(NO. 4.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 February 1888)

§ LORD HERSCHELL
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that it dealt with two matters, and two only, in connection with the levying of distraint, but these were of very considerable practical importance. In the first place, the Bill gave the same privilege of exemption from distress for rent to a tenant in respect of his bedding and tools as he had against an execution under Section 96 of the County Courts Act, 1846, by which an artizan's tools to the value of £5 were protected against distraint. His attention had been called by a County Court Judge, who had had great experience in administering justice in these matters in a large town, to the very great hardship and evil which resulted from the absence of such a provision as this. The power now in the hands of the landlord of distraining upon the tools of an artizan did not give any real satisfaction to the landlord for the debt, for they were generally sold for a very small sum, and when the tools were sold the skilled artizan was no longer able to work, and was deprived of the means of employing the skill which he possessed. So that the law as it now stood really did great mischief to the tenant, while it gave very little benefit to the landlord. Inasmuch as the law exempted these articles from execution for any other kind of debt, it was not unreasonable that they should be exempted from distress for rent by the landlord. The other provision in the Bill, which was of considerable importance, referred to the employment of certified bailiffs, as under the Agricultural Holdings Act, to levy distress. A landlord, with the exception of cases under that Act, could at the present time employ as bailiff any person he pleased. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 538 however, a landlord was restricted to bailiffs who had been appointed or approved by Judges of County Courts. That Act was passed in 1883, and he believed had been found to work well. He had been informed that in one single day a County Court Judge had before him four cases in which bailiffs appointed by landlords had entered the houses of the wrong persons. In one case a bailiff entered the house of a tenant and seized goods worth £1 or £5 for 14s. rent which the tenant did not owe. The bailiff took the goods away and sold them, and left the family to sleep upon the floor, the result being that all the members of the family suffered from illness and one of the children died. The tenant, a woman, brought an action against the bailiff and the landlord, and it was hold that the landlord, not having directed the bailiff to proceed against her, was not liable, and that the tenant's remedy was against the bailiff. That remedy was absolutely worthless, because this bailiff, having the proceeds of the sale of the goods in his possession, disappeared, so that the landlord suffered as well as the tenant. In neither of the other three cases had the bailiffs handed over the money obtained by the sale of the goods distrained upon to the landlord. He had had a number of other cases communicated to him by a County Court Judge, showing that the present system by which the choice of bailiffs was left to the landlord was most unsatisfactory. The Bill proposed that in future landlords should employ bailiffs approved by a County Court Judge. This had been the law so far as agricultural holdings were concerned for the past five years, and there was very strong ground for extending it to urban holdings as well. He hoped that their Lordships would think it worth while to read the Bill a second time. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he did not intend to ask their Lordships not to read the Bill a second time, although there were two doubtful matters in it. In the first place, some provision should be made for the case where the tenant, whose tools and bedding would be ex- 539 empted, persisted in stopping, in defiance of his landlord, upon promises in respect of which his term was out and he did not pay rent, and in respect of which he had no distrainable goods. With regard to the employment of bailiffs, he should prefer a provision which would make such an act as that referred to by the noble and learned Lord an act of extortion or robbery on the part of the bailiff, punishable by fine and imprisonment rather than the clause in the Bill. Instead of making it necessary that a bailiff should get a licence from a County Court Judge, any such act of wrongdoing should be made an offence, and the man should be punished. Then the Bill said that the County Court Judge might from time to time appoint a sufficient number of fit and proper persons. In his opinion, the Judge ought to appoint any properly qualified person who applied. There should be no limit or restriction in the matter of numbers.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBUBY)
said, that he was a little apprehensive as to the advisability of introducing the words about a "sufficient number" of bailiffs contained in the Bill, because in the case of a place like London, for instance, how was a County Court Judge to ascertain what would be a sufficient number to meet the necessities of the case? He, therefore, entertained some little doubt as to that point; but the matter was one which could easily be left to be dealt with at the Committee stage when they came to consider the Enacting Clause. Upon the whole, he must say he thought that the Bill would be a valuable addition to their legislation, and that it would remove some of the objections to the power of distress as it at present existed.