which they hoped to carry its objects into effect. Their Lordships would observe that the provision of allotments was not within the scope of the present Bill. He desired to express the satisfaction with which he remembered that their Lordships had lately agreed to the second reading of a Bill brought in by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven),
280
and that the Government had lately in "another place" introduced a Bill almost exactly upon the lines of one which he had the honour to introduce last Session. As he had said, he remembered that with satisfaction, because it manifested the interest which their Lordships took in the subject. When this question was first mooted, he called together the delegates of the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, who were elected by the labourers, to confer with him as their Member, and from their experience they pointed out cases in which very great hardship had occurred. In some of these cases weekly tenants had been turned out of their allotments at seven days' notice, just before the harvest, thereby losing crops varying in value from £4 to £4 10 s. Exactly the same experience was reported to Sir Edward Birkbeck in Norfolk. The artizans of Nottingham, to the number of 1,600, were also allotment holders, and were extremely interested in the success and the passing of this Bill. With regard to the machinery by which they proposed to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the first essential present to their minds was that it must be cheap. The sum in dispute being so small, it was absolutely necessary that any valuation which might be come to should cost so little that it would not make any appreciable reduction on the sum to be received by the outgoing tenant. The idea struck him at the time that it might be possible to get it done for nothing. He recollected—and he believed their Lordships would bear him out—that it was said there were only two classes in the community who worked for nothing—namely, magistrates and Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament had now so many onerous duties cast upon them that they could not be expected to give much time to such a matter as this. The analogy at once struck him of the public footpaths, which were ordered to be closed occasionally after being inspected by two magistrates. The framers of the Bill had often been asked why magistrates had been selected as the class from which arbitrators should be drawn. The simple answer was that they were the only people who were likely to give their services gratuitously. He, therefore, ventured to express a hope that their Lordships would not only give a second reading to the Bill, but

281
that, unless urged by very serious considerations, he might suggest to their Lordships that they might do so without any amendment. He fully admitted the right of their Lordships to amend either that or any other Bill at their discretion; but he desired to point out a circumstance which ought to be known to them. The self-styled champions of the rights of tenants in Ireland in the House of Commons persistently blocked that obviously simple measure of tenant right as often as he introduced it, and it was only by a ruse that they obtained a second reading on a Wednesday afternoon, he commended that consideration especially to two noble Lords opposite, who were identified politically with that Party. But as he was sure that their Lordships did not wish to play into their hands and give them another opportunity of wrecking the Bill, he trusted that no Amendment would be introduced in Committee, which would have the effect of returning the Bill again to the House of Commons. He had, he hoped, shown at not too much length what was the scope of the Bill. He had shown how simple, and yet how adequate, was the machinery by which they hoped to carry it into effect, and the necessity which had been proved to exist for its provisions. He had been told that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) intended to move the rejection of the Bill; but he confessed that he was at a loss to know upon what grounds. If it was upon the ground that it was an interferences with the freedom of contract, he would remind their Lordships that, especially in modern times, many contracts had been considered to be contrary to public policy, and as such had not been enforced by the Legislature, and that that had been especially the case where Parliament had had reason to suppose that one of the two parties to a contract was not precisely in the position of a free agent. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord intended to oppose the Bill as an interference with the rights of property, he owned that he should be still more astonished. He contended that the Bill was, in the highest sense, a Bill to prevent the confiscation of property. It was a matter of how they denned the word "property." Surely they should not be told that that alone was property which descended to them
282
from their ancestors, whilst that was not property at all which they created by their own manual labour and exertions. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), in the eloquent speech which he addressed to their Lordships on the occasion of the second reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, claimed the right of the labourers of this country to combine in order to protect, and, if necessary, to raise the price of their labour. Nay, their Lordships had gone further, and had admitted, by passing the Allotments Bill of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Dunraven), the right of labourers to be provided with a field for the employment of their spare capital—namely, their spare labour. Surely, therefore, it followed that it was still more the duty of the Legislature to protect from confiscation what was actually labour in its concrete form. He therefore asked them to read the Bill a second time, in the firm conviction that it was a simple, a just, a necessary, and an adequate measure. He felt sure that by doing so they would express their sympathy for, and their determination to protect, the form of property—for he adhered to the word "property"—which resulted from an industrious desire on the part of the labouring classes of this country to attain to an honest independence.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,"—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
LORD BRAMWELL, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, that he spoke with considerable reserve in the presence of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Onslow), who knew so much more about the question than he did. But he had a justification in the opinion of a noble Lord (Lord Tollemaehe), whose authority on the subject would be recognized, and who had written to him a letter in which he expressed his opinion that the Bill would deter many landowners from granting allotments, and his hype that the Bill might at least be postponed until the provisions of the Government measure were before their Lordships. It was not with any ill-feeling towards allotments that he moved the rejection of the Bill; he was in favour of granting allotments—they were both profitable and agreeable to those who had them,

283
and made them feel that property in land was for their benefit as well as for that of others. But this Bill, he believed, would operate against the object of the promoters of it. At present nobody was under any obligation to give an allotment. The effect of the 5th clause of the Bill was that no one should grant an allotment at all unless he granted it on the terms specified in the clause. Were their Lordships prepared to pass a Bill which said that no allotments should be granted except on particular terms, when it was absolutely certain that many persons would object to those terms? Another mischief about this provision was that it was a direct invitation to dishonesty. A man who had entered into a bargain that he would observe certain terms and conditions and would exact no others was by a provision, of this sort invited, after he had had the benefit of his bargain, to depart from it, and to get out of the person with whom: he had contracted more than had been stipulated for. The argument brought forward by the noble Earl was that tins was only an extension of the principle which was put in operation by the Agricultural Holdings Act. He strenuously I opposed that Act when it was before their Lordships' House. Moreover, it was a fallacy to say what was continually being stated—namely, that one exception from a general rule was a warrant for another. That was not so, for every exception from a general rule must be justified by the circumstances of that particular case. He maintained that there was no valid reason for making this particular case an exception to the general rule. He submitted to their Lordships that the clauses of the Bill were very objectionable; but the fundamental error of the measure was in providing that unless allotments were granted on certain terms they should not be granted at all. The second error of the Bill was that it offered a direct inducement to fraud; and, further, the clauses were unreasonable in themselves, and held out to anyone who was unwise enough to grant allotments such a possibility of litigation that any prudent man would be disposed to say—" I will have nothing to do with granting allotments on these terms." With no desire to oppose the granting of allotments, which he hoped would be granted more numerously, he begged to move that
284
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 Lord Bramwell.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), on the ground he had given that a Government Billon the subject had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, he was sure, would not make any apology for moving his Amendment, seeing that he always proposed Amendments to almost every Bill of any kind in that House. He said, in justification of the course he took, that he had received a letter from some noble Lord in that House saying that it would he possible for his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill to postpone the second reading until the Government had announced their intention, which he said they were going to do next Monday. But, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government had already fully explained their Bill, and he regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not been acquainted with the fact. Had the noble and learned Lord not read the explanation given by the President of the Local Government Board? If he had, he would have seen that Mr. Ritchie, in explaining the provisions of the Bill, explained why provisions with reference to compensation were not included. The reason why there was no provision for compensation was that such provision was contained in the very Bill which was now before the House for second reading, and Mr. Ritchie then said he hoped this Bill would pass. Mr. Ritchie said that compensation for outgoing tenants was to be left to the promoters of this Bill, which he hoped might become law. He (the Earl of Dunraven) submitted to their Lordships that if they rejected this Bill they would be rejecting what was practically a portion of the Government Bill which would have been included if it had not been already contained in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) went more largely into matters of detail than was usual on the question of second reading, and he did

285
not propose to follow him into these matters of detail; but he would refer to his objection that the consent of the landlord should be made in writing. He asked what was to happen in cases where the consent of the landlord had been made, but not in writing. That seemed to be a somewhat frivolous objection, and he almost expected him to ask what was to happen in cases where landlords did not know how to write. The noble and learned Lord said the provisions in Clause 5 were a distinct incentive to dishonesty and fraud. He could not see how the contention was to be made out. The noble, and learned Lord did not show any proof of his proposition. All that Clause 5 did was to prevent what was scarcely too harsh a word to describe as dishonesty on the part of some landlords. The object of the Bill was to prevent landlords doing what 99 out of 100 landlords never dreamt of doing, and that was to refuse reasonable compensation for certain improvements, such as drainage, &c. The noble and learned Lord said there was a good deal of difference between the present case and the case of tenant farmers affected by the Agricultural Holdings Act. But if it was necessary to protect tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act, he thought there was à fortiori very strong need for protection of the class of men who cultivated those small allotments, and whoso ease this Bill provided for. The objection of the noble and learned Lord seemed to be scarcely worthy of the attention of the House. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading of the Bill, not only on account of the value of the measure itself, but because it practically formed part of the Bill in the other House of Parliament in the hands of the Government.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he was greatly in favour of allotments, but he was not sure that both in the Bill now before their Lordships, and also in the Government Bill, a little too much was not done by compulsion as regarded both landlord and tenant. In his opinion they legislated a little too much in making everything compulsory, and leaving nothing to be done by agreement. He objected also to the proposals for setting aside contracts, as they seemed to be now a prominent feature of all land legislation. Another point was that there were two Bills on the
286
same subject. It was sometimes difficult enough to interpret one Act, and it was unreasonable that there should be two on the same subject. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but for the reasons he had stated he could not give it hearty support.
LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, that, as he had charge of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, in its passage through the other House, he was glad to hear the noble Duke who had just sat down say that, notwithstanding his objection to this Bill, he was not going to vote against it. The Bill was supplementary to the Agricutural Holdings Act, 18S3, and extended the right to compensation to a class of persons who were not included in that Act—namely, persons who occupied small plots of land for a shorter period than one whole year. The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, excluded persons who held less than two acres from the benefits of compensation; but the Act of 1883, which repealed that of 1875, extended to persons holding not more than two acres, provided they held for a terra of not less than one year. This Bill extended the benefits of the Act to persons who hold for less than that period. This extension was consistent with justice and common sense, if it We re assumed that the Act of 1883 was consistent with justice and common sense. This Bill gave compensation not only to a new class of persons, but gave it for certain things not included in the Act of 1883, such as labour and unbought manures. He would remind their Lordships that under the Act of 3883 no person was allowed to contract himself out of the provisions of that measure; and, therefore, they ought to give the humbler class of tenants similar protection by means of this Bill.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not consent to pass a measure containing a clause intended to facilitate the violation of contract. No subject had been so prolific of delusion as that of allotments. The question had at one time even led to a change of Government, and the unhappy author of the Amendment in the House of Commons which, restored Mr. Gladstone to Office was after wards ungratefully referred to by him as "a certain Mr. Jesse Collings." It had been shown that nearly three-fourths of

287
the agricultural labourers in the country were in occupation of allotments or of cottage gardens of about a quarter of an acre. He had had personal experience on the subject, inasmuch as more than 40 years ago he had been consulted by his father, about arrangements to supply allotments as close as possible to the different hamlets near his residence, and at the end 10 years it was found that nearly all of a special set of 15 allotments particularly close to the cottages for which they had been provided had passed into the hands of one man; while at the end of 20 years all the plots had been voluntarily surrendered by the holders on the ground that they were rather an incumbrance than an advantage to them. If there was a subject upon which more cant was preached about the country than another it was upon this question of allotments. When the multiplicity of Statutes had been so fully recognized as an evil that we were constantly having Bills passed, and more brought in for their consolidation and codification on, different subjects, the introduction of two separate measures this Session on the small question of allotments, instead of one dealing with the whole of it, rendered it, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the particular Bill, a distinctly retrogade piece of legislation, especially as Parliament had already been considering more than one measure dealing with the subject this Session.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that if anything in the world would tend to increase the misrepresentations and delusions existing with reference to the subject of allotments, which had been denounced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), it would be the hasty rejection of this measure on such grounds as those put foward by him. Their Lordships had, rightly or wrongly, passed the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill, which concerned the tenant farmers, and which contained a clause which prohibited them from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the measure, and it was now proposed to reject a provision which was intended to protect in the same way the poorer classes of agricultural tenants. The other Bill was not before their Lordships, and they ought to consider the present measure on its own merits, without reference to
288
the other Bill. The suggestions of the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment were worthy of consideration in Committee; but they gave no ground for rejecting the Bill on the second reading. On the whole, it appeared to him that their Lordships would do well, when a Bill was presented to them with a good and a just object, to give it a second loading, oven if its provisions were imperfect.
EARL BROWNLOWsaid, he was willing to admit that since the time of the Agricultural Holdings Act there had been no great agitation on the part of allotment holders for a measure of this sort; but it was the function of their Lordships to mete out just and even handed legislation to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. After the Agricultural Holdings Act, which dealt with the tenant farmer, Her Majesty's Government thought they were faking a perfectly consistent course in legislating for the labourer. The noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill was, no doubt, perfectly consistent in the course he had taken; but he thought their Lordships would incur a grave charge of inconsistency if they refused to allotment holders an advantage which a few years ago they conferred on tenant farmers. The noble and learned Lord had raised an objection as to the power proposed to be given to the magistrates in Petty Sessions to appoint an arbitrator. He admitted there might be certain objections to that; but when he came to look round he really did not see any other body which would fulfil the duty better. The Land Commission and the Boards of Guardians had both been suggested; but the former body could not have the necessary local knowledge, and there were many objections which might be urged against Boards of Guardians. He wished to support the second reading of this Bill, not only as representing Her Majesty's Government, but also as the landlord of a very large number of allotments. He firmly believed the Bill would be a boon both to landlords and tenants, and he trusted that their Lordships would give it a second reading, and, if the noble and learned Lord should press his Amendment to a Division, that they would express their opinion by a majority sufficient to show their sympathy with, a hard working and deserving class. The two Bills now be-

289
fore Parliament We re entirely separate, and dealt with quite different subjects.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the I Bills were not entirely separate, because Mr. Ritchie had stated that the reason why the question of compensation was not included in the Government Bill was because of the measure now under consideration. He, however, rose for the purpose of asking his noble and learned Friend to rest satisfied with the debate that had taken place, and not to press his Motion to a Division. There was one argument used by the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) against which he wished to protest—namely, that because in some former Bill—the Agricultural Holdings Act—they had legislated in this direction for a superior class of tenants, they should for the sake of consistency road this Bill a second time. Did the noble and learned Earl mean that those who had opposed this principle in the Agricultural Holdings Act in every way in their power were now to withhold their opposition? In opposing measures of this sort they were righting for the principle of freedom and liberty of contract. In the circumstances, however, he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, with the view of renewing the opposition on the third reading, if the Bill had not been amended satisfactorily in Committee.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that a good deal of loose language was used when legislation which was said to interfere with the freedom of contract was spoken of as introducing some principle unknown to the law of the land in former times. Any two persons were perfectly at liberty to come to terms and make any agreement they pleased; but the question was, what was the agreement the community would enforce? The Legislature determined that there were certain agreements which were opposed to public policy and expediency, and that the force and power of the community should not be used for the purpose of compelling obedience to them. That was a matter as old as the Common Law itself. He was afraid there was too much of a disposition in some quarters to raise this kind of interference with freedom of contract into a sort of fetish, as if it were a modern principle, unknown to the law in former times. It had always been the law, so far as he
290
knew, that contracts which were contrary to what was called public policy could not he enforced by the State. In the case of the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a question of public policy or expediency, and in the present instance also it seemed to him that a question of expediency arose; and it was just as competent for Parliament as for the Courts of Justice to say whether, in their view, certain contracts were contrary to public policy.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that the Bill had his warmest and most hearty support. It was a perfect farce to increase the number of allotments in England if it were not insured to the labourers who rented the allotments that the fruits of their labour should not be arbitrarily taken away. As to the expediency of dealing with the question in more than one measure, the exigency of the case required it. The Bill before their Lordships had passed through the other House of Parliament before the Government Bill was introduced, and it would have been both, improper and inconvenient to incorporate its provisions in the Bill of the Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that the Bill before the House should be taken on its merits, and not because it was connected with any other Bill. He entirely agreed with the main objects of the measure before the House; but he doubted whether its provisions were well adapted to carry out those objects. The measure ought to harmonize as much as possible with the customs of the country. He agreed with very much which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord and the noble Duke.
LORD TOLLEMACHEsaid, he wished to associate himself with other landlords, I and, like many of them, he had taken a great interest for many years in the allotment question. He had also, like other landlords, had a good deal of experience in allotments. With regard to the Bill now before the House, upon the the face of it he thought it was perfectly right and just; but he feared that practically it would have the effect of deterring many landlords from granting allotments. If allotments were granted, he had remarked that the voluntary principle answered a great deal the best.

291
But he had also felt, and avowed his opinion frequently, that there were certain cases in which compulsion was required, he also believed that if compulsory powers which could be easily carried out were contained in Acts of Parliament they would very seldom have to be exercised, because if landlords knew that if they did not give allotments they could be compelled to do so, there would be very few estates without abundance of allotments. Although he very much feared that this Bill would have the effect of deterring people from giving allotments, still, as the House was evidently in favour of the measure, and as probably his noble and learned Friend, if he divided, would be left in a very small minority, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No, 182.)
(The Karl of Belmore.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 6 (Act not to apply to Ireland).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving to omit Clause 6, said, this was a humane measure which ought to apply to Ireland no less than to England. It had been said that Ireland had been excluded because certain Representatives of that country opposed its inclusion. As far as he could ascertain, however, the leading Followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork viewed the measure with approval. The only reason which was given for the opposition of certain Members to the proposal to extend the Bill to Ireland was that they objected to any legislation for Ireland by the Imperial Parliament. As one who was ardently attached to the Union, and who looked upon it as the hope and salvation of Ireland, he urged their Lordships to disregard this reason. He held that it could not be countenanced for a moment.
Moved, "To leave out Clause 6."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that as to the subject-matter of the Bill the position of the countries was identical, and he also saw no reason why the provisions of the Bill should not be applied to Ireland.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that in regard to this Bill he represented an absent Peer who had charge of it. He could not appreciate the reasons which induced the House of Commons to exclude Ireland from the Bill; but he could not take the responsibility of any change, in the present stage, which might possibly endanger its success.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that there did not exist in Ireland the same confidence in those who administered the law which happily existed in England, and it was thought that the power of nominating a person to whom the offender was from time to time to report himself would lead to hardships. He could not help thinking that that was what had led to the desire that Ireland should be excluded from the Bill. He did not put forward that argument himself, nor did he think it was well-founded, and the Bill in its earlier form was quite different from that which was now before the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL(Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that at this late period of the Session the Amendments already introduced would endanger the Bill, and he saw no reason why the Amendment should not be added.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that if the Bill had retained its original form he should not have moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 197.)

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) to postpone the second reading of this Bill. The measure had passed through the House of Commons much more rapidly than wag

293
expected. There were many persons in Scotland who took a deep interest in the subject, and further time was desired for consideration of the measure. He, therefore, hoped his noble Friend would not press it to-day, but would consent to its postponement for a week.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he wished to join in the appeal, because there was a great deal of opposition to the Bill.
LORD BRAMWELL: Naturally!
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had just stated the strongest argument he could against his acceding to the request that had been made. He admitted, however, that there had not been much time since the Bill was introduced into this House, and, in the circumstances, he did not think he would be justified in refusing to postpone it. He was bound to take into consideration the fact that the Bill had been supported by a very large proportion of the Scottish Representatives in the other House, only seven of whom had opposed it. He did not hold extreme views on this subject; but, at the same time, he thought their Lordships were bound to keep abreast of public opinion in the matter. He was perfectly ready to hear anything that might be advanced against the Bill between this and next Thursday, and, on that understanding, he was quite prepared to postpone the second reading until that day.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

HIGH SHERIFFS.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in rising to move—
" That, in the opinion of this House, it is unjust and also inexpedient to continue to compel individuals to discharge the duties and office of high sheriff at their own expense; and, further, that the reasons which formerly made it desirable that the high sheriff should he possessed of sufficient land within the county to answer to the Crown and to the people have now ceased to exist,"
said, the grievance was real and substantial; and he believed there was a general feeling in their Lordships' House in favour of his Motion. Considering the circumstances attending the possession of property in recent years it was high time that this subject was put before Parliament. Their Lord-
294
ships were so fully acquainted with the duties of High Sheriffs that it was needless for him to enumerate them. The office was one of high antiquity, and used, at one time, to be of considerable value. At the present day there was not a single High Sheriff who, on being appointed to the office, knew what his duties were, or who, if he know them, was competent to perform the greater part of them. Many of his duties were discharged, at the present time, by the Under Sheriff. The duties of a High Sheriff at the present day were practically limited to attending the Judges at the Assizes and presiding at elections of Members of Parliament. It might perhaps be considered by some persons that the duty of attending upon the Judges was a trivial matter, but he believed it was a duty which was especially burdensome. The cost to the Sheriff was seldom less than £400, and in one or two cases—as in the County of York—it had amounted to nearly £2,000. Again, if a Sheriff were so unlucky as to hold the office when a General Election took place, he had to incur considerable additional expense. Referring to the mode in which Sheriffs were selected, he expressed his belief that many of the excuses which were submitted were of the most sorrowful and mournful character. In his opinion, it was wrong that individuals should be called upon to make very unpleasant and minute statements with regard to their private affairs. In conclusion, the noble Earl formally moved his Resolution.
Moved to resolve—
" That, in the opinion of this House, it is unjust and also inexpedient to continue to compel individuals to discharge the duties and office of high sheriff at their own expense; and, further, that the reasons which formerly made it desirable that the high sheriff should be possessed of sufficient land within the county to answer to the Crown and to the people have now ceased to exist."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, it was very natural that the noble Earl should have brought this subject before their Lordships, who were disinterested spectators of those who served the office of High Sheriff in different parts of the country. No one could become cognizant of the excuses sent by gentlemen with respect to their property, their age, and the circumstances in which they were

295
placed without being shocked by the fact that men should be driven to reveal all those circumstances in order to excuse themselves from a gratuitous office, and an onerous office, undertaken for the benefit of the public at large. At the same time it was a great office, and an office of great antiquity, and in some cases it was a coveted honour, and when hereditary in Westmorland. The Shrievalty was regarded as one of the chief dignities of the county. The honour then was not burdensome, as the population was small, and the duties light. But it was a different thing in other and specially neighbouring ones. Why, for instance, should a man be appointed against his will to be High Sheriff of Lancashire? He would have to conduct 29 elections, and would, in consequence, be put to great expense. Then he would have to attend the Judges, and it should be remembered that Assizes were now held much move frequently than in days gone by. In Yorkshire, again, the High Sheriff had to make arrangements for the elections in all the three Ridings. He did, however, not think it would be convenient in the then condition of their Lordships' House, so few Members being present, that they should vote the condemnation of the Shrievalty system which had existed since the reign of Edward II., and probably much earlier. He would therefore suggest that his noble Friend should at the beginning of next Session move for a Committee to inquire into the question of the Shrievalty of counties and all matters connected with it. His own Predecessor in Office (Earl Spencer) sent a circular, in 1882, to all the Sheriffs in the country asking confidentially for a return of the expense to which they were put. A large number made a return, though many neglected to do so, and from that return he could state generally how extremely burdensome this office was to some people. He thought, however, that of late years the excuses offered by persons placed on the list were fewer; and the reason of that was that the High Sheriff had in recent years been more careful to select those persons who were best able to serve. On the whole, he did not think that any more adequate means of selecting gentlemen connected with counties could be devised than that at present in vogue.
296
The Sheriff sent his list to the Judges, and those lists were circulated when the three gentlemen were selected. Then the time came when the excuses were fairly considered, and, as far as he knew, in most instances where they were reasonable they were allowed. He ventured to suggest to his noble Friend that he should not now proceed to carry a Resolution so peremptory and decisive; but he felt so strongly that he had made out a case for investigation, that he thought it very desirable that there should be a Committee to take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the Shrievalty.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was inclined to think that the expense was very much within the control of the Sheriffs themselves. They might perform the duties of the office expensively or not, as they thought fit. He thought it was extremely probable that the two most expensive counties were Lancashire and Yorkshire, and yet he was absolutely certain that the greatest regret would be felt in both those counties if this Resolution were carried into effect. For in those two counties there were numbers of wealthy persons desirous of the office; in fact, he doubted very much whether this Resolution, if carried, would not create greater displeasure than pleasure, He hoped their Lordships would remember that this was a most important office, in that the High Sheriff was responsible for carrying into effect the sentences of the Courts of Assize and had other most responsible duties to perform. More than that, he took precedence of the Lord Lieutenant and of everyone in the county, with the exception, of course, of Royalty and those who represented the Queen—the Judges—and that was very pleasing to the minds of many who filled the office. It was part of the Constitutional Law of this country that every man was bound to render service to the State according to his means and abilities—and gratuitously. Men must take upon themselves the office of constable, guardians of the poor, and jurors, and without payment; and why should gentlemen—men of property—not be called upon to render service to the Queen? He had, during his time on Circuit, met over 200 High Sheriffs, and he had always received the greatest kindness and courtesy from them. It perhaps might be thought

297
that he had got some liking for High Sheriffs on account of the dignity they were supposed to add to the state of the Judges of Assize. For his part he owned, though he was in a minority among his brethren, that he did not think the dignity of Her Majesty's Judges was augmented by the attendance of the High Sheriff at the Assizes. With regard to this Motion there were two things which he desired to impress upon the House—first, that the expense and trouble to which High Sheriffs were put were not so great as was ordinarily supposed; and, secondly that the office of High Sheriff was in itself an object of desire, and ambition to many persons, and that its gratuitous performance was in accordance with the ordinary law of the country, by which all individuals were bound to render certain services to the State without fee or reward.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)was only anxious to say that if the question raised by the noble Earl was to be decided that night upon his Motion there was a great deal against it in the arguments of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. But as the question was to be referred to a Committee everything the noble and learned Lord had said was in aid of such an inquiry. It could not be denied that exceptional responsibilities had been laid upon those who were selected to serve the office of High Sheriff. We had multiplied the number of circuits and had greatly added to the number of elections in each county. Further, every Judge who went down to the country to try Election Petitions was received by the Sheriff with the same state as if he were on Assize. But in the same proportion as both the trouble and expense of the office had been increased had its dignity been diminished. They had withdrawn from the office of Sheriff a great deal that formerly constituted its dignity. He did not deny that there were many persons who still coveted the office; but when the noble and learned Lord justified the continuance of the office in its present form as being one of those services which every individual was bound to render gratuitously to the State, and referred to the office of constable as another example, he was bound to say that the illustration was a little unfortunate. The existence of the Metropolitan Police and of the police throughout
298
the country was altogether inconsistent with adherence to the principle to which the noble and learned Lord had referred. If in these days they trusted the performance of the office of constable solely to those who were bound to perform it gratuitously he was afraid that the peace would not be well preserved. Modern times had caused changes to be made which went to affirm the proposition that an inquiry should be made into what were alleged to be serious grievances with regard to the performance of the office of Sheriff. He was of opinion that Sheriffs were not always the best informed as to what their expenses were; for instance, certain allowances were made from the Treasury, and it had been the custom for the Under Sheriffs to appropriate a certain amount of these emoluments as their perquisites. It would, he thought, be for the interest of High Sheriffs that they should inquire a little into these matters. In his opinion, the noble Earl had performed a good work by bringing this subject forward.
LORD HARLECHsaid, he fully concurred in what had been said as to the hardship of being compelled to serve this office. On one occasion he had the misfortune to be made High Sheriff in the year that a General Election took place. He was desirous of standing for his county, but through being returning officer and being unable to find anyone else to undertake the post he was unable to become a candidate.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the proposal of the noble Viscount opposite was an exceedingly good one, and he thought would be extremely useful. Whatever view might be taken as to the expediency of retaining the office of Sheriff he could not think that there was any justification in principle for adding to its burdens. Owing to electoral changes the office of High Sheriff had become much more burdensome, and he did not see why the expense of changes which were thought desirable in the public interest should be thrown upon the High Sheriffs. Whatever view might be entertained as to the general question, great good would be done by an investigation into the present duties and burdens of the office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that although no single fact or state-

299
ment in the Resolution had been questioned in the slightest degree, yet, as the noble Viscount had expressed his determination, he should not divide the House upon the Motion. He must be content with the inquiry which the noble Lord offered, and with the conviction that his Resolution, although not passed, had met with the almost unanimous assent of the House. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 192.)
ESCHEAT (PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for repealing certain enactments relating to escheators and the procedure in cases of escheat; and for regulating the procedure in such cases—Was presented, by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 193.)
SECREATARY FOR SCOTLAND ACT (1885)
  AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885—Was presented by The Marquess of Lothian; read 1a. (No. 194.)
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to unite the colonies of Trinidad and Tobago into one colony—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a. (No. 195.)

  ADULTERATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of adulterated commodities—Was presented by The Earl of Wemyss; read 1a. (No. 199.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.