Lords Sitting of 17 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Jubilee Service in Westminster Abbey, nominated Rabies in Dogs, appointed.
PUPLIC BILLS—First Reading—Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871) Amendment * (104).
Second Heading—Registration of Dogs in the Metropolis (73); Crofters; Holdings (Scotland) (90); County Courts Consolidation * (78).
Committee—Irish. Land Law (58–106).
Committee—Report—Land Transfer (57–105); Police Force Enfranchisement * (77).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Heading—Pier and Harbour * (103).
Second Reading—Local Government (Highways)* (87); Local Government (Poor Law) * (88); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (89).

LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No 57.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LAND TRANSFER BILL.—(No 57.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the object of the Bill was to meet a real and substantial grievance, which he believed existed at the present time, and which prevented the owners of land from enjoying proper facilities for disposing of their property.
  234
  One serious difficulty which stood in. their way was the perpetual necessity for the examination of the title which had to take place, every time land, however small the parcel, was transferred. It was with a view to get rid of that grievance, and not in order to yield to any popular clamour, that the measure had been introduced. The measure would not abolish settlements or wills, but was designed to prevent litigation in respect of estates tail in future, and would in regard to transfer abolish—as far as possible—the distinction between real and personal property. Without departing from the main lines of the Bill, he was desirous, as far as he could, to meet the suggestions which had been thrown out by both his noble and learned Predecessors in Office, and that he had endeavoured to do by means of a number of clauses, which were of course of a technical nature, and could not be suddenly put before the House so as that their Lordships should be able to understand them at once. He therefore proposed to commit the Bill pro formâ in order to have the Amendments printed together with the Bill, and to postpone the discussion in Committee until after the Whitsuntide Holidays.
  Moved "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment: Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 105.)

REGISTRATION OF DOGS IN THE METROPOLIS BILL.—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
REGISTRATION OF DOGS IN THE METROPOLIS BILL.—(No. 73.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure would not interfere in any way with the existing laws and regulations in regard to dogs, but it proposed some additional precautions for dealing with them. There was a large number of homeless dogs wandering about the streets of the Metropolis. Experience both in England and in other countries showed that the muzzle was to

  235
  a great extent a failure, and it was very seldom that a mad dog "was seen with a muzzle on. In the early stages of rabies it was well known that a dog became very nervous and much distressed; he shrank from noise and the light, and his instinct was to hide himself from human supervision. When the disorder was becoming more serious he might escape from his master's house into the street. Sometimes also a dog managed to displace the muzzle with his paws. He argued that not only did muzzles prevent dogs lapping water, but they hindered breathing to some extent in hot weather. As far as he had studied the matter, therefore, it seemed to him that muzzling dogs to prevent rabies was a delusion and a snare. The Bill provided that after the 31st December, 1887, a dog found in any public place within the Metropolis not wearing a collar and badge shall be deemed not to be under control. Every householder or occupier of any house, or part of a house, must make and sign a return of the number of dogs kept within seven days of the demand for such a return being made by the chief officer of police for the district. The chief officer of police in every district must provide a register containing the particulars relating to all dogs kept by persons residing in the district. Every person keeping a dog must have it registered, and on the receipt of the license shall receive an official badge indicating the number of the dog on the register and the year to which the number is applicable. No dog shall be permitted to appear in any public thoroughfare without a collar having a badge; and the fact that an animal was found without the badge would be primâ facie evidence that the animal had no owner, and might be taken charge of and destroyed. It is not necessary that the registered number of a dog shall be changed when a dog is transferred from one owner to another, but the person who becomes possessed of a dog with a registered number must give notice of the change of ownership within three clear days to the principal police office of a district. This system had been found to work well in Vienna and other places, and he thought that it would obviate the necessity of muzzling. Every person keeping a dog which shows symptoms reasonably inducing a sus-
  236
  picion of rabies must give notice to the chief officer of police for the district, who shall cause the animal to be examined. If found to be suffering from rabies the dog will be destroyed; if not, it will be returned to the owner.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Mount Temple.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, the noble Lord had taken somewhat unnecessary trouble in addressing to the House an argument which did not meet any of the points to which objection had been taken. If it had been proposed to apply the Bill to the whole Kingdom there might have been a good deal to be said for the tone he had adopted in regard to the muzzling of dogs generally. It was, however, a Bill dealing only with the Metropolis, and the remarks of the noble Lord were somewhat outside the question. Opinion was not at all settled, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, as to the question of muzzling. The noble Lord had spoken of what he regarded as the injury done to dogs by the system of muzzling; but his opinions were by no means accepted by experts. Both humanely as respected the dogs, and safely as respected human being a he thought it very desirable there should be an inquiry upon the subject, and he should move that evening for a Committee with that object. Various theories were advanced for rabies, and before further legislation took place upon this subject he thought that it was most desirable that they should have before them the Report of the Royal Commission on hydrophobia in human beings, and M. Pasteur's plan of dealing with it. This would leave them free to deal with hydrophobia in dogs. He did not propose to oppose the second reading, because the Bill would be comparatively harmless in its effect. Whether one of the modes proposed to be adopted for preventing wild, masterless dogs going about—which in itself was a source of danger—would be accepted by the public generally, whether people would be prepared to go to the expense of having arrangements made with the police by which the police wore to take into custody all the dogs they saw with premonitory symptoms of rabies, he was not prepared to say; but,

  237
  at the same time, it was one of the modes which had been adopted in Vienna. The method did not supersede muzzling, because there was no attempt in the Bill to say that one method was more efficient than another. He did not want to enter upon the question whether muzzling ought to be done away with altogether or not, because it was a controverted question, and he would only say, therefore, that he should not be prepared to assent to the further progress of the Bill until there had been an inquiry upon the subject of rabies in dogs; so that good and sound evidence and information might be obtained as to the best mode of dealing with dogs for the prevention of disease and the protection of human beings. He was afraid that if he entered into this subject at the same length that the noble Lord had done, their Lordships would come to the conclusion that he himself required a muzzle.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he was Chairman of the Local Authority of a county—the County of Notts—in which there had, perhaps, been more rabies than in any part of the Kingdom except London, and, in compliance with requisitions from the hospital authorities, and others well qualified to judge, they had found it necessary to muzzle all the dogs in the county; and he believed that that order, in so far as it had been enforced, had been valuable in its results. But it had not been so efficacious as it might have been, owing to the fact that it was impossible to extend the regulation beyond the actual boundaries of the county, and several cases had occurred on the borders of neighbouring counties where similar regulations were not in force. In one case in a neighbouring county, a poor boy was bitten by a mad dog and died—muzzling regulations being in force in Notts at the very time, only a few yards distant. He ventured, therefore, to call the attention of the President of the Council to this point, and asked him whether it would not be desirable to give power to extend provisions against rabies beyond county borders. He expressed the hope that the Committee to be appointed would consider whether some means could not be devised for extending the area of publication in which muzzling was to be enforced.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a

CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 90.)
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 90.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECEETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN),in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was an Amendment of the Crofters Act passed last year, and had been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government for some time. In fact, it was prepared by his Predecessor in Office, who was now Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. As he understood, it was was not brought forward earlier because of certain difficulties felt by the Commissioners under the Crofters Act in the way of carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect. Those difficulties had now been overcome, and the Government now thought the Bill might advantageously be brought before their Lordships. Under the Crofters Act of last year, it was provided, under the 4th section of the 6th clause, that, in the case of any crofter making an application to the Commissioners for the consideration of a re-valuation of his rent, and the amount of his arrears he should be bound to pay to his landlord, the Commissioners were entitled to gist all proceedings for the removal of the crofter in respect to non-payment of rent, until his application had been determined upon by the Commissioners upon such terms as to payment of rent and arrears as they might think fit. Judging from the debate in the House of Commons upon this clause on the 5th April, it seemed to him that it had been understood by those who had introduced this measure, and also by the House of Commons generally, that it was intended, though not actually stated in terms, that the result of that clause would be that in the case of any crofter making such an application, proceedings should be sisted until the Crofter Commission had had an opportunity of considering and deciding upon his case. It turned out, however, that, by the first clause of the Act, any crofter who became a notour bankrupt was precluded from the provisions of the Act; and, therefore, whether intentionally or un-

  239
  intentionally, by what he might term a side wind, it was possible for any landlord who wished to do so to defeat the intention of Parliament, and to exclude a crofter tenant from the operation of the Act by taking proceedings in bankruptcy against him, and making him a not our bankrupt. He did not think that that could have been the intention of the Act of last year, because if it had been possible for the Commission to undertake the consideration and adjustment of all the applications made to them at once, this difficulty would not have arisen. But owing to the number of applications which had been made, and were likely to be made, it was impossible for the Commission to adjudicate upon them all for many months, perhaps it might be for many years. That was not the fault of the crofters themselves, neither of the landlords, who were anxious that their cases should be decided at once; but under the Act as it now stood this was simply impossible, and it might become necessary, or some landlord might feel it incumbent upon him, to proceed against a tenant by making him a bankrupt, and thus excluding him from the benefits of the Act, which were meant to be in their favour. That was only one side of the question. There was the side of the landlords themselves. He would like, with regard to this, to record his opinion that the landlords had, on the whole, almost universally behaved toward the crofters with the utmost forbearance, and had not done what the law permitted them to do, but there was a feeling of insecurity on the part of the crofters with regard to she terms of the Act. On the one hand, it would be very simple to protect the crofters from being proceeded against under this Act until the Commissioners had an opportunity of adjusting their claims; but, on the other hand, the claims of the landlords should also be taken into consideration. If it were put out of the power of the landlords altogether to proceed against any tenant for recovery of arrears until the Commission had adjudicated on the case, there was no doubt that, in many instances, the landlords would receive no rent at all for, perhaps, two or three years. The case of the crofters was that they should not be proceeded against by the landlords, so as to be deprived of the benefits of the Act. On
  240
  the other hand, the landlords should not be deprived of the opportunity of obtaining rent or arrears from tenants who were perfectly able to pay. It was proposed by this Bill to meet the necessities of the case of both landlord and tenant. In the first place, under Clause 2, the Crofters Commission would have the power of prohibiting such sale by the landlord of the tenant's effects as would make the crofter a notour bankrupt until the case was finally determined by the Commission. On the other hand, if, on being proceeded against by his landlord, a crofter should make application to the Commission, the Commission were given power to make such inquiries as might be deemed necessary in order to see whether the crofter was really able or unable to pay the whole or any portion of the rent and arrears. Although the question was one of some difficulty, he hoped their Lordships would agree that the matter between the crofters, on the one hand, and the landlords on the other, had been fairly met by the terms of this Bill. The question was somewhat difficult, because the effect of this Bill could only last as long as the Crofters Commissioners were engaged in adjudicating on the applications made to them, and because, as a matter of fact, it did prevent landlords from recovering rents which might be justly due to them. But he would ask them to remember that not only this Bill, but the Crofters Act itself, had been framed to meet an exceptional state of matters; and he thought that their Lordships would not object to this Bill, which was really merely a question of giving effect to the principle which the Act of last year had been intended to carry out. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE DUKE OF AEGYLLsaid, he willingly acquiesced, so far as he was concerned, in the passing of this Bill, which was brought forward with the view of carrying out what he believed was the intention and effect of the 4th sub-section of the 6th clause of the Crofters Act. Their Lordships would recollect that, under that Act, something of the same system, with regard to the valuation of rents, was applied to the small tenantry of the West and North

  241
  Highlands of Scotland as had been applied to Ireland. That was to say, three gentlemen were commissioned to go over the country and ascertain how far the rents of these small tenants, under £30, were or were not excessive. Of course, they had undertaken their work at a time of very deep depression, and it naturally followed, from that power, that some restraint was placed on the landlords in respect to proceeding against their tenants for arrears of the rent which might turn out to be excessive. Therefore, the 4th sub-section of the 6th clause provided that, on the application of a crofter, the Commission might sist, or stop all proceedings for the removal of the crofter for non-payment of rent until the Commission had come and viewed his holding. He confessed that when the Act was passed, he was of opinion that, under that clause, the Commission had full power to stop all proceedings for arrears. It turned out, however, on some landlords having proceeded against their tenants for arrears, that, though the Act did stop proceedings for eviction, it did not stop proceedings for the sale of the tenant's cattle and effects; and it was found by another clause that when the cattle had been sold, and the tenant was declared bankrupt, he could be turned out of his holding. Therefore there was a back door open by which landlords might in certain cases evade the intention of the Act and turn out their crofter tenants. These were the circumstances which called for this Bill. His noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) had frankly admitted that the Crofters Commission had proceeded so much more carefully than the Commissioners had done in Ireland, that they were taking a very long time in their valuations. They were going very carefully over every farm, traversing the ground with great care, holding long sittings, taking elaborate evidence, and they were going so slowly that, as his noble Friend had said, they might take many years before they had finished their work. He hoped that was exaggerated, but he was afraid they would take some years before they went over the whole ground. They had been sitting some months in the Island of Skye alone, and had not yet overtaken half of the claims. There were some of the proprietors who could hardly afford
  242
  to stand out of the whole of their rents for a long time; therefore the Government had, while they carried out the intentions of the Act and prevented the landlords from evicting, on the other hand, allowed the landlords to summon their tenants for rents which were reasonable. On application the two parties were to come before the Commission, and the Commission—upon affidavits laid before them—were to decide how much of the arrears should stand until the Commission were able to go over the grounds. There were facts which could easily be placed before the Commission which would enable them to judge whether, at least, a portion of the arrears could be paid up, leaving the remainder until the decision of the Commissioners on the application to fix fair rent. He was willing to agree to that compromise, and he gave his assent to the Bill. But he wished to take notice of a Question which was put in "another place," which, it was needless to mention, was put by one of the Members who were called the crofter Members, and who, he thought, were not always very scrupulous in their statements with regard to landlords as they might be. The Question was put in "another place" to know whether is was not true that the landlords in all the crofting counties in Scotland had intended to proceed against their tenants. Of course, that Question gave the impression to Parliament and the country, and, he was afraid, was intended to give the impression, that landlords generally were trying to evade the Act, and to take advantage of the proceedings under the 1st clause of the Crofters Act. His knowledge of the country enabled him to say absolutely that that suggestion was absolutely not true. It might be literally true that one or two landlords in the country had taken that course, but he had not the slightest doubt there were cases in which they were justified in doing so. He had read very carefully the proceedings before the Commission since the commencement, and was very much struck with the evidence given—especially in Skye—and the observations of Sheriff Brand, the Chairman of the Commission, from which it appeared clearly that many cases came before him in which crofters voluntarily withheld rent which they were perfectly able to pay. These cases had elicited

  243
  from Sheriff Brand very severe, and, in some cases, very significant observations. There were some cases in which tenants had sold cattle and had not given a 6d. or 1s. of their arrears to their landlords, and others in which they had been buying boats, thus showing the possession of considerable sums of money, and withholding every 1s. of rent from their landlords. He thought in these eases the landlords were justified in proceeding against tenants by every process known to the law. He was willing, however, that these matters should be left to the arbitration of the Court, and he assented to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he could most emphatically confirm what the noble Duke had said, that the action of the landlords generally in the Highlands against their tenants was altogether unfounded. Several cases had been mentioned to him, but as it had been in confidence, he was unable to say who they were. With regard to the noble Duke's observations respecting the work of the Crofters Commission, he understood that the Commission would, with reference to the applications made to them from the Island of Skye, issue within the next few days 500 or 600 decisions.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 58.)
(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)
IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—(No. 58.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do again resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, that before the House went into Committee again upon this Bill he desired to make an appeal to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government (the Marquess of Salisbury). He (the Duke of Abercorn) and his Friends on that side of the House were most anxious to assist and facilitate the progress of this Bill, and that he believed was also the desire of noble Lords opposite; but, under the circumstances, they desired that the new clauses which the Government proposed
  244
  to insert in the Bill, in the place of Clauses 21, 22, and 23 of the original measure, should be discussed pro formâ this afternoon, and that then the Bill should be re-committed. His reason for making this request was that a Bill of vital importance connected with the interests of those who lived in Ireland had been introduced by the Government, of which the three most important clauses had been entirely remodelled by the Government and re-introduced. Many Amendments were to be moved on these now clauses, and the most of these Amendments had only been placed in the hands of noble Lords this afternoon. There fore, it would be difficult—almost impossible—for noble Lords this afternoon to discuss them in connection with the new clauses which the Government had added to this Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought the suggestion he had made was not unreasonable; and he therefore hoped the Government would comply with the request he had made.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the request of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), and he could assure the Government that there was no desire on his part to obstruct this measure. On the contrary, it was his desire to facilitate its progress. They could not forget the somewhat protracted Sitting of last night; and he had been greatly struck with the manner in which the House had been enabled to dispose of 20 difficult clauses of this most important Bill, involving great principles, and carrying with them great consequences. He had seen with admiration and pleasure the way in which the discussion was carried on by noble Lords whose personal interests were deeply affected by the measure There was not an angry word or a word of recrimination; on the contrary, all was peace and quietness, and anxiety to give the measure full consideration, and an expression of willingness to sacrifice their individual interests to the public good. The Government now proposed to strike out the clauses which had been known as the Bankruptcy Clauses and to insert others of immense importance. The noble Duke had stated that the Amendments to these new clauses had only reached him that afternoon. Owing to judicial duties he had himself not yet

  245
  even seen the Amendments. Under these circumstances, the House could not adequately enter upon the consideration of these Amendments, and he would suggest that the three clauses proposed to be struck out by the Government should be struck out, that the four clauses proposed to be inserted should be inserted, and that the Bill should be reprinted and recommitted. This would necessitate postponing the further consideration of the Bill in Committee till after the Whitsuntide Holidays, but the delay would not be unattended with substantial advantages. He had no motive except that of desiring to make the Bill as good as possible.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) had stated that it was not his desire to delay or obstruct the Bill. That might with equal truth be said of those sitting on that Bench. There were certain clauses in the Bill which they considered objectionable, and they did not as yet see that any satisfactory plan had been suggested of remedying the objections to those clauses, but they did not desire to delay or place any hindrance in the way of the measure. He thought the suggestion that had been made for the re-committal of the Bill was reasonable, and he hoped that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would accept it.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that though he should have preferred to go on with the discussion, yet the views of the course of procedure which commended itself to the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Abercorn), to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald), and to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) must be considered to be in consonance with the general opinion of the House. He proposed, therefore, to accede to the suggestion that had been made. The only way he saw of carrying out the wish thus expressed was that they should go through the Bill now pro formâ, inserting all the Amendments of the Government, and such other Amendments as the Government were prepared to accept, to reprint the Bill as amended, and then to put it down for re-committal until after Whitsuntide—on Monday the 13th June.
  Motion agreed to; House again in Committee accordingly; further Amendments made: The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 106.)

JUBILEE SERVICE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee on; The Lords following were named of the Committee: the Committee to meet on Friday next at a quarter past Three o'clock; and to appoint their own Chairman:—

  V. Oxenbridge.

  L. Kintore.

  L. Boyle.

  L. Houghton.

  L. Foxford.

  L. Colville of Culross.

RABIES IN DOGS.

  APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the subject of rabies in dogs, and the laws applicable thereto,—(The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to.

  INCUMBENTS' RESIGNATION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1871—Was presented by The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos; read la; and to be printed. (No. 104.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.