Lords Sitting of 17 June 1895

Lord Monck (Viscount Monck)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
COURT OF SESSION CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were brought from the Commons:—

COMMONS REGULATION (BEXHILL) PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
COMMONS REGULATION (HALIFAX) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
INCLOSURE (CASTOR AND AILSWORTH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL—[H.L.]—(STRAND DISTRICT ORDER OPPOSED).
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL— [H.L.]; AND ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL— [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL— [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL— [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL— [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
EGYPT, No. 2 (1895).
Reports by Mr. Villiers Stuart respecting the progress of reorganisation in Egypt since the British occupation in 1882—presented.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRE LAND).
Agricultural statistics of Ireland, with detailed report on agriculture, for year 1894—presented.
AGRICULTURE (ROYAL COMMISSION) (ENGLAND).
Report by Mr. R. Henry Rew (Assistant Commissioner) on the county of Dorset—presented.
POLICE (SCOTLAND).
Thirty-seventh Annual Report of Her-Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for year ended 15th March 1895—presented.
(ARMY MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Statement of the amount due by the public to depositors on 31st March 1893, and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements during the year ended 31st March 1894—presented.
INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1893–4—presented.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
Financial Returns relating to the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Council up to 31st March 1895; together with estimate of expenditure of Council for 1895–6—presented.
PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
Twentieth Annual Report, 1894–5; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY, who rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that it had passed through the other House with little or no opposition; and as far as he knew, it had not been regarded there as being in any sense a contentious measure. At the same time it dealt with a question of no small importance to many persons who were engaged in the market-gardening industry, an industry which had been developed in recent years in certain districts to a considerable extent, and which had escaped much of the depression which had weighed lately so heavily on other branches of agriculture. The Bill had been prepared in the interests chiefly of the market gardeners of South Worcestershire, who carried on their business under somewhat different conditions from those prevailing in other parts of
1240
the country. The need for some legislation of this kind had been generally felt in Worcestershire for some little time. It had been realised by men of both political parties, and all residents in the district; and repeated promises of assistance had been made by the present Member for Evesham, and by the late Member (Sir Edmund Lechmere) who himself introduced in the other House a Bill framed on very much the same lines as those of this measure. He hoped therefore that their Lordships would be disposed to give their assent to the main provisions of the Bill. It might possibly be found necessary to amend some of the details in Committee. It could not be said that the Bill embodied any new principle, for its object was simply to extend the application of the Agriculcultural Holdings Act of 1883 to certain cases which at present were not adequately provided for in that measure. It proposed merely to give to market gardeners advantages similar to those already conferred upon other agriculturists. The object of the Act of 1883 was—in the first place, to secure compensation to agricultural tenants for improvements like manuring and draining effected by them in the ordinary course of their industry; and secondly, to secure compensation for exceptional improvements made by them if they had obtained the written permission of the landlord to make them. These provisions, useful as they might be to meet the case of an ordinary farmer, were of but little use to meet the case of the market gardener, for improvements, held (under the Act of 1883) to be exceptional improvements, on ordinary farms, were essential and necessary in the case of the market-garden industry. For instance, the planting of fruit trees and bushes, and the erection or enlargement of buildings, were not unnaturally considered (under the Act of 1883) to be exceptional improvements, and the consent of the landlord must be shown before compensation could be claimed. But both these things were absolutely essential to the market gardener's business; they were as necessary as manuring or draining was to the ordinary farmer. It was proposed, therefore, in this Bill, that, where land was used as a market garden with the knowledge of the landlord, improvements of this kind should be taken out of the

1241
category of "accidental" improvements, and that with regard to them a market gardener should have the same rights of compensation as were already possessed by other agricultural tenants with regard to ordinary and necessary improvements. He might be asked why market gardeners should not be left to obtain the written consent of the landlord before undertaking these improvements, and it might be said that such consent would not be withheld if the improvements were so obviously necessary. If that objection were raised, he would point out in answer that it was proposed that general consent must still be obtained before the land could be treated as a market garden. But he maintained that, once that general consent had been given further consent ought not to be necessary, for when a landlord agreed to let his land as a market garden he knew quite well what the tenants would have to do; and to compel the tenant to obtain consent in respect of every detail of his work would be to worry and harass him in a quite unnecessary manner. As a matter of fact the unworkable character of the Act of 1883 in this respect had been so fully recognised in South Worcestershire that there was no instance on record of a market gardener having attempted to make use of the measure. This Bill was wanted to prevent the possibility of the infliction of great hardship. A tenant might have effected a number of improvements and might have thus increased considerably the letting value of his land, and yet he was liable to be deprived of the benefit of those improvements by having his tenancy terminated or by having his rent increased. This possibility of hardship was specially felt in South Worcestershire, where the market gardeners carried on their business under rather exceptional conditions. Nearly all the market gardeners in this district were tenants, not freeholders; and practically all the tenancies were annual, and the improvements were effected by the tenants and not by the landlord. Under these conditions it was always within the power of an unscrupulous landlord to deprive a tenant of the benefits of the improvements effected by him. Happily there were but few cases in which that power had been exercised,
1242
and a custom had grown up under which an outgoing tenant was able to obtain from an incoming tenant a sum of money as compensation in respect of improvements effected. This custom, however, was felt to be inadequate, mainly because it lacked legal force or sanction. The landlords had never formally recognised it and could ignore it altogether if they liked. Although such conduct had been very exceptional, the fact that it was possible must detract from the selling value of the goodwill, for no man would give the same amount of money for property, respecting which there was an element of risk, as he would give for property of which the enjoyment was secured to him. Just to the extent to which the price was thus depreciated, the outgoing tenant lost the compensation to which he was in fairness entitled. Such was the nature of the grievance which called for legislation. How did this Bill propose to remedy it? The measure was practically divided into two parts—the first part dealing with the future, and the second with the past. With regard to future tenancies it provided by Subsection 1 of Clause 3, that where the written consent of the landlord had been obtained to use the land as a market garden, the provisions of Section 34 of the Agricultural Holdings Act should apply to all fixtures or buildings affixed or erected by the tenant for the purposes of his trade in the business of a market gardener. Under this clause these fixtures would become the absolute property of the tenant, and would be removable by him at the end of his tenancy. But by this Section 34 of the original Act the landlord's interests were very carefully safeguarded, stringent regulations being laid down with the object of securing that no injury should be done to his property by the removal of these fixtures. By Sub-section 2 of the 3rd clause of this Bill, certain improvements, as far as concerned market garden, were eliminated from the first schedule of the principal Act, which schedule defined the improvements to which the consent of the landlord was necessary. Section 4 gave a definite legal sanction to the customs at present prevailing, according to which by private arrangement between the incoming and the outgoing tenant, without any necessary

1243
reference to the landlord, the former was enabled to take over with the tenancy all rights of compensation possessed by the latter. Section 5 simply enabled a tenant to claim as his own, and to dispose of as he thought best, any fruit trees or bushes which might have been planted by him, but not permanently set up, and with regard to which, therefore, he would have no claim for compensation. Clause 4, which dealt with the second main proposal of the Bill, aimed at placing tenancies, already existing, on the same footing of advantage as those which might be created in the future. It did so by providing that where land had been cultivated as a market garden to the knowledge of the landlord, all rights of compensation established by the previous clause should hold good with respect to any improvement as to which no written notice of dissent on the part of the landlord had been received. The Bill was not in any way intended to be a self-contained measure. It was merely an adaptation of the Agricultural Holdings Act to a special set of circumstances, and was to be read in connection with that Act. He hoped their Lordships would see their way to meet the wishes of a large and very deserving section of the agricultural community, at any rate in South Worcestershire, by giving legislative sanction to this Bill. He begged to move its Second Reading.
LORD CARRINGTONwas very pleased to be able to say to the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government entirely approved of the provisions of the Bill so far as they went, and they were quite disposed to support the Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not imagine anybody would desire to demur to the principle of the Bill as laid down by the noble Earl. It appeared to be a Bill on a subject of detail with which many of their Lordships were not closely acquainted, and more careful examination in Committee might be necessary than was ordinarily given in order to insure that the details of the Bill answered to the description given of it. He further threw out the suggestion that a small Select Committee might be useful for considering the Bill. However that might be, he thought the general tenour of the Bill was undoubtedly
1244
very beneficial, and he hoped their lordships would consent to give it a Second Reading.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether, as a matter of fact, these market gardens were sold now in the market, because the noble Earl spoke of the present state of the law interfering with the goodwill, implying that the goodwill was saleable now?
THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, the goodwill was saleable by private arrangement between the incoming and outgoing tenant. There were cases in which it was put up for auction, but those cases were rare.
*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, the noble Earl spoke of taking over the machinery of the Act of 1883 so far as valuations and matters of that sort were concerned, and incorporating them in the present Bill. No doubt the arrangements under that Act were very perfect, but they were also extremely expensive, and he hoped his noble Friend would consider, before the Committee stage, whether the machinery provided by the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation Act of 1887, on account of its simplicity and inexpensive character, might not be better adapted to meet the provisions of this Bill.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DOGS BILL [H.L.]
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, he said, was a non-contentious measure, intended to consolidate nine Acts of Parliament, passed from 1839 up to 1871. The Bill was required on account of the increase of rabies in some portions of England. There were 96 cases last year, and the cases had increased this year to 150. The reason, to a great extent, why the increase was so marked was on account of the number of stray dogs wandering about the country without any sort of control, and the difficulty of dealing with them. If a police officer had any reason to believe that a dog found in a highway was a stray dog, he might seize it. If no application was made for such a dog, or no owner was known, after three days it might either be sold or destroyed. A police officer

1245
might destroy any dog found in a high way which he had reasonable ground for believing to be affected with rabies. That gave all over the country a power at present only in the hands of the Metropolitan Police. He should be perfectly prepared to reconsider the words of the clause dealing with offences, so as to make it clear that the Bill in no way interfered with sporting dogs.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsupposed the the police would have no power of interference in places of public resort.
LORD CARRINGTONsaid, the Bill was necessarily left rather vague so as not to hurt the susceptibilities of people who were dog fanciers and that class of persons.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought three days rather short notice for the murder of a favourite dog. He had known several instances of friends of his who had lost favourite dogs, more friends than animals, and had not been able to recover them for more than three days. Of course, there was the alternative of sale, but practically many dogs were unsaleable, and it was shocking that people should lose their favourite dogs if they could not recover them within three days.
LORD CARRINGTONdid not think there would be any objection to meeting the noble Duke's wishes. The time was that allowed in the Metropolitan Streets Act, but there would be no difficulty, unless, indeed, on the ground of expense, to extending it to a week if necessary.
LORD ASHBOURNEwas afraid that some of the clauses of this Bill would be the subject of much heart-burning and anxiety. He did not quite catch what the noble Lord said in answer to the question put to him as to a dog found in the highway or place of public resort. Surely he had not been advised that that would meet the case of a dog being in a private field. He understood the point taken was to ask whether it was intended to go beyond the case of a dog being found in the highway or in a place of public resort, and whether, if a policeman saw a dog in a field, no matter what the character of the dog, he had the right to go in there and seize it? He thought it was on the first clause that there would be a great deal of anxiety and perturbation of mind. If a policeman in a country district found a dog, and making
1246
up his mind that it was a stray dog because there was no owner in the immediate neighbourhood, took him to the police barracks and three days afterwards murdered him, to use the expression of the noble Duke, a good deal of heart-burning would be occasioned in the country districts with which he was most acquainted. The people would not understand a dog being treated as a stray dog because no owner was with him, dogs being in the habit of going into the fields themselves. This was a matter as to which the Bill would have to be examined very carefully. Again, it was a question whether the interval of three days, at the expiry of which a stray dog could be killed, was not too short. He also thought some machinery should be provided for publishing advertisements in reference to the place where stray dogs, when impounded, would be kept, otherwise people would be hunting in vain for their dogs, and the three days would have elapsed before they learned where the animals were kept. He did not wish to interfere with the passing of the Bill, but hoped the points he had mentioned would be considered, remarking that such a measure ought to be made as cautious and prudent in its wording as was possible.
Bill read 2a.

INEBRIATES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL) rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD HALSBURY: Before the noble Lord addresses the House, I would ask him if it is not desirable that some longer interval should be allowed to elapse before taking the Second Reading stage of a Bill like this, which is of a serious character indeed? I see upon it that it was ordered to be printed on May 21, but I never heard of it until recently. Probably, considering the importance of the Bill, the noble Lord will not consider it inappropriate that a longer interval should be allowed to elapse before the Second Reading is taken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course it is difficult to resist an appeal of this kind. I wish to point out, however, that the Bill was distributed before

1247
the Vacation, and I saw an article in a loading newspaper about it a week ago. Therefore, so far as the circulation of the Bill is concerned, a newspaper was enabled to comment on it a week ago, and that being so it seems rather strange that my noble and learned Friend is not even now in a position to consider its Second Reading.
LORD HALSBURY: If my noble Friend presses the Second Reading I shall say no more, but I shall certainly move the Adjournment of the Debate immediately after the Motion has been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord thinks it right to take that course, I shall not press the Motion for the Second Reading. But it is most unusual, when a Bill has been introduced before a Recess and circulated a great number of days, to make an appeal of this kind. I had come prepared to state my views about the Bill, which has already been discussed in public journals. Of course, after what the noble Lord has said, I shall not press the Motion. Will Thursday next be too soon for my noble and learned Friend? I do not want to have the same difficulty over again.
LORD HALSBURY: If the noble Lord will say Friday I think it would be more convenient.
THE LORD CHANCELLORaccordingly fixed Friday for the Second Reading.
Debate adjourned till Friday next.

STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
LOCAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
LORD RIDDLESDALE LORD RIDDLESDALE moved a verbal Amendment to add (on page 2, Clause 2, line 27) after the word "Controller" the word "General." This officer, he remarked, had been described as Controller, but his proper title was Controller-General, hence the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to; Bill read 3a, passed, and returned to the Commons.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were read 1a.

COMMONS REGULATION (BEXHILL) PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 147.)
COMMONS REGULATION (HALIFAX) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 148.)
INCLOSURE (CASTOR AND AILSWORTH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 149.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL. (No.150.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL. (No. 151.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL. (No. 152.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 153.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL. (No. 154.)

COURT OF SESSION CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: [The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Tweedmouth)]. (No 144.)
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aon Thursday 27th instant.—(The Lord Chancellor). (No. 115.)
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Playfair). (No. 146.)

USURY.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLgave notice that on an early day he would call the attention of the House to the nature and extent of the system of usury, and the practice of money-lenders in the United Kingdom, and ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the evils which thence arose.
House adjourned at Ten minutes past Five o'clock.