Lords Sitting of 1 July 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GLASGOW POLICE BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time, I wish to call the attention of my noble Friend to a point which has been brought under my notice by persons who are interested in house property in Glasgow. It appears that by the Bill, as it at present stands, the Town Councils are empowered to shut up houses which they consider in an unfit state for habitation with an appeal only to the Sheriff; whereas, in the Public Health and Police Act for Scotland, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, and in the Dundee Police Act there is also an appeal to the Supreme Court. Three successive Parliaments have approved of the principle which is embodied in the General Act to which I have referred, of an appeal lying to the Supreme Court. My Lords, it is not with the view at all of opposing this Bill that I venture to say these few words, but simply with the view of calling the attention of the noble Lord to this point, and I hope it will be well considered in Committee.
    THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I will see that the attention of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees is called to this point when ho returns. I understand that the noble Lord does not object now to the Second Reading of this Bill?
    EARL WEMYSS: No.
    Bill read 2a and committed.

    PARTNERSHIP BILL.—(No. 25.)
    Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, with amendments: The Report thereof received: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 153.)
    DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 106.)
    Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with an amendment: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION BILL.—(No. 117.)
    Reported from the Standing Commiteee for General Bills, with amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 10th of July; and to be printed as amended. (No. 154.)
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL.
    A Bill to make better provision for the elementary education of blind and deaf children in England and Wales—Was presented by the Lord President (V. Cranbrook); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 155.)
    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (BOROUGH OF BELFAST) BILL.—(No. 91.)
    Amendment reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
    ANGLESEY ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.—(No. 125.)
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
SHERIFFS (ASSIZES EXPENSES) BILL. (No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill, which I am going to ask your Lordships to read a second time, deals with one point only—the expenses of High Sheriffs in connection with the Assizes. It is not, and does not pretend to be, a Bill dealing comprehensively with the whole question of the office of High Sheriff; and the reason why I have only introduced a limited Bill is because I think the general question of the office of High Sheriff is rather a question which ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government than by a

  419
  private Member of your Lordships' House. Now, this Bill deals, as I have said, with one point—a very important point, indeed, but with one point only—and if no opposition had been proposed to be offered to the Bill, it would have been necessary for me to say but a very few words to your Lordships in explanation; but as there is a Motion that it should be read a second time this day six months, I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I very shortly remind you of what has passed in the way of inquiry and otherwise lately with reference to the office of High Sheriff. Two years ago your Lordships, on my Motion, granted a Committee to inquire into the office and duties of High Sheriffs. It was notorious, and had been notorious for a long time, that great anomalies existed both in the manner in which High Sheriffs were selected and in many of the duties which they were called upon to perform. The Chairman of that Committee was Lord Cranbrook, the Lord President of the Council, and there sat on the Committee several Members of your Lordships' House, who were very familiar with all matters of county business, more than one of whom had themselves served the office of High Sheriff, and the Lord Chief Justice of England was also a member of the Committee. The Report and the evidence were in due course laid upon the Table of the House, where any of your Lordships who wish can refer to them; but I will, merely say, generally, that all the evidence tended in one direction; that upon the consideration of the Report the Committee was unanimous, and that the Report was signed by every member of the Committee. Now, my Lords, to put in a very few words the substance of our recommendations. We recommended that the High Sheriff should be relieved from all obligations in connection with legal duties and legal business which are in practice discharged by the Under Sheriff; we recommended that he should be relieved from all responsibility for executions; that there should be a Returning Officer appointed to make the Returns to Parliamentary and Coroners' elections; and we also recommended that the position of the Under Sheriff should be clearly defined, and that he should in future be a permanent salaried officer of
  420
  the County Councils. Those, in short, were the recommendations; and I hoped that the Government might find themselves able soon to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole of our Report. I have once or twice received answers which were favourable from the learned Lord on the Woolsack; but as time went on, the answers became, I regret to say, less favourable; and as time was slipping away, I thought, on the whole, that it would be better if I were to introduce a Bill treating only that part of the question which touches the High Sheriff himself most nearly—I mean the question of the expenses which he is compelled to incur at the Assizes. Now, my Lords, this Bill, as I have said, is a Bill of very limited scope, and I ought here to express my acknowledgment to Lord Thring for his very kind assistance in drafting it; for if I had not had the advantage of the assistance of his great acquaintance with the law relating to High Sheriffs, I should not have been able, at this late period of the Session, to have laid a Bill upon the Table of this House. Now, my Lords, let us come to the Bill. The Bill proposes that the Joint Committee of the County Council, and the Justices of the Peace in every county in England and Wales, and the Grand Jury in each county in Ireland shall, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make regulations as to the mode in which the Judges are to be received at the Assizes in the respective counties. Therefore, the first proposal that I make is that regulations shall be laid down as to the manner in which Her Majesty's Judges are to be received at Assizes in future; and I would point out to your Lordships that this is recommended, in the first instance, by the witnesses. Sir Offley Wakeman, a very important witness indeed from Shropshire, and who had himself served as High Sheriff, told us it was very desirable, he thought, that some regulations should be laid down. In the Report your Lordships will see that we ourselves went so far as to recommend certain definite regulations. We said—
  "We are of opinion that the county official bearing the title of High Sheriff should receive the Judges on circuit, and discharge the duties with regard to the Grand Jury and other honorary duties as at present; we recommend that he should be appointed as his her to, but we

  421
  are of opinion that all the expenses of the office should be paid by the Treasury and the county jointly, including the expense of one well-appointed carriage with a pair of horses to convey the Judge on his business, and that trumpeters, javelin-men, and so on, be discontinued."
  That is our recommendation. But it may be necessary that different regulations should be made for different counties, and I have therefore thought it best to include in this Bill the provision that the regulations should be made by the Joint Committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. My Lords, the reason why I have selected the Joint Committee of the County Council to act with the Justices of the Peace is because that Committee at the present time has the general charge and management of the police. If it had not been for this, I should not myself have proposed to place a duty of this sort in the hands of the General Committee, but rather in the hands of the County Council; but after consultation with those who are familiar with the working of County Councils, though it may be thought by others a matter of argument whether the Joint Committee is the right body, I think, on the whole, it is right to propose, in the first instance, that this duty should devolve upon the Joint Committee. When those regulations are made they are to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor for his concurrence, and the reason for that is that nothing may be done to diminish or interfere with the proper and dignified reception of Her Majesty's Judges. The Lord Chancellor, as the head of the law, will, of course, take every care that the regulations that are proposed by the Joint Committee shall be such as are fitting and proper. Now, the reason for proposing the regulations at all is this: that at the present time a High Sheriff has no guidance whatsoever as to the practice he ought to follow in receiving the Judges or doing anything else at the Assizes. There is no one to advise him in the matter at all, with the exception of the Under Sheriff. On the other hand, the Under Sheriff is practically a permanent officer, and, of course, it is a matter of very little concern to him what is or is not done, at all events,
  422
  from the point of view of the expenditure, since all the expenses fall upon the Sheriff; and as many of your Lordships no doubt know, and you will find it was mentioned by the witnesses in evidence when any particular expenditure is proposed, and when the Sheriff is in doubt, the answer made to him is, "Oh, your predecessor did it, and, therefore, you ought to do it," and the consequence is, that whether it is right or not, the High Sheriff is naturally unwilling to appear to be stingy, and though he may not be by any means a rich man, many things in that way fall upon him which, if proper regulations were made, might possibly not devolve upon him. If regulations are made, a High Sheriff will have this advantage: that he can point to them, and he will know exactly what he ought to do. Of course, there is no reason why, if the High Sheriff wishes to spend more, and if he wishes to entertain, or do things of that sort, he should not do so. It will be at his discretion to do it; of course, that would be an expense properly falling upon himself, and would be properly borne by him. Your Lordships will remember that everyone who is pricked to act as High Sheriff is compelled to serve, and, therefore, if an honorary duty of this kind is thrust upon them, whether they wish it or whether they do not, surely, Parliament ought to lay down some regulations showing what they ought to do, and beyond the limits of which they ought not to be compelled to go. I do not think I need detain your Lordships at present, at all events, by making any further remarks, except this: that I do not know what smaller measure than this could possibly be proposed if we are to do anything at all in the way of defining what the expenses incurred by a High Sheriff are to be. I would ask your Lordships, can any measure more moderate than this be proposed? Certainly, the Members of the Committee, as I have shown your Lordships, all signed a Report, laying down certain definite recommendations; and until I have heard the reasons which may be given for proposing the rejection of this Bill, I should prefer to defer making any further remarks for my reply. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships any further now, and I will merely move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."—(The Earl of Camper down.)
  *LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I am sorry to be obliged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The noble Earl has very properly described it as a very small one, dealing with a very small portion of the office of High Sheriff. It seems to me that this Bill, is strictly speaking, a Bill that ought not to have been introduced in your Lordships' House. It is a Bill which certainly, as to the 2nd and the conclusion of the 3rd clause, ought to have been dealt with, first of all, by the House of Commons, because, as I understand, it is an attempt to impose charges on the rates; not because it affects any question of administration, which, as I understand, has always been a matter within your Lordships' thorough cognisance and jurisdiction, but because it deals with the whole of the county rates throughout England and Wales, and is really, therefore, as far as England and Wales is concerned, dealing with the subject of taxation. It is, therefore, a Bill which, in the main substance of it, ought to have been introduced into the House of Commons and not here. However, that, I suppose, can be got rid of by striking out the 2nd clause, and altering the conclusion of the 3rd clause so as to make it a Bill within your Lord-ships' jurisdiction. That might be done, and I rather gathered from the speech of the noble Earl that he proposed to do that; that he did not propose, as I gathered, to submit the Bill in its present form to your Lordships to-night. But that leaves only part of the 3rd clause. That will be really the whole of the Bill then left, and it is the 3rd clause to which, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I entertain great objection. The provision is that the expenses and so forth, which are incurred in the reception of the Judges at Assizes, shall be determined between the Joint Committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace in England and Wales, and the Grand Jury in Ireland, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, and those authorities shall make regulations for the different counties in England which are to be observed, so that whatever a gentleman occupying the office of High Sheriff
  424
  might do either in excess or diminution of those regulations, he would be guilty of a breach of the Act of Parliament if he did not observe the regulations which are laid down. First of all, I venture to submit that the persons who have to-pay—that is, the County Council and the Justices, for the entertainment or reception of the Judges, are not the proper persons to make regulations for the expenses so incurred. Certainly they ought not to make them without some consultation with the persons who are most interested in the result of those regulations, and it would, I think, only be respectful to the Judges that they should be consulted. As long as you choose to maintain an Imperial system, as long as Judges arc to be treated with dignity, and as long as a certain amount of ceremony is to be maintained, which certainly, to some minds, may seem excessive, though the custom has come down from time immemorial, as long as that is kept up I must say that I think it would only be decent and respectful to them that they should be consulted as to how they should be entertained in the counties to which they go. It is provided that this is not to be done except with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. About that I shall say a few words by-and-bye. But I would particularly desire to point out this—there is nothing in the slightest degree to provide that those regulations, are to be the same. They cannot be the same in the different counties. What might be considered very fit and proper for large counties, such as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, might be thought very unfit for Rutland or other small counties. There is no provision in this-Bill for laying down lines, nor is there any suggestion of the lines which the County Council, the Justices of the Peace, and the Lord Chancellor should follow in making those regulations and ascertaining the sort of reception which the Judges should be entitled to. And, more than that, I am perfectly aware that in former days things have been done by Sheriffs to Judges and by Judges to Sheriffs which, for my own part, I would not in the least defend. Many things have been done, I think, in forget-fullness of the relative positions of the High Sheriff and the Judge which may very likely have caused annoyance in the

  425
  minds of the persons who have been subjected, to them, and I should say very just annoyance. But all that was long ago. For my own part, I have been nearly 17 years upon the Bench, and during the whole time I have been a Judge I have never once—not once—had the smallest difficulty or trouble with any Sheriff with whom I have been brought in contact. They have always treated me, and I have certainly always tried to treat them, as gentlemen, and there has never been, as far as I know, the slightest desire expressed that there should be any regulation in the matter other than the regulation that decent provision should be made for the Judges in taking us to church and conducting us to our Courts. As far as I know, the expenses connected with Assizes which have to be incurred by the Sheriffs are necessarily small. A carriage and pair, which is all that is necessary, is all that a Sheriff is expected to provide, and the cost of that equipage in a small Assize town, where prices, I suppose, would not be very high, would not be a very heavy infliction; and I do not myself see what cause there is for interfering with that expense. At the same time, I can quite understand that, whatever the expense may be in the present state of the landed and agricultural interests, that the incidental expenses which have fallen upon Sheriffs, if even of very moderate amount, might sometimes be heavy for them to bear. Then, if it be said that the Judges should not be received by the Sheriffs at all, but that they should be provided for in some other way, or not at all, as is the case in America, I do not now say anything about. If that be thought right, let it be done by authority. But let us see, if regulations are to be made, that throughout England and Wales they are the same, and that the reception of the Judges is the same. Now, I said I would say a word or two about the Lord Chancellor as an official. These regulations, if they are passed, are to be passed with his concurrence. Of course, the Lord Chancellor is a great legal official of the country, and, if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack will allow me to say so, he is well acquainted with the subject; and if he should be succeeded by my noble Friend Lord Herschell, who also was a Common Lawyer, he, too, knows
  426
  all about the circuits. If that were to be always the case that the Lord Chancellor should be familiar with these matters, I should not have a word to say. But during the time I have been on the Bench, I have known the office of Lord Chancellor to be occasionally filled by very great men and very great lawyers, who—speaking with all respect of them—knew no more about the circuits, or about the course of business or life on circuit, than any one of your Lordships who have never troubled your heads about them. I remember one of the greatest Law Lords, Lord Cairns. We used to have talks about those matters, and I think his views of the circuits were entirely misconceived. He apparently thought we went there, not to do much work, but to eat and drink, and to eat and drink to excess, and that the whole system was a system of guzzling, which it was high time should be put an end to. He used to speak in that manner and to that end. I am sure there was no man whom. I admired more than Lord Cairns. He was a great lawyer, and within his sphere a great man; but he did not know the subject, and I do not think a man who is not acquainted with a subject is a fit person to lay down regulations about it. I have mentioned Lord Cairns' view of these circuit matters because, really, he had no information and no knowledge at all about them. I rather object, therefore, that in an Act of Parliament which is fixing, not upon this man or that man, but upon whoever may fill an office which may be held at one time by a person who is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and at another time by a person who is unacquainted with it, the only check which the Judges can have upon the propriety of the regulations, is to be an officer who may be fit or unfit to check them—unfit from no fault of his own, but because his professional life may have been otherwise cast. Further, I think, if I may be pardoned for saying so, and if the noble Earl will forgive mo, this is an instance of one of those small bits of legislation which would be much better left alone. Nobody, as far as I know, who are conversant with these matters, complains of the present state of things, and those who do complain have not very much knowledge of the matter or the work. If it

  427
  is to be dealt with, it is a matter which should be dealt with by the Government of the country. All intelligent minds possessing knowledge of it either approve of the present sytem or of a modified system of reception of Judges on Assize. Destroy it altogether if you please, though I should regret it, but do not take this sort of half measure in which the persons who will be the most interested in cutting down and diminishing the reception are to settle the regulations, those regulations to be afterwards settled by a person who knows very little about the matter. I therefore beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD ESHER: My Lords, in the first place, I desire to say that I am wholly disinterested in this matter, because I can never be called upon, I think, to go circuit again, having been a Judge now for 21 years. The next remark I wish to make is this: I have waited with some curiosity to hear what was the chief point in this Bill; and, after having listened to all that has been said, it seems to me that its chief point is to get rid on the part of the Sheriffs of the payment of their expenses. My objection to the Bill is that I do not believe it can be worked in any sensible way unless every line of it is altered. Of all the extraordinary compositions that I have ever soon applicable to real business this seems to me to be the most extraordinary. These expenses are the expenses of the High Sheriff in receiving and protecting the Judges. What the High Sheriff does now to protect the Judges I am sure I do not know. Whoever drew this Bill must, I should imagine, have been thinking of the times when, I believe, upon the journey from Newcastle to Carlisle the High Sheriff had to protect the Judges against marauding Scots. In no other way does the Sheriff protect the Judges. I heard somebody just now say the Sheriffs protected them by the javelin-men, but there are no such people as javelin-men now.
  *LORD' COLERIDGE.: I can assure the noble Lord there are, in some cases.
  LORD ESHER: I can only say I have not seen them; at all events, for the last 15 years, and I rather think there is an Act of Parliament which has done away with them. The expenses of the Sheriffs are, further, in providing the necessary accommodation in keeping order within and about the precincts of the Courts of Assize. Then it says those expenses "are in this Act referred to-Assize expenses of the Sheriff." The words never appear again in the Act, but that is a small matter. Then it provides that they shall be defrayed out of the county rate in like manner as-the expenses of maintaining or providing Judge's lodgings may be defrayed. That, no doubt, is very pleasant for the High Sheriff. It would seem that the recommendation of the Committee is to do away with everything the High Sheriff has to do, except the mere reception of the Judges. No doubt they would like to be paid their expenses; and if you leave that clause as it is, they would have to be paid their expenses, whatever they might be. Let us see what it means. Supposing the High Sheriff now thinks it right to' receive the Judges, and to protect them, and to provide for them with decency, and he is allowed to do so by the County Council, the Sheriff would then send in his charges. Are they so very carefully protected by this Bill? It says—
  "The amount of expenses claimed by the Sheriff out of the county rate shall be submitted to the Treasury."
  Now, the Treasury may be in some respects the most estimable Department in the Kingdom, though a great many people think it is the most detestable office in the Kingdom; and if what the High Sheriff is to get depends upon what the Treasury will allow, I am afraid he will very often find himself very badly off indeed, and that he will be treated by the Treasury, from the way in which they often treat matters, as if they were the stingiest people in the world. And the decision of the Treasury as to whether the sum claimed by the Sheriff is payable out of the county rate is to be final. So that, after all, the Sheriffs are handed over for the purpose of getting their expenses to the Treasury, and they must look to the Treasury for a final order. Then, that

  429
  being the provision for payment, the 2nd clause is that—
  "The Joint Committee of the County Council and of the Justices of the Peace in each county in England and Wales and the Grand Jury in Ireland"—
  are to act. Will anybody tell me how to read that? I should have thought it meant the County Council and the Justices of the Peace in England and Wales, and the County Council and Grand Jury in Ireland. That is the way I should read the Bill according to its ordinary grammatical construction. But if so, there are no County Councils in Ireland, and, therefore, the thing cannot be worked—
  "And the Grand Jury in each county in Ireland shall, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor "—
  Is this to apply to England and Ireland? Which Lord Chancellor? Is the Lord Chancellor of England to concur with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or whatever the highest legal authority in Ireland may be? The Bill has been drawn without thought, that is the truth of it.
  "Make regulations as to the mode in which, in their respective counties, the Judges tire to be received at the Assizes, and otherwise as to the character and extent of the duties to he discharged by the High Sheriff with reference to the Judges and Assizes."
  Now, the regulations under this Bill may be different in every county in England. They may be different as to character and not merely in detail; their character will depend chiefly upon the nature of the County Council in each county, and the Lord Chancellor will have either to set himself against the County Council or to agree with it. If the Lord Chancellor does not agree with the County Council in any county, what is to happen? The state of things is to remain as it is in that county. In the next county the Lord Chancellor may agree with the County Council, and then there will be one law in one county and another law in another county, and the regulations may be in every county upon a different principle altogether. Then, they are only to agree as to the mode in which the Judges are to be received. In some counties they may propose that the Judge shall be received, and shall find his own carriage. In other counties they will, perhaps, allow him a carriage and pair of horses, while in some other
  430
  county they may insist that he shall take whatever vehicle is left at the inn after everybody else is provided for; and so you will go on. But the answer will be, I suppose, that the Lord Chancellor will not consent to that. Probably he would not consent where there is a violent County Council which wants to cut down the expense of receiving the Judges to nothing at all. Well, then, in that county I say the law will remain as it is. Then as to the character and extent of the duties to be discharged by the High Sheriff with reference to the Judges at Assizes. What are the other duties? Nobody knows. This Bill does not say what they are. The High Sheriff, of course, has a duty. He is now responsible for the decent reception and the decent maintenance of the Judges. But here he will have to act according to the regulations, "and such regulations shall be duly observed." Duly observed by whom? Is it by the Sheriff or by the Judge? And this is to be an Act of Parliament! The duties "shall be duly observed." That is to say, these regulations shall have the force of an Act of Parliament. What is to happen if the High Sheriff docs not observe them? Is he to be guilty of a misdemeanour because ho has not observed, or obeyed, an Act of Parliament? What is to happen to the Judges? Apparently they are to change places with the County Council. Instead of the County Council being responsible to them, they are to be responsible to the County Council. In fact, there is not one provision, as far as I can see, which will not practically alter the relative positions of the Judge and Sheriff, except to do them harm. Where have there been any differences between the High Sheriffs and the Judges? I was told a few minutes ago that two Judges—they are the only Judges in existence certainly that ever I heard of—had fined a High Sheriff. I can only recollect hearing of one disagreement between a ' Judge and a High Sheriff. I think it was in Wales, and the Judge was the late Mr. Justice Cresswell. The High Sheriff proposed to "receive him" in a broken-down hackney coach. Mr. Justice Cress-well said he "would not risk his neck in it." The High Sheriff said, "Do as you like; I shall get into it and go." But the learned Judge said, "No, you

  431
  have to attend upon me; I mean to walk into the town, as you will not provide me with a proper vehicle, and you must walk with me." And I recollect being myself once introduced into a lodging where there was no bell that would ring; but I made no fuss about it: I only asked the High Sheriff to lend me his dog-whistle, and he was kind enough to let me have it. The result was, that while I was there, every time I wanted my servant either I, or my marshall, had to go to the door, open it, and blow the High Sheriffs' dog-whistle until we could get the servant to come. I never had a difference with a High Sheriff. On the contrary; when a High Sheriff began to talk about the expenses, and I do not know what, I have always said to him, "Now, has not this been the happiest fortnight in your life I Here you have been in Court every day, which has amused you exceedingly, and you have received every consideration;" and he has always said it was the happiest time in his life. What have they to pay now? It is said there are certain expenses now. But there were exceedingly heavy expenses formerly. I do not believe at the present time that in nine counties out of ten the expenses are really heavy. The office is never imposed upon anybody who can make it clear to the Committee of the Privy Council that he is not able to sustain the expense. That is always a sufficient excuse. Therefore it is that I think people who are able should not object to bear the expense. They only have to bear it once in their lives. It comes only once upon an estate, I think, until there is a succession. They have to pay a sum which, I venture to say, in no county in England can be estimated at more than from £400 to £500, and I think it can be done for much less in most of the counties. And this is the dreadful infliction upon the estates of country gentlemen which is to induce a Bill of such a character. It is an unworkable Bill, which in any case would have to be eviscerated and filled up again for the purpose of altering what has been done now for so long a time. The truth is, the Bill has not been well-considered. If regulations are to be made, they ought to be made by some authority which will make them on the same principle for all the counties in England. It ought not
  432
  to be left as it is in this Bill. And what is more: this is only the smallest part of the subject which the Committee we have heard of recommended should be fully treated. The whole of that subject should be treated. One Bill should be brought in which would settle the whole matter. If you have a number of little Bills passed to settle each minute point you will have a legislation which nobody will be able to construe, and which nobody will be able to put into action. I second the Amendment of my noble Friend.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I sat on the Committee to which my noble Friend who has brought in this Bill referred, and heard with a good deal of interest the evidence taken there. Apart from the guidance afforded by that evidence, I have had other means also of arriving at a different conclusion from that which has been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls. This Bill is not introduced for the purpose of putting an end to differences, if they exist, between Judges and Sheriffs. The Judge may quarrel with the Sheriff and the Sheriff may quarrel with the Judge just as before, only under these different circumstances: that some rules will be laid down under which the Sheriff will act, and the Judge will see that the Sheriff cannot be called upon to go beyond them, which is not the case at present. My noble Friend says there is no real grievance in this matter; but there is a very real grievance. There is one county at this moment in which the Sheriff, so far from having had to serve only once in his life, is obliged to serve a second time, because there is nobody else who is ready to bear the burden of the office. Nothing can be so distasteful to gentlemen as to have to come and disclose their private affairs, their estate accounts, and to show that, in consequence of debts to their bankers or otherwise, they are not in a position to pay even that small sum which has been mentioned of the £400 or £500 which the dignity of the office entails. There are gentlemen who, with all the appearance of wealth, are really living in the greatest state of poverty possible. And even if a man is called upon only once in his life, as the noble

  433
  and learned Lord has said, to serve as Sheriff, yet if he dies soon afterwards his son, with perhaps great debts upon the estate and Succession Duty to pay, may be called upon at once to serve. My Lords, the times are completely changed. In the old times, no doubt, and in some counties even in the present day, the Shrievalty is rather sought after than avoided; but in the agricultural counties throughout England it has become a real burden. Country squires have not the command they formerly had of wealth; men have not the margin over from their incomes that they formerly had; and therefore they are obliged to look out and see in what way they can curtail expenditure. My noble and learned Friend says the Bill requires to be eviscerated, and no doubt he can eviscerate anything, and he has often done so with Acts of Parliament in the able Judgments which we know he has delivered. But the Bill has one chief point, and I think it is a point upon which it is worth while taking the sense of the House. The country calls upon these gentlemen to serve, and it is, I think, a question upon which it is worth while to take the sense of your Lordships—Ought the State to call upon a gentleman to undertake those duties and bear the expenses connected with them, whether he will or not? Ought you to call upon anybody you may fix upon to come and disclose to you his reasons for not desiring to serve, and to lay before you the accounts of his estate in order to show that he is not in a position to undertake those duties? Is it not part of the duty that belongs to a county (in many counties I believe now the Judges' lodgings are provided by the county) to find the money required in connection with the visits of the Judges to the Assize towns? In many places already the expenses are found by the counties, and not by the Sheriffs. I do not believe that the County Councils would so stint or cut down the expenses as to make the ceremonies associated with the visits of the Judges ridiculous. I do not think they would be parsimonious, though, I believe, they would use a judicious economy, which seems to me a very desirable thing to do in these matters. I can remember a time when the High Sheriff in Yorkshire rode in with his tenantry on horseback and made
  434
  a great show; but all that kind of display died out gradually. There were some Judges who did not like it, and I remember in particular one Judge who always avoided anything of the kind, who used to carry his own bag to the carriage waiting for him, and wished as much as possible to get rid of the ceremony he was surrounded with. Still, I think the reception of the Judges is rather looked forward to as an event in Assize towns. It is expected that the Judge should go with trumpeters and in great state to their Courts; but I have observed in many cases after the first appearance, though the Judge may have come in with great solemnity he is allowed to go to and from the Courts without much show of respect or assemblages to look at him. At first he goes into the town, goes to church, the sermon is preached, and he returns with ceremony, and altogether no doubt a great deal is thought of the first day of the Assize, but after the first day the ceremonies are very much abridged; yet all the expenditure for the High Sheriff goes on, he is obliged to find the horses and carriage, and, of course, there are other expenses, even though in some cases no longer the cost of javelin-men, and altogether he is put to very heavy expense. It so appeared to the Committee on which I sat. There are some High Sheriffs who have tried to cut down expenses as much as possible, and some have brought them very low indeed, while at the same time they have very-much curtailed the duties they owe to the Judges; and it is very difficult to say, if you leave it absolutely to the discretion of the Sheriffs, so long as there is a decent appearance made that any fault can be found. I do not know that In that case the Judge could interfere with him. But I think in almost every case the High Sheriff has done his best, and I cannot help thinking that the time has now come when we might take some step towards making a change. My noble and learned Friend has said this cannot be worked, and objection was taken to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. I do not see that that is a ground for objecting to the Second Beading, though it may be made a ground of objection in Committee, as to the mode of framing regula-

  435
  tions in regard to these expenses. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord Coleridge said about the Bill being improperly brought into this House, this is a Bill not affecting taxes, but the rates, and Bills are constantly introduced in your Lordships' House which affect the rates. There is nothing irregular in it, therefore, in that respect. With regard also to the Treasury being the arbiter. The Treasury is not arbiter upon grounds which are open to it to settle for itself, but it must be guided by the regulations as to the expenses to which the Sheriff is subject. Therefore, the Treasury will not have an absolute discretion in the matter, but will be rather like a public auditor, having to see that no expenses are incurred which do not come within the ordinary regulations. I do not think it necessary to defend the drafting of the Bill; that is a matter to be examined in Committee; but I hope your Lordships will, at all events, express your opinion that the time has come when these expenses ought no longer to be imposed as a tax on individuals who are totally unable to bear them.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, probably the House will pardon me for intruding for a few moments, because I observe that Ireland has been introduced into this Bill apparently at the eleventh hour, and I should imagine without the slightest consideration of what the practice is in Ireland. The 2nd clause of the Bill provides that the expenses of the High Sheriff shall, so far as they are expenses which would before the passing of this Act have been defrayed by the Treasury or out of the County Rate, be defrayed out of the County Rate in like manner, as the expenses of providing and maintaining Judges' lodgings are now by law defrayed and shall be included in the costs of the Assize, within the meaning of the Local Government Act of 1888. Now, that Act is entirely inapplicable to Ireland. The lodgings of the Judges in Ireland are provided not by the Sheriff, but by the Treasury. That expense is paid by the Treasury, and there is no Act of Parliament that I am aware of which is applicable to Ireland called the Local Government Act of 1888. How expenses are to be measured within the meaning of an Act which does not exist at all in the country to which this well-considered Bill is to apply is not ex
  436
  plained. The 3rd clause of the Bill is that—
  "The amount of expenses claimed by any Sheriff out of a County Rate shall be submitted to the Treasury together with his accounts under the Sheriffs Act, 1887."
  There is no such Act in Ireland; so that whoever has drafted this Act and put Ireland in it has done so without much consideration, and it is not alone that he has done it without much consideration, but he has apparently done it without any consideration. I cannot conceive any Bill being moved or introduced with a more infinitesimal regard to the state of law, the practice, or anything like acquaintance with that portion of the United Kingdom, which is sometimes not quite considered in these Acts of Parliament; and, indeed, I have observed that everybody who has addressed your Lordships' House up to this moment has spoken of this Bill as if it merely referred to England. I have not heard one reference to Ireland to which it is supposed to apply from any noble Lord who has addressed your Lordships. We have had illustrations and anecdotes to a considerable extent as regards what has happened in England. I can speak with even a longer experience than my noble Friend the Master of the Rolls, having been a Judge going circuit for 22 years, one year more, I regret to say, than my noble Friend, and I have never heard of any difficulties in Ireland as to the reception of the Judges. The lodgings are not provided, as I have already said, by the Sheriff. He provides the carriage by which they are brought to their lodgings, and go every day to the Courts I may say it is the habit in Ireland for the Judges to go to church or chapel as private individuals, and are not accompanied by the High Sheriff. I quite agree with the Lord President of the Council, that this is a subject which ought to be legislated upon, but as regards the expenses which the High Sheriffs are put to in Ireland in connection with receiving the Judges going circuit, they would be, I should say, only about £10 each Assizes in many counties. In Ireland the High Sheriffs enter into a contract with the Sub-sheriff, by which they agree to pay him a certain sum to indemnify him, not for entertaining the Judges, but for his duties, and against

  437
  all actions that may be brought against him. The matter has, in my opinion, really reached a crisis in Ireland, for, in consequence of the series of so-called remedial measures that have been applied in Ireland to the landed gentry, persons desiring to fill the High Shrievalty are getting to be within a very narrow circuit, and it is extremely hard to find anybody who will serve the office at all. This measure could bring no relief of a practical character in Ireland, even if it could work there, because, as I have said already, the expenses of actually receiving the Judges is very small. The sum paid to the Sub-sheriff, in some cases £200 or £300, is simply for acting as Sub-sheriff, not for honouring the Judge. I am very sorry a Bill of this sort should have been brought in, merely touching, as it does, the fringe of the question. I believe it would not work in Ireland, even if properly drafted, and it would be an almost inappreciable relief to the High Sheriff in Ireland, whereas it would be more convenient if he were relieved from indemnifying the sub-sheriff, who should be appointed with a regular salary, or if something of that kind could be carried out. As the Lord President of the Council has said it is the opinion of the Government that such a Bill should be brought in, I would not vote against them; but, as far as I can see, this Bill would not be of any great practical utility in Ireland.
  *LORD BELPER: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in a county which took up this question—we having passed a Resolution upon it, I think, two years ago before the Committee of your Lordships' House sat—I should like to say a few words upon it. I must say that I think the noble and learned Lords who have addressed the House have ignored the fact that there is, undoubtedly, a very strong feeling in the country that the time has now come when you can no longer place what is really a part of the administration of justice as a charge upon the pocket of a single individual, and that individual very frequently a gentleman who is quite unable to bear any extra expense, and who, during the last few years, certainly has not been in a position to spend money on what does not concern him personally. I cordially support my noble Friend who has
  438
  brought in this Bill, for that reason. But I must say I rather regret the Bill does not go a little further. I have been at some pains to get the particulars in a county in which I live of the actual proportion of the Sheriff's expenses which this Bill would really deal with. I think the county to which I refer may be taken to-be a tolerably typical county, though, of course, the custom as to expenditure differs in various counties exceedingly. I find that the expenditure which would be dealt with by this Bill would be less-than two-fifths of the whole of the High Sheriff's expenditure. I think there is a very important consideration, which has not been noticed by any of the noble Lords who have addressed you this evening, and that is the economical part of the question. Even with regard to the part of it which this Bill deals with, I believe that precisely the same amount of reception and State might be kept up, but at a very much smaller expense. I have looked into the figures, and I believe you can save on this head alone between 40 and 50 per cent, of the present expenditure. You would have, in the first place, the same body acting every year instead of successive individuals. At present the High Sheriff has absolutely no control over the expenditure. Every year the High Sheriff has to get his new liveries, new coach, and new harness, and I believe the thing might be done, with exactly the same amount of proper respect to the Judges, at much less expense. But that part of the expenses which this Bill does not deal with is more than two-fifths of the total expenses. At present I am leaving out of consideration the personal expenses of the High Sheriff. I believe, if your Lordships pass this Bill, in the county with which I am connected one great economy might be effected at once, that is if you choose to put it into this Bill, that you might absolutely abolish the office of Under Sheriff. I do not know whether the practice is general, but in the county I am referring to it has been the custom of the High Sheriff to appoint his own solicitor as Under Sheriff, and he then appoints an acting Under Sheriff, who does the whole of the work and takes the fees. But, practically, the Under Sheriff does nothing except to assure the High Sheriff that everything is being properly done, and to make whatever arrange-

  439
  ments have to be made in a way that is satisfactory to the High Sheriff who has appointed him. Under this head you would save something like 20 per cent, of the whole expenditure, if you abolish the office of Under Sheriff, and let the officer acting as Under Sheriff be appointed a permanent officer, as was suggested by the Committee of your Lordships' House. With regard to the Sheriff himself, there are, as has been pointed out, certain fees payable on taking office. I believe it is the custom for the Under Sheriff, the acting Under Sheriff, and, I believe, the Sheriff's Officer, all to give bonds of indemnity to the High Sheriff in case they should do anything illegal during the time the High Sheriff) remains in office. Now, those bonds of indemnity are made out afresh every year, although they may be exactly the same persons who are acting as Under Sheriff and Sheriff's Officer. There is very considerable expense in regard to those fees on the Sheriff taking office, which might be avoided if the County Council took the bond of indemnity, and themselves had this appointment of the Under Sheriff. Then, my Lords, there are other charges and fees which are never really disputed. The Sheriff when he comes into office cannot do that. He simply asks, "What are the fees V and pays them, as he is told has always been the custom. If the County Council, or some such authority, became empowered to arrange and revise, from time to time, the scale of fees charged, I believe on that head alone there would be found to be considerable economy. My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill would be willing, if the Bill is read a second time now, to accept any enlargement of its scope in this direction. I venture to think it will be rather unfortunate if this part of the question is carried now without any consideration being given to the question of the Under Sheriff's expenditure. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships at any greater length. I would only venture to point out, with regard to one remark which was made by the Lord Chief Justice, that I cannot myself see that in the Bill there is anything which would prevent the Sheriffs from entertaining the Judges in a more hospitable or even splendid manner, if they wished
  440
  to do so. I believe the Bill only says that certain things are to be done, and that those things will have to be done with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I believe in some counties it is the custom for the Sheriff, he being a rich man, to provide a four-in-hand to drive the learned Judges into the country after the completion of their work in the Courts. No doubt that would be extremely agreeable to the Judges, but I do not think there is anything in the Bill which would prevent a High Sheriff providing a four - in - hand, if he wished to do so. Quite the contrary; because if you take part of the necessary expenses off his shoulders he will have a little more to spend in showing hospitality to the Judges and to his own friends. However that maybe, there is certainly a strong feeling prevalent throughout the country with respect to this relic of the olden times. I, therefore, trust that your Lordships will pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and also that my noble Friend in charge of it will be disposed to receive Amendments, somewhat extending its scope, especially with regard to doing away with the office of Under Sheriff.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in support of my noble Friend behind me. In the part of the country to which I belong I know the feeling is exceedingly strong upon the subject, and it is thought that the levying of these sums upon the gentlemen who have to serve the office of High Sheriff is an exceedingly hard and unjust practice with regard to the reception of the Judges on circuit. I would just point out that in these matters times have very much changed. Judges in London are, I think, treated with as much respect as in any other part of the country, but it has not been thought necessary that they should be attended with a kind of pageant as they go to their Courts. No one would say, of course, that proper arrangements should not be made, or that on these occasions it may not be necessary to have some kind of reception of high officers connected with the administration of justice, but I assure noble and learned Lords that they will scarcely be aware of the kind of remarks which are made in the country regarding the

  441
  present practice. It is looked upon altogether as belonging to a different state of things. In former times, when railway communication did not exist, and people rarely left their own country, no doubt the entry of the Judges into an Assize town was a very unusual occasion, and their reception was an impressive ceremony. When the Judges came down to the country from the Metropolis in those days, it was very natural that they should be received with great ceremony. But those times have long passed away. People are now in the habit of travelling about by railroad all over the country, and when one hears that the Judges are to be received in the present rather extraordinary fashion, I confess it excites, as no doubt it does with many people, a feeling of anything but respect. I think, my Lords, the time has, therefore, come when it is desirable that there should be some regulations laid down in accordance with the customs and habits of the present day, and which should be, as far as possible, the same in each county and all over the country. Of course, there might be some differences maintained, the wishes of particular counties might be consulted, but, practically, it would be the same thing throughout most parts of the country. I do not think there is any cause to fear that the County Councils or the Joint Committee would treat the Judges with scant respect. On the contrary, I believe that each County Council, as a body, would wish that the county they represent should distinguish itself by acting with proper respect to Her Majesty's Judges, and I think in that respect there will be nothing to regret. But I do earnestly hope the question will not be left in its present very unsatisfactory position. If noble and learned Lords will pardon me for saying so, Judges, like other people, are apt sometimes to show a want of discretion; and though in the vast majority of cases the Judges in this respect give no cause for disagreement with the Sheriffs, yet I must say I have heard anecdotes as to proceedings of learned Judges in regard to the manner of their reception, which I would much rather not have been acquainted with. Then, too, I must say that many people think, though it is quite proper that the Sheriffs should receive the Judges, it is
  442
  not decorous, or necessary, or proper, that the Sheriff should dance attendance on them during the whole time of the Assizes. The Sheriff is a gentleman of high position, and to place him in that position is not fitting. He should receive the Judges, and after that they should receive the same attention as other gentlemen. I have only risen for the purpose of supporting what my noble Friend has said. I hope we shall read the Bill a second time, and any question of Amendments can be dealt with in Committee. The question of Ireland is a somewhat different one, but that can, no doubt, be dealt with in another manner.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, after the discussion which has taken place, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships very long. But there are one or two-points which have been raised which I should like to answer, because it might be thought not respectful if I did not answer certain objections which noble and learned Lords have taken. First, there is the question of form, which is objected to. My Lords, when the Bill is leaving this House, the clause, according to the invariable practice, which refers to the rates will be struck out and re-inserted after it has left the House. That is an answer to that objection. Then, my Lords, the next objection which was taken, was that the Lord Chancellor is not the proper official to entrust with the supervision of these regulations, because sometimes the Lord! Chancellor is a person who has not been connected with Common Law, and has not gone circuit. I apprehend that the Lord Chancellor, as head of the law, will, of course, consult the Judges. I think there is no Lord Chancellor who would not take such a course, and I think that that, at all events, is not a ground upon which your Lordships should refuse to read this Bill a second time. Then, it is said there have been no complaints. I can understand that noble and learned Lords who were not on the Committee may not be aware of the complaints; but I think the Lord Chief Justice, who sat on the Committee and heard the evidence, will not say that no complaints were laid before the Committee. If any of your Lordships will read the evidence you will see the statement made by the Lord President is exactly correct, that

  443
  many persons do feel that they are put to expense, and occasionally to unnecessary expense, in these matters, and that they are desirous some rules and regulations should be laid down. As has been very truly said, the object of this Bill is to lay down regulations, and not in any way to treat the Judges with disrespect. I should certainly not be the person to propose a measure which would have that effect. With regard to most of the other objections which have been taken, they can, I think, be perfectly well dealt with in Committee. My Lords, this Bill, I hope, will be referred to Committee in the ordinary way, and I can only say that I shall be perfectly ready to consider any Amendments which noble Lords may send to me, if they think there are points in the Bill which are not properly treated—for instance, let us say, the question-of Ireland. Lord Morris said this Bill does not in certain respects refer properly to Ireland.
  *LORD MORRIS: Not in any respect.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Very wall, in any respect. As the measure is a very small one indeed, I shall be glad to receive from him an Amendment making it so refer. I apprehend there is nothing so different in the nature of an English county to an Irish county as to make it impossible for words to be inserted which will enable the Grand Jury in Ireland to act in exactly the same way as the County Council does in England. Then the last question I have to answer is whether I should be prepared to enlarge the scope of my Bill in Committee. Well, I confess I am rather afraid to answer that question, because, owing to the fortuitous concourse of learned Judges here to-night, I should be rather afraid lest, if I enlarged the Bill, it should meet with more serious opposition. It is so far practically unopposed, because it is such a little one, but I very much fear if I proposed to deal more nrgely with the office of High Sheriff the objection would be such as to make it impossible for it to pass this Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have very little to add. First with regard to the remarks which have been made by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, I would appeal to him whether a great many of the objections which he has urged might not, at all events, be left to
  444
  Committee, so that your Lordships need not be put to the trouble of dividing upon this Bill. My noble Friend, I think, has never served upon the Committee, when applications are constantly made, from time to time, for the removal of certain names from the list of Sheriffs. If he had ever undergone that experience, I am sure he would have been under an entirely different impression as to whether or not there are complaints made with reference to performing the office of High Sheriff. With reference to the observations which were made by the Master of the Rolls, I am bound to tell him he is greatly in error in two respects. In the first place, he said he is no longer liable to go on circuit. I think he will see that is an error which may be cured when I tell him that he is liable.
  LORD ESHER: I think nothing will ever induce me to go.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid my noble and learned Friend is like some of those gentlemen who are called upon to act as High Sheriff; he would rather not serve. His second error is one which he could not have fallen into if he did go circuit—namely, that the javelin-men are abolished. That is entirely an error; no Act of Parliament has abolished the javelin-men at all. What has been done is this: An Act of Parliament has been passed which enables the High Sheriff, with the consent of Quarter Sessions, to employ police instead of javelin-men; but that can only be done if the Quarter Sessions consent. Only last year an application was made to me by a High Sheriff to know what he was to do because the Court of Quarter Sessions had refused to allow the use of the police. The High Sheriffs are now obliged, I believe, to provide a certain number of men in uniform—they are not called "javelin-men"—to attend the Judges on circuit. In all the circumstances, I consider there is an evil which ought to be dealt with, that there is a great subject of grievance in this matter, and that gentlemen throughout the country who are likely to be called upon to fill that office should be considered by your Lordships. Some of the objections to the Bill, as I have said, might be dealt with in Committee, and, in particular, that which was pointed out with regard to the Lord Chancellor

  445
  making arrangements with the County Councils. I can assure your Lordships, if the Bill goes into Committee, and the question is raised as to who is the proper person to make regulations with the County Councils, I shall myself move that the Lord Chief Justice shall do it. That part of the objection, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor may not be a person who is acquainted with the circuits will be removed. Under the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will not think it necessary to divide the House on the question, but will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  *LORD COLERIDGE: After the exceedingly seductive appeal which has been made by my noble and learned Friend I will certainly accede to his suggestion, and I will not trouble your Lordships to go to a Division.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill read 2a, and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.—(No. 105.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  *THR EAEL OF JERSEY: My Lords, when this Bill was passed through Committee there was an understanding that certain points should be referred for further consideration. There were three points raised: the first was whether more power should he taken to appoint additional officers, besides the Inspectors referred to in the Act; the second point was whether it might not be desirable to make the payment of compensation retrospective, so that persons owning animals which were slaughtered before the 1st September might be compensated for them under the Act, instead of out of the rates, as at present; and the third point was whether it might not be advisable to take further powers to withhold compensation for cattle slaughtered for having been in contact with diseased animals in cases where the owners had concealed the existence of the disease. These three points have been considered by the Minister of Agriculture, and he thinks that, under the Bill as it stands, there is ample power to appoint a sufficient num-
  446
  ber of Inspectors and other officers. There would be no fear of too many salaried officers being appointed, as any additional work would be done by Sub-Inspectors, who would only be paid by fees, except in the case of a general outbreak, when special arrangements would be made. With regard to the suggestion that the Bill should be made to apply to cattle slaughtered before the date when it comes into operation, as the provision in the Bill was founded on a Resolution of the House of Commons, it would require a separate Resolution to carry out the suggestion, and, considering the difficulties of passing measures quickly, it would not be desirable to make that change. As to the third point, there has naturally been considerable difference of opinion, but the President of the Board of Agriculture has carefully considered the matter, and has come to the conclusion that under the Act of 1878. and the present measure, he has sufficient powers to cope with any outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia which may arise, and that it will not be necessary to extend his powers by this Bill. No doubt it is very desirable that evil doers should be punished, but the President of the Board thinks he has sufficient power. If afterwards it is found desirable to enlarge his powers, it would be quite possible to get a short measure passed with this object in another Session of Parliament. I hope, therefore, it will not be considered necessary by those who take an interest in this matter to insist upon any change being made in the Bill.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord opposite mentioned that there was a very strong belief in England, or in his part of the country, that this disease was propagated from Ireland. He spoke of the Government of the day as not having acted with great vigour in endeavouring to stamp it out, and said it was much more difficult to enforce the orders in Ireland than in England. I will take this opportunity, not having been present when the Bill went into Committee, of dissenting entirely, not only from what the noble Lord stated as being a matter of belief, but from the notion that there is any good ground for it. At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill there were only two places in-

  447
  fected, the North and South Dublin Unions. An Order was made in February, 1889, declaring that no cattle belonging to those districts should be exported to Great Britain, or exposed for sale in the Metropolitan Market on the ordinary day; and further, all cattle in the defined districts must be handed on hoof and horn, and can only be moved out of the districts on licence; and every addition or diminution of cattle moved from to districts must be reported to the police, who exercise the strictest supervision over the defined districts and prosecute. Inspectors are specially employed and engaged in visiting the defined districts. Any diseased cattle are at once slaughtered, and all cattle in contact. Pleuro-pneumonia has decreased. In 1887 there were 240 outbreaks, and 819 cattle attacked. In 1888 only 181 cases and 522 attacked. In 1889, 108 outbreaks and 184 cattle attacked. All cases reported by the Board of Agriculture in England are at once inquired into. In all cases, it appeared that the cattle were not affected when leaving Ireland. I understand that a serious outbreak in Norfolk was not reported to the authorities there for months. The disease is much more likely to have spread in this manner from the County of Norfolk than by cattle from Ireland. I think, therefore, this impression, which the noble Earl says is so strongly felt in England, appears to be founded on no facts. I feel that the Government have acted with the greatest vigour in stamping out pleuro-pneumonia, the same course as they followed with regard to moral plagues. I can only say that the Orders have been carried out in Ireland as stringently as possible, and I do not see that more difficulty exists in enforcing them in Ireland than in England. It appears to me that in England really you have only adopted the system which has been in force in Ireland. The prevalent belief in England which the noble Earl referred to is wholly unfounded, and I suppose the only way to meet an unfounded statement of belief is to contradict it on the first occasion that one can.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have no doubt the noble Lord is entirely satisfied with the Report he has read, but I should infer from that satisfaction
  448
  he has probably not had much practical experience upon this subject. I am perfectly aware that excellent orders are issued in Ireland by the Privy Council, and I have no doubt that they are under the impression there that the diminution in the number of cases is entirely caused by the excellent way in which the law has been carried into effect. But I am rather disposed to draw exactly the opposite conclusion from that diminution of cases, because the impression it makes upon my mind is that there has been a want of vigilance in this matter. I doubt exceedingly that there has been a diminution of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. It is almost impossible to conceive that it can be so, when we know that animals which have been found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia in England have been traced to Ireland; and so much has this been felt to be the case, that I know a great many people who do not think it prudent now to purchase Irish cattle, and as those cattle are exceedingly valuable to farmers, they would not decline to purchase them if they were not obliged to do so. Therefore, I think the noble Lord will see that that belief cannot be so easily disposed of. Ireland is a country of very small agricultural proprietors, and there are a great number of them; and those who are acquainted with the class of men who constitute a very large proportion of those proprietors must know that it follows there is much more difficulty in getting information from them than in a country like this, where there are mostly large farmers. I am very glad the noble Lord has read the Report. It shows certainly that there has been no lack of Orders issued, and all I can say is that I sincerely trust those Orders will be vigorously and continuously carried into effect. I hope the Irish Government, occupied as it is with many other matters, may in this so conduct their affairs that they will meet with the approval of everyone, and that they will succeed in removing from Ireland this disease, which affects animals sent to England. I am sorry my noble Friend, after consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture, has not been able to accept the Amendments which have been suggested. I rather gather from what he has said that the difficulty is not the intrinsic character of those

  449
  Amendments, but the fear that if the Bill goes down to the other House there may be difficulty in passing the measure through. I can appreciate the difficulty, and I do not wish to undervalue it. I regret that the last of the Amendments has not been adopted, which would have enabled the Government to deprive those owners who had neglected to give notice of the existence of disease on their farms of the compensation which they would otherwise have been entitled to. I think that would have given a very valuable power to the President of the Board of Agriculture. I am by no means persuaded that the powers they possess will be found adequate for the purposes required. I think the experience of the Local Authorities, which is very considerable in these matters, is at present much more weighty than that of the Board of Agriculture. All I can say is that I am very sorry the Amendments cannot be introduced into the Bill, and that I hope at some future time, if there is any amending Bill brought in, it may be found possible to include them.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 122.)
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND REPEAL BILL.
  A Bill for the repeal of the Local Government Acts for England and Scotland—Was presented by Lord Denman; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(No. 156.)

  ADMIRAL COLOMB'S FLASHING SIGNALS.
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: In the absence of my noble Friend Lord Sudeley I have to move for correspondence between Flag Officers (including Rear-Admiral Colomb) and the Admiralty relating to flashing signals between 1st January, 1887, and the present date.
  *LORD ELPHINSTONE: I am sorry to have to state that I am not prepared to accede to the Motion as it stands on the Paper. It asks for certain correspondence between
  450
  Naval Officers and the Admiralty from the 1st January, 1887, down to the present time. As that is obviously but a small portion of the correspondence it would, being incomplete, give an erroneous idea of what the effect of the correspondence was. If my Friend is prepared to move for the whole correspondence from 1867 there would be no objection to give that Return.
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: As my noble Friend is prepared to do that, I propose to amend the notice in that way.

  NAVY (FLASHING SIGNALS).
  The whole official correspondence relating to Rear-Admiral Colomb, from 1867 to the present date: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Sudeley.)
EDUCATION CODE (1890) BILL. (No. 157.)

  ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES BILL. (No. 158.)
  Read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.