Lords Sitting of 12 May 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) (72).
Third Reading—Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment* (71), and passed.

BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Order No. 93 be suspended, and that any petitions praying to he hoard against the Bill he received by this House which shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office before throe o'clock in the afternoon on or before Friday the 20th instant.
MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

(No. 72.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a Bill to amend the law with respect to the weighing of cattle in markets and fairs. It was proposed to apply the Bill to all legal markets and fairs in which tolls were for the time being authorized to be taken by any Company, Corporation, or person, every such Company, Corporation, or person being called "the market authority." In every market or fair to which the Bill applied, the market authority should provide and maintain sufficient and proper buildings or places for weighing cattle brought for sale within the market or fair, and should keep therein machines and weights proper for that purpose, and should appoint proper persons to afford the use of such machines to the public for weighing cattle as might be from time to time required. If the market authority failed to comply with the provisions of this section, it should not be lawful for them to demand, receive, or recover any toll whatever in respect of any cattle brought to the market or fair for sale, so long as such failure continued. The cattle were to be weighed at the option of the seller or buyer, and persons appointed by the market authority to weigh cattle sold in the market or fair refusing to weigh cattle, or to give tickets specifying the true weight of the cattle weighed, should

1651
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5. It was unnecessary to take up their Lordships' time by going into details in regard to the Bill; but the question of the weighing of cattle had been for some time under the consideration of agriculturists in this country, and it had been satisfactorily adopted in the United States and elsewhere. During the severe agricultural depression, it had been found that, under the present system, farmers were very often unable to sell their cattle to advantage, and it was very desirable that the buyer and seller, if they wished it, should be able to know what exactly was the weight of the animals that were changing hands. This he could do, if he had the option, for a small toll, of weighing his cattle, as was done in America. The Central Chamber of Agriculture had discussed the matter, and passed a Resolution in favour of a measure of the sort; and the Royal Agricultural Society had determined to offer two prizes for the best machines for weighing cattle. He believed the Bill would be found of a very useful character, though it was not at all ambitious in appearance. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was entirely opposed to the Bill, and hoped that their Lordships would not pass it. It was a proposal to put a duty and burthen on the owners of existing fairs and markets to which they were not liable. It applied to them provisions in the Fairs and Markets Clauses Act which were incorporated in every Bill that passed Parliament for the purpose of establishing a fair or market. When those clauses were so applied, they worked no injustice, because people came to Parliament for powers to establish a fair or market knowing on what terms they could have their market or fair if it was granted, and if they did not like those terms, they could leave the matter alone. But the Bill was to apply to fairs and markets already in existence, and which might have been in existence for 500 years. It would, therefore, impose upon market proprietors a duty to which they were not at present liable. Whether it was to be profitable or not to the person who owned the
1652
market or fair, he had to provide, according to this Bill, sufficient and proper buildings for the weighing of cattle, and machines and weights for this purpose. Was it right that their Lordships should impose that duty on the market proprietor? If this Bill passed, the result might be that it might not be worth while for the proprietor to keep open his market or fair. If providing these machines would be compensated for by the tolls for the use of them, they would be provided without an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, if such machines would not pay their expenses, it would be unfair to put the burden of providing them upon the owner of the market. The Bill would apply to all markets—a fish market and a vegetable market, as well as to a cattle market; and he noticed that cattle included horses, asses, and so on, and why horses and asses required weighing he could not understand. The measure, as the noble Earl had said, though not ambitious, was unreasonable, and therefore he moved its rejection.
EARL SPENCERsaid, the principle of the Bill was of some importance. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had made some criticisms of great force which were well worthy of attention; but he was sure his noble Friend the Earl of Camperdown did not propose that the measure should apply to fish or butter markets. The Bill might be rather of too far a reaching nature in its present shape; and he hoped that, while supporting the second reading, it would be considerably amended in Committee. It was important that Parliament should not throw cold water on the growing desire which was finding expression among intelligent men connected with agriculture, that farmers should sell their cattle by live weight when they used the market. He (Earl Spencer) was strongly in favour of the principle enabling the farmer to adopt that system; because it eliminated one of the elements of uncertainty in the sale of cattle. He knew that many farmers entirely objected to that method, believing that they could judge of the weight of an animal much better than the butcher. But the fact was that the butcher, from his continual experience, was far better able than the farmer to estimate the weight of a live animal. He, therefore, considered it would be an immense advantage to the farmers of

1653
this country, if they fell in with the fashion of weighing their cattle, as was done in America, and by many agriculturists now in this country, who had found how valuable that system was. At the same time, he admitted that that was rather an early day to force such provisions as those contained in the Bill upon the proprietors of every market and fair. At present, the matter was in an experimental stage; but they wished to induce farmers to take it up. He thought it would be rather hard to ask every market, however small, to provide weighing places for cattle. At the same time, when public opinion advanced a little more, it would be found indispensable, he believed, that all large markets, where cattle wore sold, should have the means of weighing the animals. He did not know whether it was possible to modify the Bill in such a manner as to withdraw from it some of the grave difficulties which he could see would be urged against it; but he should be sorry to see the Bill thrown out at the present stage. As far as he was concerned, therefore, while admitting that great difficulties and objections lay in the way, he hoped the Bill would be read a second time, in order that its provisions might be fairly considered by the agricultural world.
EARL NELSONsaid, that, as an instance of the hardship that would ensue upon the carrying out of the measure, he would put before their Lordships the case of a charity school supported by tolls levied on a particular fair. These tolls had fallen in recent years to about £30 a-year. That school would be practically disendowed if, in addition to the small number of cattle sold, the authorities of the fair were obliged to go to the expense of providing weighing machines, or, in default, to lose the tolls of the fair. He did not think the Bill, being merely a tentative measure, ought to touch small fairs at the present time, because great cases of hardship, such as he had shown, might be inflicted.
THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he supported the second reading, and regarded the Bill as a not unreasonable extension of the existing law, which required weighing machines to be provided for all other commodities. It would be quite reasonable that a fee should be imposed for animals weighed.
1654
It would be easy in Committee to protect the owners of the smaller markets.
THE EARL OF JERSEY, in reply to the objections urged by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell), said, he would point out that the Bill was one which might very well be amended in Committee. He (the Earl of Jersey) was the owner of a market himself, and should not object to have the Bill applied to him. A few years ago the Privy Council compelled the owners of markets to pave their markets, and this was only another step in advance. He agreed with the view, that it would be a very good thing if public opinion could be advanced in this direction.
LORD LECONFIELDsaid, he trusted the Bill would be road a second time. Some time ago he sold a number of bullocks to a certain butcher for £19 each; but eight others, for which he was only offered £18 10 s. per head, he retained. Ten days or a fortnight afterwards, he sent those eight bullocks to a Farmers' Supply Association, through whom, curiously enough, they found their way to the same butcher. Those bullocks were sold by live weight, and he realized for each animal £21 19 s. 8d.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso supported the second reading of the Bill. He knew of a market where heavy tolls were taken and no accommodation given of any kind; the open street was the market. In that district a farmer had provided himself with a weighing machine. At present, in the absence of weighing machines, farmers were at a great disadvantage with the butchers.
LORD BALFOUR (LORD in WAITING)said, he was authorized by the Local Government Board to ask their Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time, very much on the grounds mentioned by the noble Earl on the Bench opposite (Earl Spencer). At the same time it must be understood that it is not intended, by reading the Bill a second time, to approve of all the provisions it contained, or to go the whole length that it would go if it were passed exactly as it stood. There was no doubt whatever there were great complaints on the part of farmers and others connected with agriculture that they did not get the full value of their fat stock —for this reason, that those who bought

1655
from them had greater experience than they in estimating the weight of the cattle, and were apt to overreach—ho used the word in no bad sense —and sometimes to take advantage of thorn. There was, at the same time, a growing public opinion among those interested in agriculture in favour of buying and selling more by live weight than had been the practice in the past. It would, therefore, be very undesirable if this House by its action were to do anything to prejudice the question or retard the advance of public opinion in that direction. He did not think the House was prepared to go the whole length that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) had gone in his opposition to the Bill; because it would not be reasonable that market proprietors should have the power to say that there should be no change. In asking the House to assent to the second reading, he would, at the same time, ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) if he would be good enough to postpone the Committee stage for some time, in order to afford some opportunity for the consideration of its provisions. He would also suggest to him whether, for this year, his purpose would not be served by this discussion, and by the Bill being read a second time. He was informed that there was to be a Commission shortly to consider the whole question of markets and tolls, and, perhaps, it was desirable that the Legislature should allow the question to stand over until the Commission had examined the matter, and reported upon it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in reply, said, he hoped the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) would, upon further consideration, take a more favourable view of his proposals, and not push his opposition so far as to ask their Lordships not to road the Bill a second time. Nothing like confiscation of any rights was contemplated, and the proprietors of fairs and markets would be empowered to charge proper tolls for the accommodation afforded. With regard to what had been said by the noble Lord opposite, he readily admitted that the Bill, as it stood now, applying to all markets and fairs, was too wide; but if were thought desirable, small fairs and markets could be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, and he was perfectly willing, before going into Com-
1656
mittee, to introduce words to exclude from its scope certain small fairs, which a charge of even £25 or £30 would probably kill. Such exemptions were, perhaps, specially necessary in regard to small fairs and markets in Ireland; but he understood that, in Dublin, the principle of the Bill was already in operation, and worked satisfactorily. In regard to postponing the Committee stage, he could not see the advantage of waiting until such time as the Commission which was not yet appointed had reported; but he was quite prepared to postpone the Committee stage for some weeks, at all events, in order to give agriculturists throughout the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to the measure.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that, having regard to the general current of the discussion, he should not persevere in his opposition to the second reading; but would content himself in expressing his regret that nobody seemed to think it a matter of any consequence that a burden should be put upon a man whether he liked it or not.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

METROPOLIS (STREET IMPROVEMENTS) —THE COLONNADES OF BURLINGTON HOUSE, AND TEMPLE BAR.—QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Why the colonnades of Burlington House, which were temporarily placed on the river terrace of Battersea Park many years ago, have been suffered to lie there ever since neglected and uncared for; and whether there was any intention of erecting these beautiful works of art, as originally proposed, in the Park; and, if so, when; also to ask what had become of Temple Bar, and whether that historic monument has met with a fate similar to that which had befallen the colonnades of Burlington House? said, that the facade of Burlington House, which had been described by an eminent authority as one of the finest architectural monuments in Europe, was still lying derelict on the banks of the Thames, Burlington House having been pulled down in 1866. Of this facade Horace Walpole had also said—"We have few examples of architecture more

1657
antique and imposing." It had been taken to Battersea Park, where it had been intended to erect it as a summer house; but it had been lying there utterly uncared for and exposed to every chance. Boys with hobnail boots ran from one end of the stones to the other; and, in consequence, the facade had been seriously injured, and in a short time would be absolutely destroyed. With regard to Temple Bar, it was nine years since that gross act of vandalism had been perpetrated by which Wren's beautiful arch had been taken down and the hideous griffin put in its place, which now disfigured and obstructed the thoroughfare. Where Temple Bar now was nobody seemed to know; probably, it had mot with a fate similar to that of the colonnades. As one who had passed many years of his life almost under the shadow of Temple Bar, he ventured to hope that his noble Friend would assure him that the Government would allow it to be placed in the care of the Benchers of the Temple, who would be only too glad to take charge of it, and give it an appropriate home within their domains.
LORD HENNIKER, in reply, said, that the stones which formerly composed the colonnades of Burlington House—a colonnade of whose artistic merit the noble Earl had spoken so highly—were laid on the river bank at Battersea Park in 1868, and were there still. It was decided by Lord John Manners, then First Commissioner of Works, to save this valued architectural work, and it was absolutely necessary to remove it to make room for the new buildings. It was accordingly taken down with great care—each stone was marked so as to go into its proper place again—and it was removed, with the archway and the two lodges, at no small expense, to Battersea Park, as the only available place at the time. It was not removed, as the noble Lord supposed, with any definite plan for its re-erection. He must, however, remind the noble Earl that the structure had not been complete in itself; it depended greatly on the brick wall facing Piccadilly, which, of course, was not saved. When the colonnade was taken down, it was found that a great deal of it was useless; the balustrade was worn and broken, and a great part of it was carted away as rubbish. In fact, it would not have been possible to re-erect it without
1658
considerable renovation. The question of re-erecting the colonnade and archway had been considered over and over again. Many proposals had been made, such as making it the river gateway to the Park, making a picturesque ruin of it, as the noble Lord had stated, making a summer house of it, and so on; but all the proposals had been rejected, not only on the ground of the expense they would involve, but also because they were unsuitable to the character of the architecture. It was even proposed to sell it, if a proper place could be found for it, rather than allow the stones to lie where they were. As a matter of fact, it had been designed for Burlington House, and it was most difficult to find any other suitable site for it now that Burlington House was rebuilt. Under these circumstances, the First Commissioner of Works did not propose at present to take any steps to re-erect the building. However, if his noble Friend would make any suggestion to the First Commissioner, he was quite ready to take any proposal which might be put before him by the noble Earl into consideration. As to Temple Bar, he could only repeat what his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner had said, last year, in the House of Commons. It was to the effect that Temple Bar was the property of the Corporation of the City of London, and that it was removed by them. Under these circumstances, he could not, of course, give the noble Earl the information he desired. He had been favoured, however, with the following letter from the Corporation of the City of London, in which they gave the desired information:—
"Guildhall, London, E.C.,
"May 11, 1887.
"Dear Sir,—With reference to Lord Mill-town's Question, which appears in to-day's Lords' Minutes, I have the honour to inform you that Temple Bar was taken down in 187S, a careful key drawing was made, and the stones so numbered that they could be erected thereby in their original order. The stones were deposited on some vacant land belonging to the Corporation near Farringdon Street, and arranged in such a way as to be readily and continuously available for re-erection. Many different sites have been proposed for this purpose, but there have been objections to them all. The greatest care was taken to preserve the stones in their removal; but it was found, as a matter of fact, that the stones had suffered much more from atmospheric causes and decay, and were far more chipped and injured, than there was any reason to anticipate from the

1659
general appearance of the building when standing. This, of course, will very greatly increase the cost of re-erection. It is estimated that the cost of re-erecting the old materials would be about double the cost of a similar structure new, say about £2,000.
"I have the honour to remain,
"Yours faithfully,
"G. PRIOR GOLDNEY,
"Remembrancer,
"To the Eight Hon. D. R. Plunket, M. P., "First Commissioner of Works."
He thought that that letter would give the information required by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked whether, if the Office of Works was unwilling, the Government would allow anyone else to make use of the colonnade?
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had already stated that the Office of Works had considered the proposal to sell the stones, but without effect; if, however, a proper offer were made, and a guarantee that a proper site was provided were given, the Government would be prepared to consider the matter.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked, what the expense would be of repairing the colonnade of Burlington House? He had reason to believe it was past praying for.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, he did not know that he could give the noble Earl opposite any better answer than that when a proposal had been made some years ago, to erect this building in Regent's Park, Mr. Taylor, the able architect of the Office of Works, with whom the noble Earl was no doubt well acquainted, had made an estimate, and had calculated that the expense of reerecting it where it now was would be £2,500, and if it were removed some four miles, that was to say, to Regent's Park, £3,000.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.