HC Deb 17 February 1880 vol 250 cc878-84

(Major Nolan, Mr. George Browne, Mr. P. J. Smyth.)

[BILLS 48, 68.] CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended,considered.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 39, after the words "other seed," to insert the words "together with such an amount of artificial manure as may be considered necessary: Provided," said, that the object of this Bill was to supply seed potatoes in Ireland for the purpose of insuring a crop next year. These were not potatoes to be eaten, but potatoes to be grown, and it was well known that to grow potato seed with certainty it was necessary to use manure. From the knowledge of Irish Members, particularly those from the West, he could affirm that the people had no manure and no money wherewith to buy it. For the purpose of giving a discretion to the Guardians to supply manure provided they did not exceed the limit of £5, he wished to move an Amendment. It was no use providing people with seed unless they were also provided with a little artificial manure; and he thought every care should be taken that the seed to be distributed should really grow, and not perish in the ground. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 39, after the words "other seed," to insert the words "together with such an amount of artificial manure as may be considered necessary: Provided."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. H. SMITH

was very sorry to state that Her Majesty's Government could not accede to the proposal. The question had been considered; but it did not appear to the Government that there was sufficient information in the hands of Boards of Guardians to justify placing upon them the responsibility of providing sufficient artificial manure. To estimate what amount of artificial manure would be sufficient would involve the necessity of knowing the dimensions of the ground in which the seed was to be placed. The result would be that the object the hon. Gentleman had in view could not be carried out. He must refuse to accede to the Amendment on the ground that the Guardians had not sufficient information at their command to enable them to exercise a wise discretion.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

opposed the Amendment, because he thought that most of the tenants in Ireland had a sufficient quantity of manure about their houses. He agreed most fully with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, that he was decidedly opposed to the Amendment. He had the best possible authority from some of the best farmers in Ireland for stating that artificial manure was destructive to the country. He was acquainted with farmers in Ireland who, when the wind was in a certain direction, went to their neighbours and requested them not to put artificial manure or guano on their farms, lest the wind should blow it beyond the bounds. If he thought there was anything useful in the proposal of the hon. Member for Galway he would be one of the first to rise and ask the House to adopt it. But there was no necessity for artificial manure. The ordinary manure of the country, if placed upon the land instead of being turned into the rivers and destroying the fish, would be amply sufficient. Let them have nothing to do with artificial manure—it was not suitable for the land of Ireland. Abundant opportunities were accorded to them by nature of manuring their land; and he thought they should use what the Almighty gave them, instead of introducing artificial manures. Let them have nothing to do with foreign destruction. Let them have protection—it was called Free Trade—but, in his opinion, it was fettered trade.

Question put.

The Housedivided:—Ayes 12; Noes 121: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 12.)

Clause 6 (Application of loans).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, after the word "land," the insertion of the words "or labourers."—(Mr. Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or labourers' be there inserted."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that they could not deal with the occupiers of land, and he did not see how the Amendment could be accepted.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

trusted that the Amendment, which was a very useful one, would he accepted by Her Majesty's Government. There were, in his own district, men who took their land for a year or two, and who, although they did not pay rates, were actual occupiers. If the distribution were not extended to this class the land would remain idle.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he knew of many cases of employers who let their land to men of the class described, and who supplied to them manure. He did not, therefore, see why they should not also supply them with seed. He felt himself obliged to oppose the Amendment.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that the practice described by the hon. and. gallant Member for Sligo (Colonel King-Harman) by no means obtained in the South of Ireland. He thought that the addition of the words "or labourers in the occupation of land" would more correctly express the intention of the hon. Member for Cork.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

trusted that the Amendment, which was made in the interest of cultivation, would be accepted by the Government, who, he was quite certain, were especially disposed to promote an increased supply of food in Ireland for the coming year.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the proposed Amendment would make the clause too wide, and might possibly lead to difficulties. Perhaps some words could be introduced which would make the application of this clause more clear.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not see what should prevent those labourers who had plots of land given to them by the farmers as part of wages from receiving the quantity of seed named in the Bill. He thought that the case would be met by adding the words "or cultivator."

MR. SWANSTON

thought that the Guardians should be authorized to furnish sufficient seed for the labourer as well as for the poor farmer. His experience was that every poor labourer who made an agreement for an acre or a quarter of an acre of land would be very much benefited by this; and it was, moreover, extremely desirable to afford him an opportunity of obtaining good seed.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the object of the Amendment was to obtain a distribution of seed for those persons who, although cultivators of the land, would not come within the meaning of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked that surely those persons who cropped the land must be occupiers of the land; but technically that was not so, inasmuch as they would not be rated as occupiers. He suggested that the words "persons who occupy, cultivate, or crop the land" would probably express the meaning of his hon. Friend, and would afford a full definition of the class of men who would be affected by the Amendment, and whom it was very necessary to supply with seed, for although they were very small men, so to speak, it would be a very great boon to them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

had not heard one suggestion from hon. Members as to how the cost of the seed was to be recovered, or upon what security the money was to be advanced. It was absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment, because it interfered with certain clauses in the Bill which, if the Amendment were introduced, would have to be entirely recast, thereby greatly delaying and prejudicing the measure.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

thought that the House was proceeding with more haste than speed. If they had had time and opportunity to consider the measure, it would have been made clear to the Government that the very people who required seed to be distributed to them were the small class of cultivators who had been spoken of. He repeated that, looking beyond all technicalities, the object of the measure should be that those who had to live upon potatoes during the next year should have seed to sow. The labourers were the very persons who would be worst off in Ireland during the coming year. The words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) appeared to him to meet the case completely. They were confronted with the difficulty that they were requiring the people to re-pay the cost, when, as a matter of fact, they were unable to pay. He had always pointed out that this was very bad policy. They gave the people their food—Indian meal, and other things—gratuitously, and said that they were not pauperized in consequence; but when the Government supplied them with seed potatoes, they put forward the objection that not to demand re-payment of the cost would be to pauperize the people. In his opinion, the seed ought to be given gratuitously. He hoped that Her Majesty' s Government were not indulging in the dream that the cost of this supply of seed would all be re-paid, for he felt certain that the people would not have the money wherewith to make re-payment, inasmuch as they would plant their potatoes for the purpose of eating them. He reminded the House that the Bill had never been thoroughly considered by the House or by hon. Members fully acquainted with the subject; and he trusted that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Louth would be accepted, for unless they were, the very poorest class, who were really in want of seed potatoes, would be excluded from the operation of the measure.

COLONEL KTNG-HARMAN

entirely differed from the hon. Member for Galway in the opinion which he had so often expressed that the people would not repay the money advanced for the supply of seed potatoes. He (Colonel King-Harman) was, on the contrary, perfectly sure that they would do so, even if they had to sell the last of their property, and as long as they had one farthing left. They were not asked to repay till August, 1881.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to remove the impression that the Government would lose any money by the operation of this Bill. Although the rates might lose a little, the Government were perfectly safe, inasmuch as they had the security of the occupying tenantplus the rate of the Union. It was impossible that the Unions could allow the Government to make any loss. There might be a few debts which would fall upon the electoral divisions, besides some other small ones that would very properly have to be borne by the neighbours; but the evil would be by no means so great as had been represented by some hon. Members. The 7th clause provided that— Where a person is not rated under the Acts for the relief of the poor, the Guardians shall make a special rate for the purposes of this Act, in which he shall be rated. It would, therefore, be possible to bring in some labourers not included in this Act. He suggested that the words "persons who, in the opinion of the Guardians, are capable of giving adequate security" should be added. In the event of the Government accepting this Amendment, they could not possibly lose any money; and, in his opinion, therefore, it ought to be agreed to, otherwise he should vote for the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan).

MR. O'SULLIVAN

thought the Amendment most admirable, and knew of many cases in his own district where its application would be very beneficial. There were in his own county a large number of shopkeepers and others who tilled the land, which would otherwise remain untilled by many of the small farmers; and if the application for seed came from these persons there would be a double security for the rates, because there would be the remainder of the occupiers in the district to fall back upon. He could not see any reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment.

MR. SHAW

suggested that an Amendment might be made by which the ease of cultivators of the land not being occupiers might be met.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that he should be happy to move an Amendment to insert, in page 3, line 1, after the word "land"— Cultivator of the land not being the occupier on the application of the occupier, and on his security.

Amendment (Mr. Shaw) by leave,withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross)agreed to.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had an Amendment to move, as to which he had not come to any agreement with the Government. They had, however, been good enough to hold out some hope that the wishes of Irish Members might be met.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty,"—(Major Nolan,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to increase the limit of value from £10 to £20 was one to which he felt himself unable to accede. The Government had thought that the limit fixed, namely £10, would be amply sufficient, and that opinion had been confirmed by the information they had received. Still, if that did not meet the views of hon. Members on the other side, he was willing to alter the limit of value from £10 to £15.

MR. SHAW

advised the hon. and gallant Member for Galway to accept the proposal of the Government.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had great pleasure in accepting the proposal.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Then the word "ten" struck out, and the word "fifteen" inserted, instead therof.

Other Amendments made.

Bill read the third time; Title amended.

Billpassed,with an amended Title.

Forward to