Lords Sitting of 15 June 1891

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 69.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 96.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This, my Lords, is a Bill which has passed the other House, and the object of it is that in certain cases the tenant may be substituted for the proprietor by the Board of Works for the purpose of obtaining advances under the Irish Acts for the drainage and improvement of lands. It has been found that under existing circumstances operations for the drainage and improvement of land have been considerably interfered with in certain cases owing to the working of the Land Act of 1881, and I believe there is a general assent to the provisions of this Bill, which was approved by the Irish Government in the other House. I was asked some time ago to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill, because very serious controversy has been raised as to the effect of these advances, the question being whether they were a burden only upon the limited interest of the person obtaining them, or whether, when that limited interest ceased, they remained a burden upon the freehold. Of course, if the latter had been the decision, I should at once have recognised its serious effect upon this measure, and it is obvious that it would have had to be amended to meet cases of that description; but I see by the statements which have appeared in the newspapers that the effect of the judgment recently pronounced by the Court of Appeal, in which I believe all the Judges took part, was that these advances only affected the limited interest of the persons obtaining them, and not the interest of the freeholder. Under
  378
  those circumstances, I do not know there is any objection now to the second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  *THE MARQUESS or WATERFORD(who by leave of the House was heard sitting): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has placed this Bill before your Lordships as if it was a very moderate measure indeed, but I can assure him that we, as landlords, do not like this Bill at all. I do not propose to move that the Bill be not read a second time, but at the same time I hope the noble and learned Lord will consent to its being amended in Committee, because there are clauses in it which render it possible—clauses of a compulsory character—that a landlord's estate might be very seriously jeopardised without his consent. This Bill has several provisions which enable the tenant under certain arrangements to act in the place of the proprietor and have all the liabilities and obligations of a proprietor. But what will happen at the termination of the tenancy? The proprietor then at once takes the place of the ex-tenant, and has to pay the instalments on these loans for works upon the land which probably had been carried out without his consent. That would be a very serious thing for the landlord. But there are some other views to be taken of it. As the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill was necessitated by the Land Act of 1881; but that Act has necessitated a great many things in Ireland which I do not think people altogether approve of at the present time. We have the Land Act; and what may happen? Suppose we take the case of a landlord who has five tenants who under these drainage schemes borrow £1,000, and they have to pay 5 per cent. for it for a certain number of years. That would be £10 for each tenant. Those five tenants go into Court, and the first thing the Commissioners would do would be to take £10 off their rents before going further. It is a very serious thing for landlords to consider that their rents may be reduced for carrying out drainage schemes which may do no good to their property, but may very likely be an injury. I have known such cases to

  379
  happen. But there is another thing. We have had a Purchase Bill in the past and we are going to have another Purchase Bill here directly; and your Lordships must remember that there is a clause in this Purchase Bill which necessitates that the Commissioners should consider any loan—but a Board of Works' loan is particularly mentioned—as a first charge upon the holding before they assess what the purchase money is. In lending money for the purchase of holdings the Commissioners under the Land Purchase Acts have to consider those burdens as a first charge on the land, and they would therefore lend so much less on land burdened with a Board of Works' loan. The Commissioners would, of course, be inclined to advance so much less because there is a previous charge which comes in before the payment of the instalments on the loan which the Purchase Commissioners would be authorised to advance. Then there is another thing; the existence of the loan might, therefore, prevent the Commissioners advancing the purchase as, subject to the loan, the security might not, in their opinion, be sufficient. It is possible that the Purchase Commissioners may say: "This holding is valued at so much, but we do not think that there is, in fact, value sufficient to enable us to advance any money upon it; as the instalment to be paid will come in after this Board of Works' loan, we will therefore force the landlord out of his purchase money to buy up this loan." That would act most injuriously to the interests of the landlord. They might force the landlord to buy up the loan, and thus, not only would his purchase money be reduced, but he would be paying out of his own pocket for works which he had never assented to, and which, possibly, he would wish had never been carried out. Considering that there are these objections, I hope your Lordships will agree to take the compulsory clause out of the Bill, and allow the landlord, who is to be placed in this position in future, at any rate, to give or withhold his consent. I have no objection to the tenants being placed in the position of proprietors if the landlord consents to it, but I object entirely to tenants being placed in the position of proprietors without the landlord's consent.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): As your Lordships are aware, this is not a Bill promoted by the Government, but it is one which has passed the other House with their approval. I think the criticisms which my noble Friend thinks necessary could be met by Amendments moved in Committee, and it is therefore our view that it would, perhaps, be desirable that the Bill should be allowed to go to Second Reading, and that my noble Friend and others who have Amendments to move should have the opportunity of doing so at the next stage of the Bill. The only principle, as I understand it, which would be affirmed by reading the Bill a second time would be that the tenants, who will have now a greater interest in the improvement of the land, should be allowed a voice in the formation of Drainage Boards, with every protection possible to the landlords. That being so, and if that protection can be given by Amendments, I see no objection to the Bill being read a second time.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have, of course, no objection to Amendments being moved by the noble Marquess or any one else. With regard to the second part of the Bill, it will require consideration whether the proprietor should have an absolute arbitrary power in every case, no matter how remote the interest of the proprietor might be, to stand in the way of the carrying out of a drainage system under the provisions of the Act, but I quite agree that he ought to have a voice in the matter, and to be safeguarded as far as may be necessary.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: My Lords, I agree with what has been said both by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Marquess. If it is clear that no liability is to fall upon the owner under any circumstances, I have no objection to the Bill; but I do not see why the landlord should be called upon to pay the instalments. I would venture also to remark, that I believe in almost every case the expenses of these drainage schemes have been a great deal more than and nearly double the estimate. In one case certainly, as I understand, the amount expended was nearly double the estimated cost.
  LORD HARLECH: I beg to confirm what has been said by the noble Lord

  381
  who has just sat down. I may say that I am in precisely that position.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday the 26th instant.

THE EGYPTIAN EXILES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had any confirmation of the reported death, and the circumstances attending it, of one of the Egyptian exiles, Abdul-al-Helmi Pasha, in Ceylon, and, if so, whether such information could be laid upon the Table of the House, said: Your Lordships may remember not very long ago I called your attention to the reported bad state of health of the Egyptian exiles now in Ceylon, and I asked that any papers upon the subject might be placed in your Lordships' hands. This has been done in the shape of a correspondence which took place on that subject. It appears from that correspondence (and the fact had come to my knowledge previously) that the health of the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon was materially suffering in consequence of the climate. I brought under your Lordships' notice on that occasion certificates which had been given by their medical attendants mentioned in the Report which is now in your Lordships' hands, a Report showing the opinions of the medical men who have been officially employed by the Government to report upon the health of the Egyptian exiles. Those opinions differed very materially from the statements and reports which have been made by the private medical attendants of Arabi Pacha, and the others who are exiled with him in Ceylon. I called the attention of the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government to those facts, and the noble Marquess then stated that he depended entirely upon the official report which had been made to the effect that the exiles were not at all injured in health by the effects of the climate. That statement so widely differed from the reports which had reached me, that I then asked for the papers which are now in your Lordships' hands relating to the subject.
  382
  Indeed, they were so widely different that they contradicted each other, one certificate stating that the health of the exiles had not in any way suffered from the climate, and the other stating that they had so far suffered that one of them was not likely to live another year if he remained in the island. Now, I have great respect for official statements, but I cannot carry that respect to the extent that the noble Marquess did in saying that it is the only sort of statement that he could rely upon. I wish, for one moment only, to ask your Lordships' attention to the Report of the private; physician attending upon the unfortunate exile who, we are now informed, is no more. The certificate is to this effect. It is given by the private medical attendant upon Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha, who had been for two years in attendance upon him—
  "I certify that Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha has been under my treatment off and on for the last two years. He is suffering from rheumatism and bronchitic asthma. I am of opinion that the climate of Ceylon does not agree with him, and that the humidity of the atmosphere which is a marked feature in the climate of Ceylon is to blame for these attacks of illness."
  He goes on to say—
  "I fear that in a year or so more Abdul-al-Helmi Pacha will be a confirmed asthmatic, and his life in danger, if he continues to reside in Ceylon."
  That certificate is signed by a physician of Edinburgh, and is dated March 3rd, 1890. Some six weeks, or two months ago, that is about a year from the time of the signature of this certificate, I have heard on good authority that this unfortunate gentleman died in Ceylon. If it be true that this unhappy, though predicted event, has taken place, I would appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and I trust they will consider whether they will allow a similar fate to overtake the surviving exiles who, according to independent and unofficial testimony, are likely to fall victims to the climate if they are kept in Ceylon. I beg to move for any Papers which can be presented relating to the death of Abdul-al-Helmi Pasha.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have received a Medical

  383
  Report (from the surgeon) respecting the death of this unfortunate gentleman, and it is rather difficult to say whether the noble Lord is right or not in attributing the ultimate cause of death to asthma, seeing that the cause of death was not fever, but hæmorrhage of the brain. Of course, it is a difficult thing for anybody, and especially for a layman, to argue about a case as to which there are two sets of medical opinions differing directly from each other, and I am not surprised that the noble Lord should prefer those to which he attaches special confidence. I do not wish to criticise at all the names of the gentlemen who have furnished those opinions; but I may say I do not think there is anything on the surface attaching to those names to justify us in preferring their opinions to the opinion of the gentlemen officially appointed, of whose competence the authorities appointing them we must conclude were satisfied, and who, undoubtedly, have had considerable experience of the climate with which they are dealing. The difference between the climate of Ceylon and that of Egypt in point of temperature is very small, but it is considerable in point of humidity, and the question may arise whether the humidity would really be dangerous to the lives of the exiles. I have understood—but I admit it is not certain—that they have expressed a disinclination to go to any other place of a drier character, unless they are sent back to Egypt; but the political objections to their being sent back to Egypt, in the judgment of the present rulers of that country, appear for the time to be conclusive. I will, however, cause further inquiries to be made as to whether it is not possible to find in Her Majesty's Dominions, within the Tropics, some drier place for the exiles to be confined in than Ceylon. That may perhaps remove the noble Lord's apprehensions, but I can make no promise, naturally, until I receive the opinions of those who are better acquainted with the circumstances. I may say that I will cause the medical opinion we have received to be sent to the noble Lord, and if he thinks it is worthy of being made a Parliamentary Paper, I have no objection to its being produced. My own impression is that it is not quite worthy of that dignity.
  *EAEL DE LA WARE: I will not press the question if it will cause any inconvenience.
  THE LORDMARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not any inconvenience.

NAVAL PENSIONERS—CASE OF J. T. FREEMAN.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *EAEL STANHOPE,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that, at the instance of the Board of Guardians of the Portsea Island Union, a portion of the pension granted to John T. Freeman (a warrant officer of the Royal Navy) in the year 1880, has been allocated for the support of his wife, who deserted him 20 years ago; and, if so, whether there is any redress for such an injustice; and to move for a list of the services of the said John T. Freeman, said: My Lords, in asking the question which stands in my name, I trust I may be permitted to say one word in explanation of it. John T. Freeman, a warrant officer in the Royal Navy, had seen a great deal of active service, and had become entitled in the year 1880 to a naval pension. About 20 years ago he was deserted by his wife, and had not until the other day heard anything of what had become of her. It was a great astonishment to him, therefore, as well as a great vexation, to find that the Portsea Board of Guardians had made an application to deduct part of his pension for the support of his wife, who had been taken into the Union. I believe that the Naval Authorities thought it hard that a man who had been deserted 20 years previously by his wife should have had such an application made on him; but after consulting high legal authorities they were compelled to make that deduction. No doubt this man would have done better to have taken the usual course of advertising to warn tradesmen and others that he was not liable for his wife's maintenance, but, considering the fact that she had deserted him for 20 years, he thought there was no likelihood that any such claim would be made. Seeing that this is a case of great hardship and altogether opposed to one's usual ideas, the desertion having continued for so long a period as 20 years, I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government this

  385
  question, with the view of seeing whether it can be removed by disallowing the charge.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I trust my noble Friend will not feel it any act of discourtesy towards himself if I ask permission of your Lordships to read what I may term my "brief" from the Admiralty. The fact is I have been laid up for some time past, and have, therefore, been unable to look up the matter previously. The information with which I have been furnished on the matter is this—
  "The Board of Guardians of the Porsea Old Union having made a claim upon the Postmaster General under the Act of Parliament 2 and 3 Vict., cap. 51, to be paid the expense of the maintenance of this man's wife out of the pension due to him as a chief gunner in the Royal Navy, the Admiralty have authorised the necessary abatements to be made from the pension. In a case such as this the Admiralty have no alternative but to carry out the order obtained under the Act, and cannot question the circumstances under which it was made. If there be any reason for claiming exemption under the Act in question, it would be necessary for the pensioner to take steps to prove the same before the Justices of the Peace in the usual manner. It is provided by Section 4 of the Act mentioned, that Where it shall be made to appear to the Justices that the woman relieved, or to be relieved, as the wife of the said pensioner is notoriously profligate or cohabiting with any other person than her said husband, it shall be lawful for the said Justices, and they are hereby required, to refuse making any order with respect to the payment of the said pension.' That appears to be the only exemption allowable, and unless Mr. Freeman can prove that his wife's desertion was further aggravated to that extent, he must submit to the allocation of a portion of his pension towards his wife's maintenance."
  My noble Friend, in his printed question, asks what Mr. Freeman's services have been, and I am furnished with the following particulars. He entered the Navy in November, 1840, as a boy of the second class; he served for 10 years and 98 days as seaman; as a petty officer for 23 years and 43 days—as a warrant officer; and for 2 years and 106 days as chief gunner with commissioned rank. I may add that during this long career in the Navy he gave uniform satisfaction and was finally pensioned in 1887.
  *LORD POWERSCOURT: My Lords, I only wish to say one word with regard to this matter. I am Chairman of a Board of Guardians myself, and I know that pensions are always subject to allocation to a wife's maintenance. It is
  386
  a regular thing, a general rule, and there is no exemption whatever. It is a rule followed by all Boards of Guardians.

EPISCOPAL FEES AND CHARGES.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the notice on the Paper in my name, to ask Her Majesty's Government what fees and charges are payable by Archbishops and Bishops on appointment; who receives them; and what services are rendered for them? I have to state that on Saturday I received a further intimation from the noble Marquess at the head of the Government that a postponement of my question would be desirable. That intimation has been affirmed since I came into this House, and I can only say again that I shall be pleased to submit entirely to the noble and learned Lord's ruling and to defer the question until Monday next. As to the wording of my notice I can only say that those are the words expressed in the letter from Mr. Macdonald; but his Lordship is also of opinion that it would be desirable to change the wording of the notice so as to give it more scope, in fact, to ask for more information than the wording of my notice requires. The words in substitution have not been entirely settled yet, but they would come pretty well to this: I shall request a Return which will explain more fully how the fees paid by Archbishops and Bishops are apportioned among the persons who receive them.
THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY: I merely ventured respectfully to submit to the noble Lord alterations in the form of the question by which I thought it would more clearly and more fully meet the object he has in view. The difficulty is to be quite certain that the words will include all the various kinds of payments which the unfortunate receiver of an ecclesiastical benefice was liable to. All I want is to have the facts fully and satisfactorily set before your Lordships. Some high authorities have said that the complaints made are exaggerations. On the other hand, these complaints are so very frequent that I think it is right that as full and complete information should be laid before the House as possible.
*LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps, if I may be allowed to add a suggestion, the

387
noble Lord will ask for some statement of the duties which have to be performed on occasions when these fees are demanded. As there is likely to be a confirmation of an Archbishop in London very soon, I think it would be worth while for some of your Lordships who take an interest in these things to go and see what kind of ceremony it is. I think you will be astonished. I will not attempt to describe the absurdities of the performance now, and I am afraid if I attempted it I could not do so in quite respectful language. When I was present on one of those occasions, I said to the Archbishop who was there—" I always feel great difficulty in keeping my countenance when I am performing this ceremony," as I have to do over all the suffragans in the Province of York, and I think any of your Lordships would say the same. If you will come and witness it you will see what it is the unhappy Bishop has to pay £80 for.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that because the ceremony is absurd the Bishop ought to pay more?
*LORD GRIMTHORPE: I mean just the contrary, that it ought to be abolished. I think I am justified in saying that when no less a personage than Queen Elizabeth passed an Act asserting that the ceremony was entirely useless and a sham, and was not necessary for the consecration of the Irish Bishops, why it should be for the English ones, I am unable to understand.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: I can give your Lordships some information in this matter by stating what I had myself to pay. The expenses which I had to pay on my confirmation and consecration at York Cathedral amounted to £106 18s. 10d., but as the noble Lord who has just sat down was not then Chancellor of the Diocese, none of the money went into his pocket. I may also say that I hold in my hand a paper containing all the fees and charges that I had to pay when I became Bishop of Carlisle, and it appears to me to show that the statements that have been made in the newspapers on the subject are greatly exaggerated. Some of the charges are of a very remarkable character. The most remarkable, perhaps, among the charges are the fees paid to the Petty Bag Office, which ap-
388
pears to have used the Great Seal of England three times in my favour, once for the congé d'élire, once for the Royal Assent, and once in respect of the Restitution of Temporalities. The charge for affixing the seal in the first case was £46 19s. 6d., in the second case the charge for some reason or other was still greater, namely, £48 2s. 10d., in the third case it was £68 12s. 6d. These certainly appear to be rather large charges for affixing a seal, even though it be the Great Seal of England, to any document. But really, when the whole of the charges and fees are added together, it may be worth while to state what they all come to. In my own case, including those which are paid to the State, to the Patent Office, to the Petty Bag Office, and to the Lord Chamberlain, the whole amounted to £247 3s. 6d., and adding the Cathedral charges which I had to pay at York and Carlisle, which were £154 4s. 10d., they altogether only amounted to £401 8s. 4d., a sum which may appear to be considerable, but which is not such as to cripple a man for life, as has been represented in some of the newspapers. I should be glad, of course, if those who succeed to the Episcopal Bench in the future have to pay smaller charges, but I do not think that the present charges are a very serious matter, even though they include the large charges payable to the Petty Bag Office.

MUSEUMS AND GYMNASIUMS BILL. (No. 153.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 124.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill which has been before Parliament for some time. It is introduced in consequence of certain negotiations which have taken place with France and Belgium. The former Treaty with reference to mail ships was concluded entirely with the view to the Channel passage, and I think as far back as 1856, very little thought was given, at all events, to other countries. But as communication with other coun-

  389
  tries grew more rapid the immunities claimed under the existing' Treaties became very burdensome to the Colonies. The Crown Colonies resisted the immunities very strongly. They were immunities almost as great as those afforded to ships of war, and the self-governing colonies would only pass temporary Acts, giving fair notice that they would not be content unless we came to some different arrangements. There was nothing, therefore, left but to denounce the Treaties, and they have accordingly been denounced. We have concluded the Treaty which is before your Lordships' House, and is of much more modest dimensions. The only privilege now reserved to mail ships in ports to which they do not belong are the privileges which are necessary to despatch. The effect of them is that the ship itself shall not be detained on account of any question; with regard to any person charged on board of her she may be detained for one hour in order that the Consul may be sent for, and a joint bond is to be entered into by her owners which will enable any damages properly recoverable against her to be recovered without detaining her in port. But with those two exceptions, the former privileges are not renewed, it having been found impossible to obtain the consent of the Colonies to any such renewal. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.