Lords Sitting of 27 February 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Law of Distress Amendment (4–23).

INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)— THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Report which I understand has been received from the Commission in India on the Civil Service of that Empire.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I should not like to answer the Question of the noble Earl opposite without taking the first opportunity of tendering my thanks to Sir Charles Aitchison and Sir Charles Turner, and the other Gentleman engaged with them on that Commission, for the great pains and trouble they have taken in sifting the matter through and making a Report. As to the Question of the noble Earl, my answer is that I received a telegram from the Viceroy the other day asking me whether I had any objection to the publication of the Report at once. My answer was that I had none, and unless I hear again from him in the course of the week I will lay the Report on the Table.

LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Herschell,)
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 4.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Certain goods exempted from distress as under County Court Acts, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 96).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment to the effect that where a man owed rent and remained in possession, the term of tenancy having expired and the tenant having no right to remain in possession, this section should not apply. The case of a tenant was different to any other debtor, and some compulsion should be put upon him to give up possession and prevent him from holding over.
  1464
  Tenants sometimes held over until a bribe was offered or a gift of money. If this Amendment were not accepted, holding over would be more frequent. He quite agreed that in ordinary cases of distress goods which were privileged from being seized under an execution should be likewise privileged from distress. But cases were very numerous in which a tenant set his landlord at defiance, and at the shortest it took six weeks for the landlord to evict him, during which time he remained in occupation without paying any rent. This continuing in possession was dishonest, and the privilege ought to be extended to such cases. It was not in the interest of large but of small landlords that he brought forward this Amendment. He had received a number of communications on this subject, and an association in Liverpool had stated that landlords, as a rule, would be very glad to give up entirely the right of distraint if a more summary process of eviction was established. Until that more summary process was established, he thought it would be no hardship to deny privilege from distress to all goods, of whatsoever nature, of a tenant who overheld. The Amendment provided that even in these cases the distress should not take place until after six days from demand had elapsed.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, at end of clause 4 add—"Provided that this enactment shall not extend to any case where the lease, term, or interest of the tenant has expired, and where possession of the premises in respect of which the rent is claimed has been demanded and where the distress is made not earlier than seven days after such demand."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, his attention had also been called to the difficulty experienced by landlords in obtaining possession of their premises from tenants under the existing procedure. It certainly was a matter to be considered whether the law ought not to be amended so as to expedite the procedure; but that could not be done in the present Bill. He would not, however, oppose the Amendment; but it was open to the objection that it attempted to do indirectly what ought, if at all, to be done directly.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Distress to be levied by certified bailiffs as under the Agricul-

  1465
  tural Holdings Acts, 46 & 47 Vict. e. 61, s. 52).
  LORD HERSCHELLmoved an Amendment providing for the appointment of bailiffs by County Court Judges. The Amendment laid down that no person should act as a bailiff without a certificate, but that a certificate might be given, for use on one occasion only. This would enable landlords to employ particular persons as bailiffs on special occasions. The right of granting certificates would be vested in County Court Judges, who would be empowered to delegate the power to their Registrars. He thought the same principle should be adopted with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act, and unless he heard anything which would induce him to think otherwise, he would at a later stage move to include distraints under that Act.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 20, leave out from ("and") to ("bailiffs") in line 24 inclusive, and insert ("such certificate may be general or apply to a particular distress or distresses, and may be granted at any time after the passing of this Act in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act"); in line 24, leave out ("so appointed") and insert ("holding a certificate"); and in line 28, leave out ("appointment") and insert ("certificate").—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to make rules).
  LORD HERSCHELLproposed that rules should be framed to apply to fees and expenses of distraints, as sometimes gross extortions were perpetrated; and he would propose, too, that they should not be limited to £20 as now, but apply to cases up to £50, and even larger sums.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELLmoved the insertion of, after Clause 6, a New Clause, making appraisement unnecessary in cases of distress. Appraisements involved expense, which fell upon the tenant, and neither the landlord nor the tenant was benefited. But he would give power to a tenant to require an appraisement if he wished to have one.
  Moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
  1466
  "From and after the commencement of this Act no appraisement of the value of any goods and chattels taken under a distress for rent shall be requisite, and the tenant shall not be liable for the expenses of any appraisement unless such appraisement be made on his request in writing."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)pointed out that in many cases distress to be successful should be carried out without delay. He was afraid that delays would occur under this Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he would make provision against delays.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 23.)

AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise to put the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, Whether the Government have had their attention directed to the importance of the Delagoa Bay Railway, and whether they contemplate taking any action in respect to it? I do not desire to make any remarks with regard to it except this—that the matter is one, I need hardly inform the House, of very grave importance and also of the most extreme delicacy. It is because of its extreme delicacy that I will not enlarge on the Question I have put on the Paper. I will, however, say this—I believe the whole test, or the main test, of the Colonial policy of the Government of this country must be found for the future in its dealings with South Africa, and that at this moment this railroad, which gives access to almost the only, if not the only, port on that enormous length of coast, is in danger of falling into hands which, if not hostile, are at any rate unfriendly, and into control which may not merely have an important effect in shutting in our South African Dominions, but may also have an important bearing on our commerce as a country, and be the means of leading to the imposition of differential and hostile rates on our commerce as a nation. I say these are grave matters, and the noble Marquess opposite will know that I have not stated them in

  1467
  their full gravity. But because they are grave and delicate is, I think, a reason not for discussing them without information, but for asking the Government the simple Question of which I have given Notice, and on the answer to which will depend the knowledge of how we stand in this most grave and pregnant matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of ONSLOW): As the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not yet taken his seat in your Lordships' House, he has asked me to reply on his behalf to the Question put by the noble Earl. I need hardly say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been very seriously directed to the question of the Delagoa Bay Railway, both as an inlet for trade between this country and the South African Republic, and also as a competitor for the trade coming in by the Cape and Natal, which is not of great volume and may possibly suffer by competition. Several proposals have been made. It has been proposed that Her Majesty's Government should acquire by purchase the territory now belonging to Portugal. But as far as I know at present a word which the noble Earl may, perhaps, consider "blessed"—the word compulsion—has not come into our international relations; and, inasmuch as Portugal is proud of her Colony and well satisfied with it, she is not disposed to part with it. Therefore, whatever may be the views of Her Majesty's Government, they need not be discussed at this moment. Another proposal has been that Her Majesty's Government should acquire the railway. This railway, however, does not run through British territory; it does not run from British territory; it does not run to British territory; and I believe I am correct in saying that for the British Government to purchase the railway would be an act perfectly unprecedented. I cannot conceive on what ground it can be argued that the British taxpayer should be asked to acquire, and not only to acquire, but also to work and control, this railway. If it is of importance to anybody, it is of importance to the Cape and Natal. The Cape and Natal are out of their long clothes; they are perfectly able to look after their own interests; they are wealthy and powerful, and I
  1468
  have reason to know that proposals for the acquisition by purchase of this railway have been submitted to the Government of the Cape. These proposals have not yet been decided upon. What they may be I do not know, and am therefore not in a position to state. But with reference to the remarks of the noble Earl as to the possibility of differential rates against goods coming in from Great Britain in comparison with those from other countries, we have in existence a Treaty with the Transvaal Government which places goods coming from England upon an equal footing with those coming into the territory from any other country. A Conference has recently been held between the Orange Free State and the Colonies of the Cape and Natal in relation to the better working of their systems of railways, and my own belief is that the outcome of that Conference, which will be made public at the beginning of March next, will tend towards a better arrangement for the working of the railways of South Africa. And, if so, if we can come to a satisfactory arrangement in that respect, I do not fear that this Delagoa Bay Railway will be of that importance which has been made out to us, or the bugbear that some people think it.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.