Lords Sitting of 9 September 1886

MINUTES.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Electric Lighting* (13).
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 7)* (3); Local Government (No. 8)* (4); Local Government (No. 9)* (5); Local Government (No. 10)* (6); Local Government (No. 11)* (7); Local Government (Ireland) (Public Health Act) (No. 2)* (8); Local Government (Highways)* (168); Local Government (No. 5)* (172), and passed.

BULGARIA—REPORTED ABDICATION OF PRINCE ALEXANDER.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARR: I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give any information with regard to the alleged abdication of the Prince of Bulgaria, and the steps which have been taken by the European Powers?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (The Earl of IDDESLEIGH): My Lords, I do not know that I can give any further information with regard to the abdication of the Prince of Bulgaria than what has appeared generally in the public newspapers. The communications we have received are very much in the same sense, and they show that at the last, the Prince, having satisfied himself by inquiries which he made that his position in Bulgaria was one that he could not satisfactorily maintain, appointed a Regency, to whose hands he made over his dignity. He was received at and conducted from Sofia with great respect and with marks of great affection, and there is no doubt that the manner of his leaving the country was dignified and worthy of the great reputation which he had won for himself. This close to the incident is in worthy contrast to the terrible outrage which

1711
shocked so thoroughly the public mind. As to the future, I am not in a position at present to say anything. No doubt the arrangements that will have to be made in consequence of the abdication of the Prince will be made in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin, and with arrangements made subsequently at the Conference dealing with the matter; and I do not apprehend that there will be any advantage in entering into any speculations with regard to the course which may be taken.
Subsequently,
LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL, who had a Notice on the Paper, "To call attention to the occurrences in Bulgaria; and ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they are yet prepared to make a statement with regard to them?" said, the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) had in some degree—in a manner which was exceedingly obliging—rather anticipated his Notice, and had succeeded in drawing a reply from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He would in no way press the Question he desired to ask unless it seemed to the Government that it would be conducive to their policy to extend the statement which had been made. It was with no idea of embarrassing the Government that he had placed the Notice on the Paper.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I appreciate the courtesy of the noble Lord in not pressing his Question, and in the observations he has made. It is quite natural that there should be a desire that some words should be said in this House to show the interest taken in the recent occurrences in Bulgaria, and also to explain the position occupied by Her Majesty's Government. After what I have already said in presence of the House, I do not think it is necessary or desirable that I should go further into the matter at the present time. Very full accounts have been given in the newspapers of what has passed, and I am able to confirm the information they contain. We are now approaching the time when some arrangements will have to be made for the appointment of a Successor to Prince Alexander; but I think at the present moment it would be rather inconvenient than otherwise to make any further statement on the subject.

MALTA—THE DOCKYARDS—EMPLOYMENT OF MALTESE SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether there are any special orders or regulations relative to the employment of Maltese subjects of Her Majesty in the dockyards at Malta or otherwise as seamen in the Royal Navy; also, whether there is any objection to laying Papers on that subject upon the Table of the House? said, from private information which had reached him, as well as from statements which had been made in the public Press, he was led to believe that orders or regulations had been issued relative to the employment of Maltese subjects of Her Majesty in the Dockyards and Naval Departments at Malta, or otherwise as seamen in the Royal Navy. It was a question which was naturally one of great interest and importance to the Maltese people, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not object to say what regulations were in existence with regard to the employment of Maltese British subjects in the Dockyards of Malta and the various Departments connected with them, and also as to their being employed as seamen, firemen, and generally in the Royal Navy—whether, he might say, as regarded employment, they were placed upon the same footing as other subjects of Her Majesty? He believed there was but one opinion, that the Maltese were good sailors, and that it was not easy to find men who worked better or as well as they did. He wished in a few words to point out that any subject relating to employment and labour in Malta was one of special interest and importance, and for this reason, the population had been for a long time increasing without a corresponding increase in the demand for labour. The resources of the Island were limited, he would not say incapable of further development, for he believed they would be greatly improved if there were more freedom of action in the administration of civil affairs, and that too without weakening the position of Malta as a fortress. But independently of these considerations the increase of population was becoming a matter of great anxiety. Emigration was already largely resorted to, but it could not go beyond a certain

  1713
  point, and if they looked to the relations of this country towards Malta, the circumstances of its annexation, and its great importance as a Naval and Military Station, these considerations seemed to demand that there should be at least equality of employment for the Maltese, when qualified for it, with their fellow British subjects. He could understand it was possible that difficulties might in some instances exist with regard to the use of the Maltese language, a language little used except by the Maltese themselves; but if it were found that a knowledge of English would afford greater facilities for employment in the Dockyards and Royal Navy generally, there was little doubt that it would tend much to promote the study of the English language. Knowing as he did something of the Maltese people and their hardworking and industrious habits, he believed they might be made of great service as sailors in the British Navy. If taken when young and trained, as they might well be at Malta, they would become a valuable addition to the Naval Service of the country, while at the same time employment, which was so much needed, would be afforded for the population of one of the most important Dependencies of the British Empire. He wished to ask if there were any Papers relating to the employment of the Maltese in the Dockyards or otherwise in the Royal Navy which could be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS) (who replied) said: There are special regulations relative to the employment of Maltose as seamen in the Royal Navy. They we re established with a view of restricting the entries of Maltese to the non-combatant branches of the Service. It is contrary to precedent to lay Papers of this character before the House. There are no special regulations with regard to employment of Maltese in the Dockyards. As a matter of fact, they form by far the largest proportion of the working staff of the Dockyards.

  LEASEHOLDERS (IRELAND).RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM, in obtaining leave to withdraw the following Notice:—
  1714
  "To call attention to the social disorder arising from the unequal rental and land tenure under Trinity College, Dublin; and to move that the triple ownership of land should he equitably terminated;"
  rose to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House all leaseholders in Ireland who at the natural expiration of their leases will come under the Land Act of 1881, or who may be subject to a fluctuation of rent during the term of their lease, should have access to the Land Commissioners for the adjustment of their rents."
  In doing so, the noble Earl said, that there was an agitation in Ireland on this subject which had made great progress, and which had met with the approval of many Members of Parliament belonging to all Parties, who were pledged to vote next Session for legislation in the direction in which his Motion pointed. The present position of affairs with regard to leaseholders in Ireland was exceedingly undesirable and ought to be terminated at once. There was no analogy between Irish leases and English and Scotch leases. Their origin was entirely different. An English landlord equipped the farm which he let on lease, whereas the Irish leaseholder equipped the farm, building his house and offices, and probably even laying out the land. Having equipped his farm it could hardly be expected that the Irish leaseholder should lose his interest in the farm at the expiration of the lease. In fact, Parliament by the Land Act of 1881 had adopted that view and had given the tenant the power to apply to the Commissioners, if he could hold on for a time, to extend his lease for a period of 15 years at a judicial rent. It would, therefore, be seen that his proposal merely anticipated by a short time what would eventually occur if the tenants could but hold on. It might be asked—"Why do these people wish to break their contracts?" He justified such a breach of contract on the ground that the basis of all Irish land legislation for the last 20 years had been that the Irish tenant was not free to contract. If, then, the ordinary Irish tenant was not free to contract, why should it be supposed that the poor leaseholder was free? These leases for the most part had been entered upon for various reasons. There was, for example, general insecurity of tenure, and rents were being constantly put up and raised capriciously and sometimes

  1715
  unjustly; and, again, the tenants might have wished to protect themselves against possible new landlords. In order to avoid these and other contingencies the tenant might have entered upon a lease. He maintained, therefore, that outside pressure and insecurity had deprived the tenant of freedom to contract. There was good reason, then, for a revision of the leases. It was rather hard that tenants who had been granted by Parliament a distinct prospective interest in their holdings, should, through the present bad times and perfectly unforeseen circumstances, lose that very substantial prospect of interest which Parliament had given them. He appealed to their Lordships to do justice to the Irish leaseholders. Even Trinity College, Dublin, had issued ejectments against their leaseholders, or at least against one leaseholder, and had taken other action which had been the cause of social disorder in the districts affected for the last 18 months or two years. On a previous occasion when he brought this subject before their Lordships Lord Ashbourne stated it would probably never be heard of again. The noble Lord never made a greater mistake in his life. It was his intention, and the intention of those who thought with him, to stick to the matter until it was set right, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would see the wisdom of settling it. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That in the opinion of this House all leaseholders in Ireland who at the natural expiration of their leases will come under the Land Act of 1881, or who may be subject to a fluctuation of rent during the term of their lease, should have access to the Land Commissioners for the adjustment of their rents."—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  THE EARL OF HOWTHsaid, that this subject affected a large number of Irishmen who, like himself, were interested in leasehold property, and he wished, therefore, to make one or two observations in reference to the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) who had just sat down. He did not in any way desire to obstruct legislation on this question, but the period had certainly not come for such legislation. There were many circumstances connected with the question which could not be properly stated at two or three days' Notice. As an instance of
  1716
  this, he might mention that when the Crofters Bill was under discussion the question of leaseholders was not dealt with in the Act. The Motion of the noble Earl recognized no equality whatever between the landlord and tenant. According to the Resolution, the tenant had very full opportunity of bringing his landlord into Court; but he did not see that the landlord had the same facility. He was himself a Liberal, and in "another place" he had supported the Land Bill of 1870 and had given a full consent to several points in the Land Bill of 1881. He would divide leaseholders into five classes. In the first were the rich tenants, who had large incomes independent of their leases. In the second were those who had other sources of income besides agriculture—he referred to the large grass owners. In the third were the middlemen, who certainly did not bear a very good name in the country, though he did not desire to say anything against the noble Earl, who was a middleman. There were a great many vacant seats on that (the Liberal) side of the House, and after this Motion of the noble Earl he anticipated that next Session they should see him occupying one of the seats. He thought, however, that a great many of the misfortunes which had occurred in Ireland were owing to middlemen. In the fourth class were the tenants who had nothing but land to depend upon, and with whom he had much sympathy. In the fifth class were the tenants who held small pieces of land, and upon whom, from various causes, leases had been forced. If in any case leases were to be broken it was in the case of this class. Speaking according to English ideas and legal opinion, he supposed contracts to be sacred. When the case of the crofters was dealt with in "another place" and the question of leases came to be considered they were not allowed to be broken. If that privilege was not accorded to the crofters of Scotland it was very hard on the Irish landlord that his leases should be broken by gentlemen who might have £500 or £600 a-year. He thought the Irish landlords could demand with perfect justice that it should be shown whether they had treated their tenants well or ill, or whether they had evicted. It ought to be remembered that at a period when things were very different from what they were now these

  1717
  leasehold contracts were highly valued. In 1870 these contracts were held in such high estimation that the Government, desirous to make their Bill acceptable to the farmers of the country, instead of treating lightly contracts between landlords and tenants, exempted those who were under such contracts from the provisions of the Bill. From 1870 to 1881 the relations between landlords and leaseholders were upon their trial; and he believed the landlords had not been found wanting in consideration for their lease-holding tenants. On an estate with which he was acquainted there were a number of leaseholders, and on the renewal of leases which fell in instructions were given to go back to the rents of 1854. That showed that the interests of the tenants were considered by the landlords.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN) said, that when he saw the two Notices placed upon the Paper, although they were different in form and in scope, he came to the conclusion that they were both directed to the examination of the same subject—namely, that of the perpetuity tenants holding under Trinity College, Dublin—a subject which the noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim) had on four previous occasions brought under the notice of the House. He had introduced two Bills—one a Private Bill, and the other a Public Bill—both of which were rejected; and he had also moved for inquiries both by Commission and by Committee, the second being so late as March of the present year. The noble Earl had not that day gone very far in his remarks before he found himself discussing the position of the leaseholds under Trinity College, Dublin. The noble Earl had, however, withdrawn the first Resolution, and, therefore, it was not necessary to follow him in the remarks he had made upon it. With regard to the second and larger Resolution, the noble Earl had scarcely appreciated the scope of the wording of his Motion. If it were carried, it would bring under the Act of 1881 all leaseholders—including those whose rents fluctuated—whether they were occupiers or not, whether they were agricultural or not, whether they were in town or country. Under the Land Act of 1881 the word tenant was defined to mean a person who occupied a holding under a contract for a tenancy, and the
  1718
  whole machinery of the Law Courts was adapted only to cases where the tenant was also the occupier. Therefore, the change proposed by the noble Earl was one of great extent, and would be one very far-reaching in its results; and he would put it to their Lordships whether, under the present circumstances, it would be possible to give effect to a Resolution of this sort, which had been brought forward at a very short Notice and in so small a House? He thought that the noble Earl had probably achieved his main object in obtaining an opportunity of making remarks on the subject. He had, in a speech of considerable ability, laid once more before their Lordships his views, and he had been, to a great extent, answered by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Howth). Under these circumstances, it was his duty, on the part of the Government, to express their inability to accept the Resolution, and he ventured to hope that the noble Earl would not press the Motion he had made to a division.
  THE EARL OF LEITEIMsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) had adroitly avoided the first part of the Resolution, and both noble Lords appeared to doubt his sincerity on that part of the subject. He (the Earl of Leitrim) was not in the habit of saying one thing and meaning another, and he was of opinion that leaseholders were suffering great hardships in spite of all that had been said from the opposite Benches. The Motion referred to leaseholders suffering from high rents, and, as a rule, the high rents had been arrived at since the passing of the Act of 1870. The date in the Act ought to have been 1869 instead of 1870, because a number of leases were forced upon tenants with a view of avoiding the Act before it was passed. In speaking of intimidation, he did not bring anything like a general charge; and he admitted that there were landlords who had given leases with the best intentions and the best results. Still the very fact mentioned, that a landlord had put back the rents to what they were in 1854, bore testimony to the hardship of many existing rents. From the point of view of the landlords, he maintained that it was desirable that this question should be settled. His own instructions were that leaseholders should be put upon

  1719
  the same level as ordinary agricultural tenants.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE OF PRINTED MATTER.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked, Why printed matter enclosed in an envelope open at the sides is charged a higher rate of postage than the same matter enclosed in a similar envelope open at the ends; and, further, how it is decided which are to be regarded as the sides and which as the ends in case of an envelope which is square?
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY) (who replied)said, he regretted that he was unable to give his noble Friend any useful or conclusive answer to the Question. He was informed that the Post Office Authorities were wholly unable to understand the Question; but he was desired to say that if the noble Earl would be kind enough to furnish specimens of what he meant, they would be glad to afford any further information in their power for his satisfaction.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, the Post Office Regulations required that, for the purposes of the book post, both ends of the envelope should be open; but he was informed that if, instead, the sides were left open, the full rate of postage was charged. The Post Office officials themselves decided which were the sides and which the ends of an envelope, and in some instance charged the full rate if what they considered the sides were left open instead of the ends, the object, of course, being that the contents should be open to inspection. He was at a loss to understand why the sides, which were larger than the ends, should not be considered equally available for the purpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrepeated that if the necessary information were supplied the postal officials would further inquire into the matter.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.