MR. O'CONNOR POWER, in rising to call attention to the subject of Irish distress; and to move—
That the chronic distress prevailing in certain congested parts of Ireland can be most 1985 safely and efficaciously relieved by a judicious and economic system of migration and optional emigration, together with a consolidation of the holdings from which tenants are removed; that, in the present condition of Ireland, such a scheme can he successfully carried out only by a Government Commission, with certain statutory powers, including those of purchase and sale; and, in the opinion of this House, this is a subject which demands the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to early legislation,said, that the subject of Irish distress had repeatedly occupied the attention of successive Governments; and for the last nine years it formed the principal matter of the letters which he received from that quarter of the country which he was sent to Parliament to represent. During the recent Recess he had taken the opportunity of examining for himself the latest phase of that distress, having with that object paid visits to some of the distressed and congested districts in throe of the Western counties of Ireland. In going over this ground he was greatly struck with the contrast presented between what he saw with his own eyes, and the evidence collected and reported by the Inspectors of the Irish Local Government Board. It would be impossible for him to describe the painful condition of things which he found in the neighbourhood of Loughglin, County Roscommon. Such was the normal condition of poverty in the district that the natural consequence was that little or no notice was taken of it by the residents in the locality. In fact, the people were so accustomed to feel the pangs of hunger, and to living on the very brink of famine, that, by some mental energy, they were able to overlook the magnitude of the misfortune from which they suffered. He found persons there half-naked, in and out of house, eating the worst description of food, and without bedding, their only couch at night being a handful of straw, with no blankets to cover them except the tattered garments which did service for clothing during the day. He had witnessed equal distress in travelling through the county of Mayo and the county of Sligo, even in the neighbourhood of the seemingly prosperous town of Ballina. In fact, it might be safely said that there were tens of thousands of people in the West of Ireland who were living in the lowest state of possible existence, and whose life was bereft of all incitement to industry or thrift, or even the slightest exertion. He had 1986 seen numbers of those who had been prostrated by the famine fever of 1880 stretched upon their pallets, which, could not be dignified by the name of beds, with the very breath of life coming and going in their emaciated forms, and whose existence was a mere alternation between the pangs of hunger and fatal starvation. It must be borne in mind, not only that the distress which he described was painful, but that it was chronic in its character, and that the area over which it prevailed was sufficiently large to include 300,000 human beings. The history of Irish distress was a very painful one, and he was anxious not to touch upon matters in reference to it with which hon. Members were already familiar. The full effects which might have resulted from the Famine of 1880 had only been averted by the extraordinary efforts of private charity combined with public aid. Besides the £1,500,000 sterling which had been voted by that House out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund to meet that calamity, three private Associations had distributed more than an additional £500,000; so that in 1880 no less than £2,000,000 sterling had been expended in an attempt to apply a temporary remedy to meet the distress of one year alone in Ireland. When they came, however, to see what had been the cost to the country generally of Irish distress during the last 50 or 60 years, the figures were absolutely appalling. The total public expenditure on account of the Great Famine of 1846–7 was, according to Sir Charles Trevelyan, the then Secretary to the Treasury, £10,723,908 19s. 5d., while the expenditure on behalf of private charity during that terrible time had been, at least, £3,000,000 more. The contributions by Irishmen in America in aid of their distressed friends and relatives in Ireland during the last 35 years, according to the calculations of the Emigration Commissioners, averaged £750,000 per annum. That, however, was the sum which had been remitted through banks and commercial houses alone; and the Commissioners estimated that the sums which had been sent through other channels would raise the average to £1,000,000 per annum. There must, however, be added to the £35,000,000 so remitted the sums sent over to Ireland by the Irish labourers who were working in 1987 England and Scotland. Taking all those sums together, he thought it might be safely assumed that during the last 35 years a sum of, at least, £50,000,000 sterling had been expended in supplementing poor incomes in Ireland, and in relieving the distress of hundreds of thousands of people. He would now ask the House to consider what were the real causes of this chronic distress in Ireland. They were, in his opinion, political, social, and industrial. Into the political causes of that distress he did not believe that that was the fitting occasion to enter, because he was anxious to submit his observations to the House in a form which would strip them of all Party bias or political partizanship. Regarding Ireland as a country whose chief wealth sprang from agriculture, he thought that the main causes of the chronic distress in that country arose, first, from overcrowding on small farms where the land was poor; secondly, from unskilful husbandry; and, thirdly, in too much dependence on the potato as a staple of life; and, as a consequence, a standard of living below that which was necessary to maintain healthy existence. In looking at the history of congested populations in Ireland, he found that from 1793, when, after nearly a century of continuous disabilities, the Irish Catholics were permitted to vote for Protestant Members of Parliament, it had become the interest of influential politicians to multiply their voting power as much as possible, and to create large numbers of holdings, giving the tenants votes, according to the low rural franchise of those days. It was in furtherance of this object that the 40s. holdings had been created, and tenants were encouraged to subdivide their holdings as much as possible. Another cause that had led to the creation of congested districts in Ireland was the terror which the Famine of 1846 had inspired in the minds of Irish landlords that its recurrence would vitally affect their fortunes. With the prospect of having the workhouses crowded with paupers for whose support they would be chargeable, the landlords naturally took alarm; and a system of clearances began from the rich and fertile lands, which had been pursued, with more or less persistency, down to the present time. The evil of a congested population would not remedy itself by the 1988 operation of natural causes. In 1881—the latest year for which Returns had been made—there was an actual increase in each of the three classes into which the smaller holdings of Ireland might be divided—namely, first, those not exceeding one acre; secondly, those between one and five acres and, thirdly, those between five and 15 acres. Of the first class, there were no fewer than 50,996; of the second, 67,071; and of the third, those exceeding five and not exceeding 15 acres, 164,045. The smallest of the three classes had increased in 1881, over the preceding year, by 383, the next by 2,779, and the third by 2,710. It was only in the larger farms—those above 15 acres—that there had been any diminution. Some time ago he ventured, through the kindness of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), to ask Mr. Tuke three questions, to which, as yet, he had been unable to obtain answers. The questions were—first, what became of the holdings from which families or the previous occupiers had been emigrated; second, were those holdings consolidated or re-occupied by other tenants; and, next, what number of holdings had been permanently cleared, what number consolidated, and what number re-occupied? He should be glad to know if his hon. Friend, through more recent communications with the agents of his Committee in the West of Ireland, could now throw some light on those questions, and on the practical operation of emigration, so far as the evil of a congested population was concerned. There could, he thought, be but little difference as to the nature of the problem with which they were confronted in Ireland, though there might be considerable differences as to the practical remedies which ought to be applied. In moving the Resolution which appeared on the Paper in his name, he thought it right to say that he did not undervalue other schemes of national improvement which had been put forward on behalf of Ireland from time to time. He did not recollect any scheme proposed by an Irish Representative which he had not, in some way or other, found himself able to support; and he had always proceeded on the principle that, although he might not be able to agree to every detail of the proposal, it would be better, on the whole, to encourage the efforts of anyone, who, 1989 single-handed or otherwise, made an honest, sincere attempt to grapple with a great difficulty. He had supported, for example, schemes for the development of Irish fisheries, the extension of the railway system, and other objects. In connection with those proposals, and in connection with his own, he should like to say that their object in recommending Irish undertakings ought to be to try and get the control of Irish resources for the purpose of carrying them out; and, whatever proposal they made to that House, they ought always to be prepared to carry it out on the strength of Irish resources alone. He wished especially to emphasize that point. No one esteemed more highly than he did the value of self-help; and all he wanted was to put the farmers of the West of Ireland in a condition in which it might be said, for the first time in their history, that they could help themselves; and he was confident that the result would be very disappointing to their enemies, if they had any, and very gratifying to their friends on both sides of the Channel. He came first to the questional of optional emigration. During his recent investigations he had conversed much with the farmers of Eos-common, Mayo, and Sligo, and consulted them as to the questions of migration and emigration. He found that in every case where he asked, would the man willingly quit his small patch of two or throe acres of land, and undertake to enter upon the cultivation or the occupation of 20 acres of land elsewhere, on condition of paying a fixed rental for a limited number of years? he always received an affirmative reply; and, notwithstanding their attachment to their wretched holdings, they did not go so far as to prefer misery where they were to the chance of comparative prosperity in another portion of their own country. But he was bound to tell the House on the other hand, that whenever he proposed the question of emigration he found the greatest unwillingness on the part of the people to contemplate such an escape from their difficulties. He was aware that 30 Unions had applied to be scheduled for emigration purposes under the Arrears Act, and had applied to Mr. Tuke's Committee. He had always advocated freedom of choice by the tenant farmers themselves in that matter; and that choice and that option would settle 1990 the question as to whether or not they were prepared to go. But in those Unions there practically was no choice. He would neither promote emigration nor oppose it; but, recognizing that in the present condition of Ireland it was inevitable, he would regulate it, and he desired to see a regulated system set on foot, instead of the old haphazard landing of families on American soil, with no one to see to their welfare. It was, above all, necessary that emigrants should not have rankling in their minds, on their arrival in Canada or the United States, a burning sense of wrong, or injury, or banishment, or expatriation. He might be asked why, if he believed that migration was a practical remedy, he should trouble himself with emigration, or, if he thought that emigration would be beneficial, he should also advocate migration. He had no crotchets; and, if he were asked that question, his answer would be that emigration alone would not do, because at least half the people in need of relief were not fit to emigrate. Emigrants should be neither too young nor too old; they should not be infirm or feeble, but persons of courage and enterprize. Such people, leaving the abodes of their decayed industries in the Old World, in order to apply their labour to the fresh and vigorous industries of the New—especially if they went to join their relatives and friends—would be sure of making their way as emigrants in the country of their adoption. He now came to the question of migration, and the regret he felt in connection with that proposed mode of finding a permanent remedy for Irish distress was occasioned by the circumstance that in the nature of things it was slow, and that the necessary operations could, in the first instance, only be carried out in a gradual and experimental way. Neither of the schemes was alone sufficient to afford immediate relief and provide a permanent remedy; and, therefore, he proposed to give to the people themselves the option of saying whether they would migrate to certain unoccupied tracts in the old country or emigrate to the other side of the Atlantic. At present the only method of relief for those who were not prepared to emigrate was the workhouse. In his recent tour in Ireland he often found that a small farmer well able to work was surrounded by 1991 a family so young that they were unable to give him any assistance. What was to be done with a family like that? The father would, in such a ease, be unwilling to incur the danger, to his young ones, of a voyage to a far-off land; but if he could be removed elsewhere to another farm in his native country, his family would in time be able to second his efforts in the cultivation of the land. No matter how favourable the conditions were under which emigration was carried on, it ought to be limited in its character. They ought to say that up to a certain point, if the people wished to emigrate, they would assist them; but that they would only make provision for a certain number in each year, and for a number in all not greater than the country could spare without detriment to its future prosperity. No doubt many parts of Ireland were retrograding from the want of a population properly employed in productive labour. In some parts of the West of Ireland the population was so deficient that persons engaged in large farming operations were fettered in their action because they could not procure sufficient labour to effect the rotation of their crops. It was, therefore, not enough simply to say—"Get rid of your distressed population, and then the difficulty of distress will be solved." He had always held the belief that Ireland, as a whole, was not over-populated. There was not a man, woman, or child in the country who could not find the means of competent subsistence if the country were controlled by Irish opinion and Irish experience, and the people were enabled to use their own resources, unfettered by extraneous conditions. He would now invite the attention of the House to the provisions which at present existed with respect to emigration. By the 18th section of the Arrears Act Guardians of the Poor were empowered to borrow money at 3½ per cent in aid of emigration; and under the 20th section the Lord Lieutenant might authorize grants in aid of emigration to Boards of Guardians, or to any body of persons, to the extent of £100,000; and it was provided in the Act that the sum for each person should not be greater than £5. To this latter provision he entirely objected. Considering the difficulties of settling on the other side of the Atlantic, 1992 it would not be safe to emigrate any Irish family unless they were prepared to spend £100 in the operation. Here he might incidentally state that he believed he made a mistake, a short time ago, in crediting the Imperial Exchequer with this sum of £100,000. As a matter of fact, he found that that amount was chargeable on the Irish Church Surplus, and not on the Consolidated Fund. The 21st section of the Arrears Act authorized the Lord Lieutenant to make arrangements for securing the satisfactory emigration of persons for whom the means of emigration were provided under the Act. But the power of the Lord Lieutenant ceased with the application of £100,000; and, therefore, he maintained that for the purpose of promoting emigration on the conditions on which alone it was likely to be successful, that Statute was entirely inadequate. Under the 32nd section of the Land Act the Land Commission might contract with any public Company to promote emigration by means of loans; but the amount must not exceed £200,000 altogether, or one-third part thereof in any single year. On the question of emigration it was impossible for him, as a private Member, to speak with any confidence. He did not profess to know how many people would be likely to emigrate; but he should, at all events, like to give them first the option of migrating. Migration was a very incorrect word, however, and it failed to accurately express his meaning. Creatures who, like the swallow, migrated, went and came back again; whereas he proposed to remove people from one place and to re-settle them permanently in another. This removal and re-settlement might be done by the Government; but he was opposed to the Government undertaking the work of reclaiming the land, because he thought it would lead to intolerable jobbery. It might be done by a Joint Stock Company, as was suggested by the Land Act. But Companies would have to proceed by means of hired labour, and that would be too expensive; and, in his judgment, the land could never be profitably cultivated by that means. Then the work might be done by individual landlords; but the Irish landlord was, at the present moment, a gentleman steeped in debt, fettered by incumbrances without capital, and therefore without enterprize, and he had 1993 the additional excuse that his income had been cut down 20 per cent by Act of! Parliament. It was not a sound objection to his scheme that if the land he referred to could be reclaimed and improved profitably the work would be undertaken by Irish landlords. Under the present circumstances, to expect the landlords to enter upon the cultivation and improvement of the land was in itself an expectation very wild and very imaginary indeed. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that it was the tenant living and working upon the land, in the expectation of future ownership, who alone could cultivate it with profit and advantage. So intimate was the subject of the reclamation of land with migration in their debates, that he found them treated under the same head in the Land Act. He should like to explain the process of migration as he proposed to carry it out. He calculated that at least 50,000 families, or 250,000 persons, ought to be permanently moved from their present holdings. It was hard to say what proportion of these, if the option were given them, would elect to emigrate; that would have to be determined by future experience; but for the purpose of migration he would take now only half the number; and, allowing 20 acres of land for each family, this would involve, for 25,000 families, the acquisition by the Commissioners of 500,000 acres of semi-waste, unoccupied land. The question naturally arose as to the size of the farms upon which these removed families would be set, and there was some conflict of evidence upon that point. It was impossible for a small farmer to cultivate 20 acres with the spade. But it was easy if he had a horse and a plough and domestic labour; therefore the 20 acres was not necessarily a limit. He put it down as an average. He would take the land as worth 5s. per acre. He would estimate it at 20 years' purchase, and the tenant right at four years' purchase; the 20 acres would cost £120, which, multiplied by 25,000, the number of the new holdings to be created by the Commission, would amount to £3,000,000 sterling. He estimated the cost of dwellings, main drainage, and main roads at about £2,000,000 more. Thus the sum of £5,000,000 sterling placed at the disposal of any Government Commission appointed for the purpose would, in his humble judgment, be 1994 adequate to meet the entire cost of the removal of these 25,000 families. When the economic character of the scheme had been tested, he had no doubt that its success would be established; and his hope was, that Parliament would then be willing to sanction further expenditure in the same direction, so long as a single acre of land, suitable for tillage, remained to be occupied and cultivated. He proposed that the repayments of the money thus advanced should be by means of fixed rentals, including principal and interest for a certain number of years, at the termination of which the tenants would become the owners. He would propose that no rent should be paid in the first two years after the settlement, and during this time the tenants would be supported by wages for work done under the supervision of the Commission. He did not mean that the Government or its agents should engage in the direct supervision of the cultivation of the land. The supervision of the Commission to which he referred was a supervision which should be sufficient to satisfy them that the tenant was working for a certain specified time in the improvement of his own farm. He had stated already that one of the causes of distress was unskilled husbandry; and it was, therefore, an essential part of this scheme that wherever a colony of these new settlers was founded a school-house should be immediately erected, for the purpose of imparting technical instruction in the improvement of agriculture. This building could also be made a storehouse for agricultural implements; and if any small farmer was unable to keep a plough or a horse, facilities might be provided at this central store for his hiring them to carry on his husbandry. He also would like to see houses built somewhat after the excellent example of those belonging to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, situate near Enfield, and referred to by the Bessborough Commission. When similar schemes had been discussed on former occasions, the security of the land itself had always been offered for the return of the money advanced. That security was generally, and he thought rightly, held to be insufficient. He proposed, therefore, in order that the Treasury might have the most solid security possible, that the charge should fall on the whole of the assessable property of Ire- 1995 land, and that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to levy a rate in aid over the whole county in which migration took place, or, if necessary, over a still wider area, so that by no possibility could the Imperial Exchequer suffer a loss. He did not, however, believe it would be necessary to levy a rate over more than a county; but he thought the area of taxation should not be less. It was always said to be inadvisable to make the farmers tenants of the State, lest they should be at the mercy of political agitators; but security of the kind he suggested would do away with this familiar objection to all schemes for the creation of a peasant proprietary. What ever area was chosen for the levying of the rate, the condition should be maintained of not allowing the tenants ever to fall below one-half of their stipulated payments. It was necessary, at the same time, that the Government Commission, the creation of which he contemplated, should have power to purchase compulsorily semi-waste lands, to consolidate holdings when the tenants had voluntarily quitted them, to prevent subdivision, and to award, subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, compensation to all whose property was taken for the purposes of the Commission. Having thus stated his plan, he had to say he could never have placed it before the House had it not been for the spontaneous assistance he had received from the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), for whose kind co-operation he was sincerely grateful. He had only to remark that proposals had often before been made to deal with semi waste and improvable land in Ireland; and of these one of the most noticeable was that of Lord John Russell in 1847. Speaking in the House in that year, Lord John Russell quoted the authority of Sir Robert Kane to the effect that the waste lands in Ireland which might be dealt with amounted to about 4,600,000 acres. The scheme of the noble Lord, which was, in principle, essentially similar to the proposal now before the House, included the outlay of £1,000,000 sterling, compulsory power of purchase by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the reclamation of waste lands, the making of roads, the establishment of a system of drainage, the erection of buildings, the division of the land into 1996 plots, but prohibited, as he would now, any cultivation of the land, through the agency of a Public Department. His Lordship anticipated that many advantages would accrue from this plan, and that many persons who had been driven to despair, and even into crime, would be able to earn a comfortable living, and that by it would be raised a class of small proprietors which would form a valuable link in the social life of Ireland. As to the availability of the land, he would refer to the evidence of Professor Baldwin and Major Robertson, the Assistant Commissioners to the Richmond Commission, to show that even in. the neighbourhood of some of the over-populated districts there was a great deal of semi-waste and rapidly-deteriorating laud, which needed only preliminary improvements to make it admirably fit for the purposes of his scheme. Indeed, Professor Baldwin spoke of it specifically as land to which it was desirable to migrate people, and mentioned vast neglected tracts of land, the mere drainage of which would increase their value at least 50 per cent. In various debates in that House reference had been made to the Bessborough Commission; and until he had read up the evidence given before that Commission he was really under the impression that the Commission had reported against a scheme of this kind. He found that the Earl of Bessborough and Baron Dowse had spoken disparagingly of the project; but the O'Conor Don, although he did not believe in the economic wisdom of a project of the kind, still said he would like to see the project tried. He also spoke of emigration in most disparaging tones. The hon. Member for the County Cork (Mr. Shaw) strongly advocated the purchase by the Land Commission of waste and semi-waste lands, to which people might be removed from the more thickly-populated districts. Professor Baldwin also referred to two estates—those of Mr. Crosbie, in Kerry, and of Colonel Pitt Kennedy, in the North of Ireland, where the process of transferring persons in one form or another had been, successfully carried out. He was sure, moreover, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would, on the present occasion, as he had on a former occasion, be prepared to say that his efforts had been attended with success as far as the improvement of the 1997 land was concerned. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought he was entitled to say that if this proposal, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, was not feasible, it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, in view of the condition of those Western counties, to produce some plan of its own. He knew of no question which more urgently called for attention, acknowledging even the other heavy responsibilities of the Government. He would say England's interests in Egypt, the Transvaal, and Afghanistan dwindled into insignificance compared with her interests in Ireland, and the expenditure involved was much less than what had been expended on one of England's email wars, three of which they had been engaged in within a very recent period. That expenditure would, he believed, solve for ever the difficulty of chronic distress in Ireland. Some 66 years ago, on the occasion of a King's visit, Byron described in these memorable words the condition of Ireland—The castle still stands, though the Senate's no more,And the famine that dwelt in her freedom-less cragsIs extending its steps to her desolate shore.How often had not that picture been vividly reproduced in the sad history of Ireland since the day George IV. landed at Kingstown? Was not Ireland still at the world's gate in tatters and poverty? During the last few days, had not the Bishops of Ireland appealed from the impotence of her Government to the charity of mankind? Had they not raised again the piercing cry of Irish distress, which had so often before startled humanity, and excited its sympathy—a cry now borne, by every wind that blows, to the expatriated children of Ireland in every part of the globe; and should it be said that in this Imperial Parliament there was no sufficient statesmanship to grapple, once for all, with the cause of Ireland's protracted suffering and accumulated misfortune? He, for one, would not abandon himself to so melancholy a conclusion. On the contrary, he preferred to indulge a hope that the Government and the House of Commons would now, at last, realize the gravity of the situation in Ireland, and the measures required to promote her welfare, and that in the very extremity of her distress might be found the means of 1998 restoring to that country her prosperity, her tranquillity, and her freedom. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON, in seconding the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo, said he hoped no apology was due from an English Member for taking a prominent part in an Irish question; and perhaps even an Englishman was placed at an advantage in taking part in supporting such a proposal, inasmuch as he might be considered as regarding the matter from an impartial point of view. The present Motion sprang out of the Debate on the Address. At that time, in reply to the Prime Minister's sort of appeal and cry of help to the House generally upon this subject, he got up and said he would support any proposal of a practical kind to deal with this distress. And he might even be allowed to add these facts. In 1880, at the time of the appointment of the Bessborough Commission, he tried to have the scope of inquiry extended to the question of the reclamation of land, as he considered it of vital importance. At the time of the passing of the Irish Land Act he asked the Prime Minister whether he would deal with this question; and last year, in the Debate on the Address, he put before the House the utter inability of the Land Act to touch the condition of the West of Ireland. Before the Railway Rates Committee, he proposed and carried, with the aid of the Irish Members, a recommendation that the Irish Canals should, as a means of providing better communication, be handed over to the management of the Local Bodies. There was a remark of Lord Dufferin's which exactly expressed his own feelings on the subject. His Lordship said that for years past there had existed in Ireland a broad fringe of poverty which no legislation could touch, and a condition of things only varied by intervals of famine—intervals which would probably recur. This would continue until something was done to change the condition of the existence of the people. In former days Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel made proposals in this direction; but they were stopped by the financial crux of the question. In the present proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo 1999 provision was made for dealing with the financial question. With reference to loans to Ireland, he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) admitted that that country had not been a satisfactory debtor. She had already repudiated debts she had incurred; but that would not altogether induce him to refuse to advance money. He listened with disappointment to the proposals made by the Government in the Debate on the Address. It was like offering a stone when the people asked for bread. The Motion before the House raised two questions—emigration and migration. As to emigration, he looked upon it only as an alternative and last resource. He would exhaust every possible plan before he would give his adhesion to anything like a scheme of wholesale emigration. He did not look into the past—there was no use in doing so. They should look at what the Irish people were at the present moment; and it should be remembered that the Irish were passionately attached to the soil, to their homes, and to their domestic relations. He regretted the language used by the Government, which only led to agitation, and taught the people not to rely upon themselves. Emigration would not solve the question of dealing with 250,000 or 500,000 starving people. Then came the other alternative—that of migration. Charity, with which they had attempted to arrest famine, had proved unsatisfactory. Until a few years ago, he believed that it would have been possible to relieve the pauperism of Ireland by the development of industries. Something might have been done to extend the flax industry, both in the production and the manufacture. The fisheries, also, might have been developed. But those and all other commercial enterprizes required capital, and no capital would now go to Ireland. As industrialization would not now solve the question, it, therefore, remained to see what other remedies they could discover for the present pauperism of a great part of the country. The remedy proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo was a re-settlement of the people upon the land. The question that presented itself was whether or not there was sufficient land available, and what would be the financial aspect of the scheme. Probably they would hear from the Government that no land was available. But here were six witnesses to the 2000 contrary. The hon. and learned Member for Mayo, having made inquiries in his own county, told the House that there was available land there; and the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would certify to the same for his district. Then they had the evidence of Professor Baldwin and Major Robertson, given before the various Commissions on the Land Question. Besides that, two practical landowners, Mr. Crosbie, of Kerry, and Colonel Pitt Kennedy, of Tyrone, had actually carried out such an undertaking on their own estates. The evidence of Professor Baldwin was conclusive as to the necessity for doing away with the overcrowding in the South and West, and for migrating and emigrating the people from the congested districts. Now, if this witness's evidence is unworthy of credit on this point, and it is the gist of his evidence, then his whole evidence must be rejected. Professor Baldwin and Major Robertson were also strongly of opinion that there was plenty of land available for re-settling the people and preventing overcrowding. As Professor Baldwin was a Government witness before the Commissions, and had since been appointed to office under the Land Act, the Government must have confidence in his opinions. But it might well be asked, where was the money to come from, and what was to be the security? He could imagine half-a-dozen places where it might come from; but he knew of only two sources from which it could come. There was the Money Market. Did any hon. Member suppose that a company or a private individual, or anybody else, could go into the market and ask for advances of money on land in the present state of affairs? He did not think they could. There was private capital in the possession of the landlords or of someone who chose to spend money, like the hon. Member for Galway. He did not think the present state of Ireland was such as greatly to invite private capital. He was obliged to dismiss these sources, and there were two others which he should mention, only, however, to dismiss them—one was that milch cow of Irish finance, the Church Surplus Fund, and with regard to which, perhaps, the Chief Secretary would say if there was any of it left. He would also dismiss what he would call the American Dollar, which, 2001 no doubt, had come into Ireland lately, in some form or another, to a considerable amount. This brought him to the only two sources from which they could expect to raise the necessary capital—one was the local rates; the other was, perhaps, even a safer source—the thrift of the people. He believed in the thrift of the people if it could be developed and brought out, for there was a great deal of thrift in the Irish people if it were stimulated, while it was also a sound source of capital. These were the only two sources to which they could look for any capital in carrying out any scheme of this kind. He invited the Government, therefore, to consider what could be done, in the first place, by Union rating; and, in the second, by the extension of the Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland. To carry it out there must be a Commission, and great care should be exercised in selecting the men. If the right men were not selected the scheme would fail. They should be men of practical experience, and if the scheme failed at first he would not, on that account, be inclined to give it up, but would appoint other Commissioners—indeed, he would have two or three sets of Commissioners. Then there was another consideration which, like the one just mentioned, might be regarded as a matter of detail by some, but would, he should be inclined to consider, be a matter of principle, and that was the selection of the tenants. If this were a proposal for England, he would only take tenants with a little money; but in Ireland they would be compelled to take tenants of very slender means, and their labour must be regarded as their capital. With regard to the payment of the interest, he would suggest that it should be thrown on the rates of the Union, so that there would be no shirking of payment by the people. For the first three years this interest might be repayable without the Sinking Fund. He earnestly hoped the Government would so far adopt the proposal as to make a trial of it. It could not involve any great financial loss. If the Government did not see their way to make the trial, he hoped they would be able to give the House some very satisfactory reason for their refusal, though he did not know what reason they could offer. The proposal having been brought forward, the Government must not only give a good 2002 reason for not making the trial, but must make au alternative proposal, for things could not remain as they were. The condition of the people in the West of Ireland was like a barrel of gunpowder near a fuse; and if duty did not move the Government, the fact that the condition of those people was a danger to the State ought to induce them to provide a remedy. It was a strange thing that we—the most practical and administrative race in the world, the most colonizing and governing nation—should manage other more distant races—India, South Africa, and Egypt—and yet fail in bringing about even moderate prosperity with people at our own door, part and parcel of our Imperial domain. And then that English statesmen should get up and say they could do nothing—as they would, perhaps, tell them to-night! The hon. Baronet concluded by seconding the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the chronic distress prevailing in certain congested parts of Ireland can he most safely and efficaciously relieved by a judicious and economic system of migration and optional emigration, together with a consolidation of the holdings from which tenants are removed; that, in the present condition of Ireland, such a scheme can he successfully carried out only by a Government Commission, with certain statutory powers, including those of purchase and sale; and, in the opinion of this House, this is a subject which demands the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to early legislation."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
§ VISCOUNT LYMINGTON, in rising to move, as an Amendment, the omission of the words "migration and optional," said, he felt bound, before dealing with the question of emigration, to say a few words about the scheme which had been propounded by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo in his able and interesting speech. He was quite at one with his hon. and learned Friend as to the magnitude of the distress and the urgency of the question, and he hoped that that House would attempt to apply a remedy to the existing evils. But the magnitude of the question might be made more apparent by the statement of Professor Baldwin that there were 100,000 tenants holding farms of less than 10 acres each and of a valuation of £5 or under. The actual condition of the tenants was most pitiable, 2003 and they were in a hopeless state of insolvency, as was shown by the evidence given before the Duke of Richmond's Commission. Much might, no doubt, be done by better farming and model farms, and prizes for dairy and other produce might be productive of much good. But it would be a serious thing to attempt to carry out in full the programme of his hon. and learned Friend. It must be borne in mind that the migrated families would have to be supported, and even clothed and educated, in the interval between their migration and the time when they would have begun to work their 20-acre farms to advantage. Besides, farms of that kind could not be worked without capital. In farms of that size the use of horses would be indispensable, and the occasional loan of a horse would by no means answer the farmer's purpose. Besides, Ireland did not really lend itself to cultivation in small farms. The climate was not genial enough, or the land rich enough, to enable it to compete with those countries in Europe where small cultivation prevailed. Such farms were too large for peasant cultivation, and too small for ordinary farming. Whence, too, was the money to be derived for carrying such a scheme into operation? His hon. and learned Friend seemed to have forgotten the provisions of the Land Act of 1881. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken of buying up the tenant right at four years' purchase. But the tenant right had enormously increased in value since the passing of the Land Act, and thon there was the landlord's interest. In those cases, moreover, when the landlord occupied his own land, and no tenant right existed, the owner would be apt to set a very high price on the land which enjoyed so exceptional an advantage. If the State undertook this it would have to ask the tenants to pay a rent far higher than the rents of the surrounding tenants who would be assessed at a fair rate by the Sub-Commissioners. Therefore, supposing that there were no economic disadvantages, and no other complications or difficulties in the scheme of his hon. and learned Friend, the result would be that these Crown tenants would be at a disadvantage as compared with other tenants, and would, consequently, be dissatisfied with their own position. His hon. and learned Friend suggested that the whole cost of 2004 the scheme should be paid for out of Irish rates; but, for his own part, if he could support a scheme of this kind, he should contend that the whole burden ought to fall on the National Exchequer. The statistics with regard to local taxation in Ireland were appalling. Local taxation had increased since 1871 from £2,786,000 to £3,391,000 at the present time, while the amount of rateable property in Ireland had remained almost stationary. To take another view—in. the Province of Connaught the poor rate, exclusive of other rates, varied from 1s. 1d. to 9s. 8d. in the pound. Under these circumstances, would it be wise to propose that a scheme which must involve such a very serious outlay should be charged upon Ireland? He maintained that the scheme of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo was not a wise one. It was too complicated—it was an impossible matter which no State and no Government could wisely undertake. If such a scheme were wise, it was certainly the duty of this country, and of the United Kingdom, to accept it as a national charge for a national purpose. Undoubtedly, the tendency of agriculture in Ireland was to large pastoral farms, grazing lands for cattle; and it was a remarkable fact that since 1860 the decrease of the land under arable crops amounted to nearly 1,000,000 acres. It might be true that in certain cases proprietors had in times past rather hardly and unfairly pressed forward the development of this particular industry; but it was also true that in the long run it had succeeded as regarded the prosperity of agriculture in Ireland. But the hon. and learned Member, in the speech which he addressed, to the House, really told them a very painful fact, which was apparent to everyone—that in Ireland there was no other outlet for industry but agriculture. The remedy for this lay, and could only lay, in the introduction of capital into the country; and that depended both on the temper in which Parliament approached Irish questions, whether they approached them with patience and firmness, and also upon the attitude of the people of Ireland themselves. Parliament had, by the Act of 1881, conferred great boons on the Irish people, and he trusted the Irish tenants would devote their time and their energies to making the most of those boons, and to taking advantage of the oppor- 2005 tunities they possessed in the naturally productive character of the soil. In this respect he thought the Land Act would have an effect. It must be gradual. Tree sale could not at once, but it would gradually, tend towards the consolidation of the holdings. He quite agreed that the distress which prevailed in Ireland demanded a present remedy. It was not right for them to overlook it, or for Parliament to permit it to exist, without, at least, taking some energetic steps to alleviate it. The only remedy to hand that was practical lay in a well-devised scheme of State-aided emigration. The opposition to emigration, so far as he had been able to understand it, had been a very strong feeling of distrust on the part of the priests, because it would have the effect of landing their flocks on other shores, separating them from the religious influences which they had at home, and placing them on the confines of great cities across the Atlantic with divers temptations, the result of which had often been that men who in Ireland, although poor, led virtuous lives, drifted into the paths of crime. This was a matter which would be rectified if the Government would undertake by a Commission, or by entrusting the agencies which already existed for the purpose in the West of Ireland, to regulate emigration. He believed it would be necessary for emigration to be successfully undertaken, and in a manner to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, that arrangements should be made as to the homesteads on which they were to be placed on arrival in Canada or the United States. It would also be very desirable that the emigration should be that of families, and not of individuals only, and that large bodies of emigrants should be accompanied by a priest. The State, he thought, would well lay out several hundred thousand pounds in assisting emigration; but there was naturally a very strong disinclination on the part of the taxpayer to accept any large and new liabilities, and especially to undertake expenditure that would necessarily be periodical. He was decidedly opposed to emigration being conducted under the auspices of the Poor Law Guardians. The interest of the Poor Law Guardians was obviously to emigrate all persons who were likely to come upon the rates, and the effect was very largely to dis- 2006 credit the scheme of emigration. The House should make up its mind whether it intended to spend any public money. He did not think that the distress in Ireland could remedy itself. It was a matter which could not be met by local taxes. He maintained that public money would be well expended in emigration, because it would be an attempt to rescue from a life of squalid poverty and degradation a class of men who had in them the seeds of industry, and of offering them some opportunity for raising their position. He did not, by his Amendment, nor would the House, if it were to accept it, pledge itself to stand by emigration as the only possible remedy; and he wished to remark, lest it should lead to any misunderstanding, that he proposed to omit the word "optional," not because any scheme of emigration could be other than optional, but because the use of the word was tautological and unnecessary. Emigration not optional would be transportation. He would welcome most heartily any practical remedies that might be suggested for Irish distress. But in regard to any scheme that might be suggested the House could only be guided in its judgment and decision upon its practical merits. Abstract expressions of sympathy were valueless. It seemed to him that it would be best, while negativing the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo, which appeared both mischievous and unpractical, to utilize the present discussion by pressing upon the Government the only remedy to hand which would entail some expenditure of Imperial money for a practical benefit, and, in spite of misrepresentation, thereby indicate that there was a strong sympathy in that House towards Ireland—that while they were determined that Ireland should be united to them by every tie, they were also resolved that she should benefit by being associated with her richer neighbour. He moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "migration and optional."—(Viscount Lymington.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that if anything was clear from the Resolution 2007 of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo, it was that they had a population considerably excessive in certain districts of their country. This population could not be called a farming population. It was quite true that it farmed; but the farms were so small that the people could not live on them. They did not attempt to live on them. Their holdings were really little more than a home for their families. They found it very difficult to secure labour in their own district, and many thousands were driven to seek employment in England. The effect of this was to keep the wages of those who remained at home down to a miserable sum, and to keep the standard of living and comfort so low that all those motives which were found by experience to be the best stimulants for the improvement of a nation were really wanting in Ireland. It had been said that these men ought to give up their holdings and become mere labourers. If there was permanent and regular employment to be had in Ireland there would be something to be said for that proposal. But such was not the case. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member proposed two remedies for the excess of population admitted to exist in the districts referred to. One was to turn these men into farmers, properly so-called, to give them farms of sufficient size; and the other was emigration, which he was glad the hon. and learned Member for Mayo suggested should be optional. Compulsion or undue stimulation of emigration would be impolitic and futile. No one would suggest it; but he was glad that his hon. and learned Friend had emphasized the point. The number of candidates for the sum given from the Duchess of Marl borough's Fund, and for Mr. Tuke's scheme, proved that many of the people desired to emigrate. He had received a statement from Mr. Vere Foster, showing that a large number of Catholic clergymen had sought his aid on behalf of parishioners wishing to emigrate. The Catholic clergy looked with natural and proper reluctance on the departure of the people; but Mr. Vere Foster's experience showed that they largely recognized the necessities of the case. The principal opposition came from Boards of Guardians, and he did not think the farming interest on the Boards were quite wise on the point. The alterna- 2008 tive to emigration was that labourers were to become farmers. Now, where were they to get land? The cry against large farms and pasture farms answered that question. The programme was not exactly what would suit the farming interest. True, the presence of a large population kept labour cheap; but if outdoor relief were extended, as opponents of emigration urged, farmers would pay dearly for cheap labour, and learn that low wages meant exorbitant rates. It was said that France, with its peasant proprietary, was able to do without emigration. But France was manufacturing as well as agricultural; and commerce drew off its excess agricultural population. Besides, the population of France did not increase substantially, and its agricultural population was actually decreasing in many districts, while the town population was increasing. There was a stream of emigration from Germany, which sent out nearly 250,000 last year, from Denmark, Sweden, Italy, and every old country where the population increased, and there was no corresponding expansion of commerce. Suppose all Irish cottiers and small holders were given 10 acre farms. No doubt there would be great industry and care, and things would go on pretty well for some time. But, in the meanwhile, unless manufactures sprung up quickly and expanded, and if the natural growth of population went on at an accelerated pace, in 20 or 25 years the present problem would arise again. There would be a larger number of people in the country; and they would be compelled, at the end of a few years, either to look to emigration, or to make a subdivision of the land, which would lead to the same miserable state of things as existed at present. Turning to the project of providing the cottiers with larger holdings two proposals had been made—one to distribute among them for purposes of tillage the large farms now used for pasture; the other to give them lands not in cultivation. The rich pasture lands were all in occupation, and should be obtained by agreement or compulsion. If obtained by agreement, they should be paid for at a high price, and therefore bear a high rent—a rent which they could not pay unless turned to the best account, and which they never could pay as tillage farms. As to com- 2009 pulsion, would it be practical to apply it? Even if it were applied it would only lead to the necessity of paying a higher price, and imposing consequently a higher rent, which could not be paid. Another proposal was to allocate inferior lands, or lands that had gone out of cultivation. Why did they go out of cultivation? Because their cultivation did not pay. Spade industry would certainly make land pay which would be unprofitable with a large farmer. If industry could succeed, the industry of the hard-working men who went habitually to England for work would be sure of success. But spade industry in Ireland was still rude as compared with Continental countries. It would require time to grow, and the improvement of waste lands would be carried on under great difficulty at first. Medium tillage lands would be most suitable if the experiment were tried, but with three conditions. First, the rent or amount of instalment of purchase should be fair. Now, if the Government were to purchase they would have to pay the usual high price, and a high rent or rate of repayment by the peasant should be charged. He did not think the Government should undertake the purchase. That would be better done by independent responsible organizations, to whom the Government could lend on proper security. He confessed he did not like the prospect of the Government undertaking the duties of a landed proprietor on a large scale. With regard to the proposal to throw the security for the repayment upon the counties, he believed it would be looked upon with considerable misgivings and anxiety. They must admit that there had not been great anxiety to pay the small potato rate.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYThen, again, which county would they charge? The county the people left? It would reply that when these people were living in their cottages they cost the county nothing, and it did not see why it should be called upon to pay for them when they had left it. The county to which they went? It would say it saw no reason why it should be taxed for the poverty of another district; and, further, he was bound to say that the 2d. in the pound proposed by the hon. 2010 Baronet (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) as the rate to be levied would be nothing at all compared with the responsibility which would be cast upon their shoulders. It would be the duty of the Government to enforce the payment of these instalments; but he was afraid that if the same movement that was started some time ago arose again, and if someone in Chicago said—"You did not pay rent to the landlords; are you now going to pay it to the English Government?" a condition of things would arise which would bring the country nearer to civil war than it was before. [Cries of "Shame, shame!" from the Irish Members, and Ministerial cheers."] He would say that deliberately. [Cries of "Shame, shame!"] The theory of this movement was that the tenant should pay a fair rent for the land in question; and it would be the duty of the Government to enforce that rent if a combination was formed against paying.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that, for his part, he was in favour of purchases and lettings or re-sales being made by independent organizations standing between the Government and the people. Capital was another necessity. Some small holders might have it; many would be without it. If this were to be obtained otherwise than by accumulation, from which there was not much under present circumstances to be hoped, it could only be obtained by the agency of loans from voluntary organizations. Another requisite was agricultural skill, which was a different thing from agricultural industry, and did not at present exist in an advanced state among spade cultivators in Ireland. M. Laveleye, the Belgian economist, who understood these matters and discussed them from a most sympathetic point of view, had pointed this out. The skill would come by degrees; but its absence at first would cause some difficulty and many failures. On the whole, the change from cottier proprietary could only be a matter of slow growth, and the Government could do little more than aid responsible organizations by loans for the purpose. He doubted if compulsory purchase was practicable; but, if so, it was not wise, because it would mean high prices and heavy rents. The 2011 best prospect was purchase by agreement, and for this an organized system would be necessary. The people had shown an aptitude for political organization which would now prove useful if transferred from politics to this subject. The organization wanted was not that of financial companies looking for profit, but organizations like Mr. Tuke's. Their main duty would be to supervise purchases and re-sales or lettings, and to provide security for repayment of Government advances, no very serious responsibility if land were bought at a fair price, and if the new tenants were honestly disposed to meet their liabilities. Two things were required for the success of such organizations. First, all classes, landlord as well as tenant, and all parties, should co-operate. It was certainly the interest of the upper classes to settle the question, and the only obstacle was the bitterness which had grown so much lately. It would be the duty of popular leaders to tone down the bitter feeling and try and restore harmony between classes. The second and most important condition was the restoration of the financial credit of the cultivating class, which had been severely shaken by the promiscuous refusal to pay rent which had existed before the "no rent" manifesto, and bad not died out when it was announced that that manifesto was to become inoperative. The State was only the trustee of the public purse, and would not be permitted to lend except on trustworthy security. The project of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo would have an improved prospect of success when the lessons of the last three years were unlearned, and when the credit of the agricultural class was somewhat restored.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was likely to create more interest in Ireland than in that House; and, if he had to give a summary of it, he should say that on that occasion the hon. and learned Member had played the part of pilot fish to the Treasury Bench shark, who would probably follow him. The hon. and learned Member sought to convince the House that this way of dealing with Irish distress was a very good way; but, unfortunately, it was not practical; that the other way suggested was also excel- 2012 lent, but not practical; that the third, fourth, and fifth plans were, unhappily, all equally unpracticable; and that the only solution of the present difficulty in Ireland was for the people to put their trust in a Liberal Government that had a keen appreciation of the talents of their Liberal supporters. The hon. and learned Member professed to sympathize, to some extent, with the spirit of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power); but, so far as any purpose was discernible in his speech, it was in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Lymington). With reference to the speech of the noble Lord, he could not help thinking that it was very well summarized beforehand in a cartoon which appeared in this week's United Ireland. That cartoon represented an eminent Liberal on one side of the page, and Cromwell on the other, an eminent Radical who anticipated some of his followers in the initiation of the policy of "Hell or Connaught" for the Irish race. A conversation was represented to be going on between the eminent Radical of the 17th century and the eminent Liberal of the 19th. The gist of the conversation was, that Cromwell was congratulating his successor in the government of Ireland on having hit upon a more effective method of getting rid of the Irish race than he had hit upon himself. Cromwell only suggested that the Irish people might be driven into Connaught, while the Chief Secretary gave them no alternative on this earth upon this side of the Coast of America. He had no doubt that the Government would be prepared to endorse the plan; but he regarded it as nothing less than a policy of extermination. It might be called the dynamite policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and the crime, when committed by a responsible Government upon hundreds and thousands of people, was hardly less than the offences committed by any other class of misdoers. To his mind, the English nation owed the Irish an enormous debt of gratitude for inestimable services rendered them. The British nation, according to the testimony of the Duke of Wellington, would have failed in the contest against the French had it not been for the Irish soldiery. They now only asked for a paltry sum—whether it was £7,000,000 2013 or £20,000,000, it was a paltry sum compared with the vast sum the Government had flung among the Afghan mountains, into South Africa, or Egypt. It would enable Ireland to make a fair start, of which it had hitherto been debarred. But what was the return the British Government made for the service he had mentioned? Why, only a policy of rack-renting and extermination. During the past half-century the Irish people contributed in rack rents, which were spent in England, the sum of £500,000,000 sterling, and had also enormously contributed by their labour to the profits of British manufacture. In the name of expedience, and in the name of the present and future, he called on the Government not to trifle, or shuffle, or put forward any flimsy, small pretexts of the murderous "pinch of hunger" policy, but to meet the exigency as if it occurred in Lancashire. Let the necessary sum be forthcoming on the Imperial credit or from the Imperial Funds; and he ventured to say that were £20,000,000 to be advanced without delay for the purpose of giving these poor people a fair start, in 10 years time the interest on the money lent would be paid over and over again. Within the last three years 100,000 men, women, and children had been driven from the shores of Ireland. In spite of the efforts of so-called remedial legislation, the sentence of banishment was at that moment imminent over the heads of 40,000 more. This monstrous, unmanly, and murderous war against Ireland must cease. The history of English conduct towards Ireland was a history of infamy. Was it not time for it to cease? The Irish Party might not be listened to now; but they would be listened to, perhaps, when the words "too late" were on the lips of Englishmen. It was no use introducing peddling remedies, or putting Liberal place-hunters in fat sinecures for the evils of Ireland. This the Government had already done. The Government, using the arguments of some of their supporters, might declare that they could not accept the extravagant proposals made from the Home Rule Benches; but for every £10,000,000 which was refused to Ireland there would be £10,000,000 wanted; and he feared that, before the century was passed, it would be regretted that no 2014 attempt had been made to do justice to Ireland. It was the height of folly, and an insult to human intelligence, to delay assistance to Ireland until she was able to stand on her own legs; for the country had been struck down and kept down from generation to generation. Only for a short period of 18 or 20 years had Ireland been free from the grasp of England. The Government might pass Coercion Acts and make them permanent, and continue to adopt the policy of the Mississippi steamboat captain, who got a negro to sit on the safety valve of the engine; but, some time or other, an explosion would take place. He would only add that, if English statesmen were determined to get rid of the Irish people, then he would advise the Irish race all over the world, by every legitimate means, to get rid of English misgovernment in Ireland.
§ MR. EWARTsaid, he cordially supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). He felt mortified that the affairs of his country should occupy so much of the time and labour of Parliament; and he thought a remedy for the existing state of things ought to be devised. There was no remedy, however, except the removal of the people from their miserable holdings, which were not sufficient to support nature, to some place where they could find a respectable living. He preferred voluntary emigration as a means of obtaining relief; but he thought that much good would be effected by the reclamation of waste land. He would urge the Government to give the present proposal a trial on a small scale first. He saw no difficulty in raising the money by the poor rates; but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that by the aid of the Terminable Annuities the National Debt was being paid off at the rate of £.5,000,000 a-year, he thought that some of that money might profitably be expended in reclaiming the waste lands of Ireland, although he was well aware of the enormous difficulties of such an undertaking.
COLONEL COLTHUESTsaid, he thought that far more people would desire to emigrate than could possibly be properly provided for. He wished especially to warn the Government against using the agency of Boards of Guardians for that purpose. The only desire of Guardians was to got rid of the poorest and most 2015 helpless, who could not possibly succeed as emigrants. Emigration could only be successfully carried out under a Special Commission which should be wholly independent of the Boards of Guardians. With respect to the reclamation of land, experience had amply proved that it was possible, and in many cases profitable. The Government had, some 50 years ago, undertaken reclamation at King William's Town, and it was commonly said to be a failure. In 1854 the land was sold at a very low price, owing to mismanagement; but the work had been by no means a failure. Unfortunately, the land had been disposed of, not to the occupiers, but to speculators. But, in spite of that, when he visited the place not long ago, he found it an oasis in the desert, compared with the surrounding more or less unreclaimed or badly reclaimed land. In 1843, under the Act of 1843, an attempt was made to encourage works of arterial drainage, and during the 10 following years 500 applications were made under that Act, and many most useful works begun, which had since been completed. But, unfortunately, during the famine years, some works were undertaken, and the scope of others enlarged, with a view to affording employment; and a very large, and, in many cases, an injudicious outlay incurred. Some owners became alarmed, a Committee of Inquiry was appointed, and a change of system determined upon, under which only about 20 works had been carried out from 1863 to 1882. He would only add that neither the scheme of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo, nor any other scheme, would have a chance of success, unless the law gave the power to the Board of Works to initiato works of arterial drainage as well as to carry them out.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, although he had an Amendment on the Paper, he found that the difference between him and the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was not so substantial as the terms of his Motion, had led him to anticipate; but he was afraid that it was of no use shutting their eyes to the fact that the two words in the Motion that had the greatest charm for the ears of that House were "emigration" and "consolidation." He could not agree that the transportation of the Irish people—no 2016 matter under what seductive conditions—? was the duty or business of any Government worthy the name; and he was quite sure that, as a measure of relief for this particular class of tenants under any conditions that the Government wore likely to concede, any scheme of Government emigration would be a curse to the unfortunate people themselves, and would be a reproach to anyone who had hand, act, or part in sanctioning it. He had no sympathy for the Government that could find no better plan for dealing with a difficult)' which was one of the hereditary punishments of English crime in Ireland. At best, it was the resource of feebleness to say, as the Government said—"We have here 50,000 or 100,000 people, whose misery is always appealing to us and rebuking us. Let us buy them off and ship them away to another hemisphere, so that whatever happens to them we will be out of earshot." Whatever the motive of this scheme of emigration was it would only end in failure. The scheme of emigration by families was a perfectly delusive one. The people they wanted to keep at home—the young and the strong, and those who had means to carry away—would go readily enough. They wanted no stimulus to emigrate; 84,000 people went last year, and 3,000,000 had emigrated since the time of the Famine—a pretty severe drain on Ireland if bloodletting were any good for her. The very people the Government wanted to go would not go; and no country would receive the old, the helpless, and the feeble, as had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo. What were many of these poor people to do in a new country, where they were just as much out of place as if they were Red Indians—people, one-half of whom did not speak English and had never handled a plough? He had had the curiosity to inquire into the success of the Government scheme of emigration in Donegal, and found that the cases were not such as touched upon the real question at all. As regarded the question of consolidation, he wished to say that if Government succeeded in tempting away any large portion of the population they would not in any way benefit those who remained behind. As the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had often stated, those little holdings were altogether worked by the spade labour 2017 of the tenants and their family; they would not pay anybody who would have to use hired labour; they were utterly worthless for grazing purposes; and if they were not cultivated, they would, in a few years, rush back into heath and rushes. It was quite possible that if a lot of these little holdings were suddenly thrown on the market, there would be land-grabbers to grasp at them, and offer impossible rents for them; but had not Ireland suffered enough from earth-hunger of that sort already? No; the true remedy was that suggested by the Bishops—to take things as they found them, and make the best of them. These little holdings were capable of supporting their tenants with the other means of living which they possessed if the tenants had some little stock—were more skilled in agriculture, if the rack-rents were reduced, and some security given for the improvements made. If the proposal of the Bishops of Ireland, made three months ago, had been accepted, and a few hundred thousand pounds risked in loans to these small tenants, the Government would have had, by this time, the men earning the money on their own lands; they soon would have been able to feed themselves and re-stock their holdings; and if, in addition, some little encouragement was given to their fisheries, the Government would have done something that statesmen might be prouder of than of their empty workhouses and emigrant ships. The Royal Commission proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo might have some result; but he had no faith in official Commissions. It seemed like a mockery that they should be debating this subject that night without any reference to the fact that while they were talking thousands of people were in a state of frenzy and despair for want of food or of seeds to put into the ground. Inspector Woodhouse himself stated that in the parish of Glencolumbkill there were 1,400 people; one-third of the whole population did not own any possession, except some fowls and, perhaps, a pig, and had no seed potatoes or oats; but while making these admissions the Government Inspectors sent in Reports the obvious effect of which, he did not say their purpose, was to whittle away and to minimize the poverty and sufferings of the people, and not only to stay the hand of the Government, but 2018 stay the hand of private charity as well. These officials seemed to think it was all right as long as the people were not dying like flies of hunger. Anybody who had been through these districts could tell them that people had died and were dying of hunger. The neglect of the last few months had sowed the seeds of permanent disease and decay in thousands of constitutions; and if the people were not dying like flies they might thank, not the foresight of the Government, but the charity of people who did not allow themselves to be chilled by the scepticism of the Government, for the Government had done nothing except to send officials through the country to see, apparently, how much longer the people could hold out. To tell them to go into the workhouse was to betray a most heartrending incapacity to understand the feelings of the people. They would die first—not even the priests could induce them to go there. If there were, as they were told in that House, local arrangements for Poor Law relief, they were unworkable and inoperative. All the Government offered was a ticket of admission to a workhouse perhaps 20 miles distant. He did not want to harrow the House by going into details of the distress which he had himself seen among the people; but he would ask whether the Government were going, for the next four and a-half months, to leave the whole of that wretched population to depend upon that charity which the Government themselves, by their attitude, were discouraging? Until the potatoes were fit for digging—and in Donegal that would not be until the middle of August—if there were any potatoes to dig at all, the great bulk of these people would have to be supported by private or public charity if they were to remain alive, and that was apart altogether from where they were going to get the seeds to put down at all within the next few weeks. The other night Members from Ireland appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the sake of these poor people, for some share of the £2,700,000 that he was dispensing with such lordly generosity among rich people who did not want it. They pointed out that in dealing with these people they were not dealing with turbulent politicians, but with a people who, perhaps unfortunately for themselves, were about the meekest and most in offen- 2019 sive on earth. They pointed out that it was not a matter of politics, but of common humanity; but they might as well have appealed to the winds and waves on the Donegal shores. He had no further appeal to make, except that which had been made by the Catholic Bishops—namely, to ask the Irish people abroad to do what they had often done before—to feed their unfortunate fellow-countrymen whom an English Government and rack-renting landlords, supported by England, had left to starvation. He would be glad if he was wrong, and if the speech of the Chief Secretary undeceived him; but he confessed that he had not much hope of any great or permanent amelioration of the condition of the peasants in the West of Ireland until their country obtained the control of its own resources, and used them not for the extermination of the people, but for their encouragement, happiness, and prosperity in their own land.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he did not propose to refer at any great length to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. It was a speech marked by great earnestness and sincerity; and the language, though strong and energetic, did not, he was quite certain, run ahead of the hon. Member's convictions, and was merely strong and energetic for the purpose of impressing those convictions on the House. The reason that he did not propose to follow his speech closely was that he had very much work before him, not in the length of the speech which he was about to make, but in the extreme gravity of the subject which had been brought forward. The hon. Member could not be said to have spoken outside his Amendment, which, although he could not move, he had referred to. The hon. Member's Amendment contained certain negative propositions and some very positive proposals for granting outdoor relief, for making loans to small occupiers and other purposes, and the three or four most important questions to which, if he attempted to reply, he should consume more time than the House would be willing to concede. With no want of respect to the hon. Member, he should refer him, on those subjects, to the speeches which he had made on former occasions, and should address himself at once to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), 2020 which, to save time, might be said to embrace all proposals with regard to reclamation. With respect to the other speeches that had been made, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had used large words introducing a great many issues, and had endeavoured to persuade, or rather to force, the House to contribute £10,000.000 or £20,000,000 as a reward to Ireland for her former services and as compensation for her injuries. The hon. Member, with all his eloquence, certainly did not do anything to contribute towards persuading him that the scheme in favour of which he was speaking was a scheme on which £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 could be spent with any advantage to Ireland. The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart), who spoke more quietly than the hon. Member for Dungarvan, was, however, more calculated to alarm financiers, for he proposed to take the £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 accruing from time to time by the determination of Terminable Annuities, applicable to the reduction of the National Debt, and apply them to the development of Irish resources. But the services of the country must be considered on their own merits, and a proposed service must be defended absolutely on its own ground, without the money that was required for another service. The importance of this debate he considered to be great, and the question one of the most urgent character; while, though the Resolution was in somewhat vague terms, there was much in it which gave the Government satisfaction, for it called attention to the chronic character of the distress in parts of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member said he intended to propose a permanent remedy, and the fact was that it was no use looking for any relief from temporary measures. In order to be effectual they must be permanent. What was the remedy proposed? With regard to that, the hon. and learned Member had wisely given the Government Notice of his scheme, knowing that it would be of no use to bring it suddenly forward when it was impossible for them to consider it. What, then, was the cause of the chronic distress in some parts of Ireland? Certainly, it was not so severe as it was in 1847. It was much more local, and that enabled the Government to look at those parts of the country which were suffer- 2021 ing at that time, and which were not suffering now, with a view to determine what remedies to apply to the rest. When he was in Ireland he was always inquiring, and it was rather hard to find an answer, for some district to be pointed out which was very much distressed in 1847, but which was not so now, and he found one in Skibbereen. Mr. Senior, a gentleman of great authority, talked about certain districts being reduced to "one vast Skibbereen," meaning that they would be reduced to great poverty. Skibbereen was now very much the reverse of unprosperous. He had been able to obtain the figures respecting its three baronies—namely, Carberry East, Carberry West, and the West of East Carberry—he could not obtain statistics regarding the Unions—but they showed that whereas in 1841 one district contained a population of 130,000, it now contained 68,000, a diminution of 47 per cent. In the rural part of Cork County,—that was, excepting the City of Cork—the population had fallen 46 percent, in Limerick 50, and in Tipperary it had fallen from 435,000 to 199,000, or 54 per cent. Now, the diminution in the Union of Clifden was only 30 per cent, in Bolmullet 29 per cent, in Newport 16 per cent, in Oughterard 13 per cent, and in Swinford only 4 per cent. It would be seen, therefore, that there was no proportionate reduction in these years in the districts now distressed. [Mr. SEXTOX: Since what date?] Since 1841; and this diminution was not in the more populous, but in the poorer parts. Therefore, they came to the conclusion that the distressed districts were those in which the population was large and the land usually poor. So far they agreed with the hon. and learned Member. They also agreed that the automatic reduction of population was not sufficient, and that it required to be stimulated. They agreed also in promoting emigration; but side by side with the emigration scheme he promoted a scheme of migration, and it was on the system of migration that the Government joined issue with the hon. and learned Member. It was a very important issue, and if the Resolution was carried the country would be pledged to action of a very serious character. The hon. and learned Member proposed to place families upon farms of 20 acres of semi-waste land. The scheme of the hon. and 2022 learned Member did not, he was glad to find, refer to the breaking up of rich grazing farms in the central districts of Ireland. That proposal, he imagined, was only advanced upon the platform, and the cost of that plan for each family would be so great that it would be ruinous to the Exchequer, and also ruinous to the most successful industries in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member proposed to take land of the value of 5s. per acre, and he assumed that the fee simple might be secured for £6 an acre. In order to settle these 25,000 families he would require 500,000 acres, which would be equivalent to an outlay to the public of £3,000,000, with £2,000,000 extra for farm buildings, roads, and so on, as against the £625,000 for which they would be emigrated by the Government, being at the rate of £5 per individual; but he said the £625,000 would be a dead loss, while the £5,000,000 would be advanced in the shape of a loan, which would be repaid after the lapse of a certain number of years. Now, what were the difficulties which the Government felt with regard to this scheme? The groundwork of it was the assumption that there were 500,000 acres, chiefly in the West of Ireland, of waste and semi-waste land fit for cultivation, and that 20 acres would support a family and pay a tolerably large rent. But observe how large that rent was. If the finance of the hon. and learned Member was correct, every such family would owe the Government £200 for the 20 acres, a sum to be paid off, together with the interest, at 3 per cent. Now, in the first place, the hon. and learned Member put at too low a figure the debt from the tenant to the Government. He would not dispute as to the number of years' purchase. He would allow that the selling price was £6 on an acre. But, allowing that, he thought he could show that £120 for the purchase money, and £8 for the proportion of the rent for the farm house, farm buildings, roads, &c, was too low. They brought these people from one district to another, in order to better their condition, and to do so permanently. Now, in the opinion of Sir Richard Griffith—than whom no higher authority on Irish matters existed—no farm ought to be less than 30 statute acres as an absolute minimum. It was most important that the farmer should 2023 have 40 or 50 acres; but, at least, he should have 30 acres of good arable and grazing land, to enable him to become one of a solid, prosperous yeomanry; for if they did not do that he did not see what object they should obtain. Now, to stock such a farm, to raise the buildings, and make the roads, would demand, not £80, but at least £250.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERI do not propose to stock the farm. As I explained in my speech, I would only proceed very gradually.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was going to take the hon. and learned Member's figures, because the Government were not satisfied with them as they stood. The purchase of a farm of good land would require, not £200, but £750. £200 would have to be repaid to the Government, with 3 per cent per annum for interest. To repay that sum at the end of 30 years would be equal to £10 4s. a-year, or 10s. 2d. an acre; if repaid within 40 years it would be £8 13s. a-year, or 8s. 8d. an acre; if within 50 years—which was a long time indeed to look forward to for becoming a peasant proprietor—it would be £7 15s., or 7s. 9d. an acre. In the "Bright Clauses" of the Act of 1870, and in the Act of 1881, 31 years was taken as the limit; but, in order to bring the thing to a narrow issue, he would allow that it was safe to take the term of 50 years. If that was admitted, it had to be proved that 600,000 acres of land could be found susceptible of such cultivation as would not only support a family, but enable the tenant to pay 2s. 9d. for every acre more than was paid under the present conditions. How did such land exist? According to a paper by Mr. Ball Green, who was in the office of Sir Richard Griffith, the area of Ireland in bog, moor, and mountain was 4,497,000 acres. This bog, moor, and mountain was classified thus. There were 1,200,000 of deep fat bog in the low country. A small sum might be expended in draining this partially, and in making roads for the purpose of making this land accessible and available for farming; but, except in very small portions, to turn this into arable land was altogether out of the question. There were 1,100,000 acres of wild mountain tops, ranging in elevation from 1,000 feet and upwards. This elevated land was quite incapable of the improvements of the nature 2024 suggested. This gave 1,000,000 acres ranging from 800 feet to 1,000 feet in height. Now, said Mr. Ball Green, something must be done to try and make these mountains better adapted for grazing, especially young cattle in the summer months; but any large outlay with a view to reclamation and the culture of crops would not be remunerative. There remained something like 1,200,000 acres. This land might be improved by opening surface drains, which would cost about 20s. an acre. He remembered seeing pastures of that sort, which reminded him of the Cheviot Hills in his own county. Mr. Ball Green had said that the value of these lands might be increased by about 2s. 6d. per acre; but the condition under which the value of the land could be increased was that it should be taken by capitalists for the purpose of feeding large flocks of sheep, and not by small cottier tenants, for the purpose of growing crops. But the general conclusion of Sir Richard Griffith with reference to those lands was that it was expedient to encourage parties with capital to open drains for the purpose of improving the quality of the natural grass, and that would be most advantageously effected by the proprietors themselves. That system was carried out in Scotland successfully. Such lands were not suited for allotments for the poor, as the cultivation of potatoes was always doubtful. How provident Sir Richard Griffith was in that opinion was proved by the fact that in the last 10 years 400,000 acres had got out of tillage. That had been quoted, he hardly knew why, to prove the necessity of legislation such as that recommended by the hon. and learned Member; but, in his (Mr. Trevelyan's) opinion, it was a powerful warning against it. Land that had been going out of tillage for economic reasons was hardly suited for the purpose recommended. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: I said the tenants had no security.] The tenants would have security now; they had now an absolute security; but it was better to leave it to economical causes, and see whether they would induce them to take it. If there was much land capable of tillage in Ireland, but not tilled, even if it were not the interest of the farmer to bring it under tillage, it was the highest interest of the landlord to do so. The hon. and learned Member had said there were people who were not fit to 2025 emigrate on account of their being unenterprizing and not strong in body. But he (Mr. Trevelyan), believed that if a man were not good in work he was not fit to emigrate. They might augur from the Bright Clauses and the Land Act how very little chance there was of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member being successfully carried out; for it was, after all, another form of peasant proprietary, and proposed that the peasant should buy indifferent or bad land. There had not been more than 1,200 applications in 12 years from men who had had the opportunity of purchasing land, and among those were a surprising number of men of good and even high position. A very small number of Irish farmers had availed themselves of the opportunity of purchasing good and improvable land though they already had the stock; and now the Government were asked to induce a vast number of poor people without stock, with no connection with the soil, to purchase bad land, which had been rejected by tenants and landlords as not susceptible of cultivation. The land in question, though bad for tillage, was good for grazing; but there were tenants on it already, and the work of ejecting those tenants was one of extreme difficulty, and cause for great irritation, because an improving landlord in Ireland who wished to buy out had, at certain periods, been most unpopular; and that would be the position of the British Government if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were carried out. Then, again, there were the labourers in the neighbourhood, often badly enough off, so that if the present occupiers were dispossessed they would have the first claim to the land; and he was not sure that the Government, even with money in their hands, would find it more easy to get rid of the existing tenants than the landlord who now wished to clear his land for consolidation or other purposes. But, besides having the same difficulties in clearing the land as a landlord, the Government would have the same difficulty in getting in the rent. It was impossible for anyone who had watched the commencement of public ownership in Ireland to be blind to the danger of extending that system indefinitely, or under unfavourable circumstances. On a limited scale, and in isolated cases, it might be that the Go- 2026 vernment could collect rent more easily than the landlord; but the case might be very different if, in a large district, the Government was the only landlord inheriting all the feelings which had at times been felt and expressed against the landlord class. And if they were now to try the experiment of making the Government a landlord and rent-charger they would make it under the most unfavourable circumstances. The people in the congested districts—the districts from which the population had to be migrated—had, in many cases, got entirely out of the habit of paying rent. He was not now entering into politics; he was mentioning facts. [An hon. MEMBER: The Church Body collected their rent.] If the hon. Gentleman who had interrupted him had listened to his argument he would have heard that he admitted that there were isolated cases scattered over Ireland in which rent had been paid. The Church tenants had been mostly people who paid rent; but the people in the congested districts had not been paying rent—that was a plain fact. In some of the districts the average rent was 30s. a-year; and that rent had not been paid, in many cases, for five or six years past. Clergymen, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite would recognize from their point of view as the greatest friends of the tenants, had spoken of the terrible hardships which these poor people had had to undergo; and it had been represented as a very great grievance, and a main cause of the present distress, that they had had to muster a single years' rent in order to take advantage of the Arrears Act. And they were to take these people, with their habits and with their ideas as to the payment of rent, and they were to tell them to pay a rent, not of 30s. but of £8 a-year—a rent some 40 per cent greater than the land could bear. To bring the Government into relations with such people in the character of an exactor of rent, and an evictor if it did not get the rent, would be as unfortunate a proceeding as could well be devised. They would be told they had the collateral security of a rate in aid from the neighbourhood, or from, in case of need, the whole of Ireland. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) had said he would begin by making the Union from which the people went undergo its share of the burden, together 2027 with the Union to which they went. The hon. Baronet mentioned Mayo. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would turn to the circumstances of the distressed Unions in Mayo—namely, Glenties and Swinford. The united valuation of those Unions was £96,000, and the population 110,000. He was willing to let the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) say how many of the 110,000 people might be migrated under his scheme; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) reckoned that the number would not be less than 20,000, and 20,000 persons at £20 per head would involve the two Unions in an outlay of £400,000. Two Unions with a valuation of £96,000 would, according to the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), have to bear the responsibility of a debt of £400,000.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONI said the county.
§ MR. TREVELYANbegged the hon. Baronet's pardon, and would withdraw anything he had said under the misapprehension. The hon. Baronet, however, did say that the nature of the rate in aid would be such that it would extend as required, first over the Union, then over the county, and then over the whole of Ireland. Now, if they knew anything of human nature, they knew that when the people were aware that they had behind them, first their Union, then their county, and then the whole of Ireland, a penny of rent would not be got from any except the most exceptionally honest and energetic, and that not because they were Irishmen, but because they were human beings. If they failed, then, in paying their rent, with what justice could the Government go to the neighbouring baronies and counties, and ask them to pay money to make up the shortcomings of rent of tenants in what would be comparatively distant districts? The Government already found some difficulty in collecting taxes to which any exception could be taken. Great difficulty was experienced in collecting such taxes as those for compensation for injury to life and property, and for the outstanding loans towards the relief of distress. The people did not like paying such taxes; but just fancy asking one farmer to pay another farmer's rent! The hon. and learned Member's scheme was interesting and extremely well worked out; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should be very glad 2028 if it could be carried out to a limited extent by a company—or by an association which had at its head Mr. Tuke. If ever the time came when any responsible body was prepared to take the matter in hand, and to lay any carefully devised scheme before the Government, it should receive their best consideration. The Government were reluctantly obliged to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) now begged the House not to vote with the hon. and learned Member because of the hearty support he had given to the notion of emigration. By declining to adopt the Motion of the hon. and learned Member no hon. Member would commit himself against emigration; for the Government, while they were forced to differ from the hon. and learned Member, agreed that the chronic distress of Ireland must be relieved by a permanent method, and the permanent method which they believed to be most effective, and most in accord with the wishes of the people, was emigration. They believed this because they were told so by people they could trust, and because of facts which no one could gainsay. Since 1851, the date when official information began to be collected, 2,800,000 emigrants had left Ireland; and this enormous emigration had been conducted by the private resources of the people, except so far as it was assisted, to a limited extent, by Boards of Guardians—to the extent of 34,000 persons. This emigration, being conducted by private means, failed where it was most needed—namely, in those districts where the misery and depression of the conditions under which the people lived loft them without the means of exchanging those conditions for others and better ones. This fact had been long known to private men of great benevolence, who had offered the means of emigration to certain families in the West of Ireland, and who, whatever else they had effected, had ascertained that the people were largely anxious to try their fortunes in another land. At this point the Government determined to step in and assist with money where money was required; but in stepping in they felt they incurred very heavy obligations. The automatic emigration in earlier days from Ireland had been conducted under conditions which involved the emigrants in great hardship, both 2029 when they were going out and in the land where they found themselves; and the Government, though their action in the matter was only that of offering to assist those who wished to emigrate, felt bound to see Government money only given to emigration of the sort that would benefit both those who went and those who stayed in Ireland. On this point they differed from the Conference of Roman Catholic clergy of the diocese of Swinford, who, in a series of resolutions they passed, said they had neither publicly nor privately discouraged emigration, but they were opposed to family emigration. The Government did not dispute the sincerity of the Roman Catholic clergy; but they differed from them as to the sort of emigration desirable. The Government held that if a whole family emigrated it would be happier when it was on another shore; and there was much more hope that if a whole family emigrated the land left would be added to the neighbouring farm, and that, therefore, permanent congestion of the population would be prevented in the future. If they disagreed with Professor Baldwin in certain matters, they agreed with him in this—that when emigration or migration took place a whole family should go together. But even without the alternative of a scheme of migration, the people had gladly, and in great numbers, accepted emigration. At the last Report 21,462 people had applied from 29 Unions. In most of these the people had to supplement the Government grant out of their own resources, unless the Union thought fit to borrow; but in four Unions, or parts of Unions, the operations were put under the care of Mr. Tuke and his associates. In those four Unions, out of a population of 45,900, 6,420 had applied to be emigrated. Mr. Tuke and Mr. Sydney Buxton, giving that time and personal labour which people were so much less willing to give than money, undergoing hardships and toils in wild and scattered districts, had commenced, incidental to extended operations, the work of emigration in a manner most satisfactory to the people in their charge. Mr. Tuke, in a letter to the Under Secretary, said—
I think the Lord Lieutenant may like to know that our work has really commenced, and that our first detachment left Galway on Good Friday. The party consisted of 33 families and 2030 a few single men and women, together 24 persons. The whole of the emigrants were going to friends or relatives in the United States, and the accompanying list of their destinations may he of interest as showing how widely they are spread. There was not the slightest sign of regret on leaving—no shedding of tears. This must largely be attributed to the adoption of the family method of emigration, in place of the single member of the family leaving as has usually been needful hitherto in the absence of any assisted passage.Since then 350 men, women, and children had gone from Belmullet in a spirit of hope and cheerfulness which excited the sympathy of those who witnessed it. In all, he supposed, Mr. Tuke and his friends alone had emigrated from the four Unions placed under their charge from 4,000 to 5,000 persons; and only within the last few days he (Mr. Trevelyan) had learned with great delight that by making personal efforts of an extreme nature, and especially by enlisting the services for that purpose of Mr. Hodgkin, they hoped to take over the Union of Glenties, and, perhaps, several of the districts in Donegal. There was another Committee working hard at Ardfert, and another at Killarney. Great care was taken to accept only those families in which the workers outnumbered the non-workers, in order that the people might find themselves in their new home in a condition to face the difficulty of their new position. This had produced one very painful result—namely, that many families, whose appeal for help was the most urgent and the most piteous, had to be refused. The expectations of the Government as to the economical effects of their action had been fulfilled. They had made careful inquiry as to what became of the land which was abandoned by the emigrants; and they were told that in the majority of instances it was let to the adjoining occupiers, being either sold by the outgoing tenant or given by the landlord. Such was the Report of Mr. H. A. Robinson, the Local Government Board Inspector; and he had written to-day for the statistics which Mr. Robinson had collected. Emigration was successful when those whom people knew and trusted invited them across the water; and the Government were determined to send no one to the United States who had not such an invitation, and no one to Canada whose place was not prepared for him either 2031 by private benevolence or public organization. He had got a Report from Mr. Tuke in which that gentleman informed him that—As regards the families selected for Canada, some will go direct to situations promised for them to Mr. Hodgkin during his recent useful visit last autumn. A few will proceed to Winnipeg, where a Committee has been formed for their reception by Archbishop Tuché, and all others are consigned to the care of the emigration agents of the Canadian Government at Toronto, to be forwarded as required.Hon. Members must not think this was a small matter. It was necessary to begin somewhat slowly and carefully. Hon. Members must not think the results inadequate; they must not lose sight of the enormous importance of-the assertion of the principle of Government aid to emigration, and the translation of that principle into ever so moderate an amount of effective action. Offers of the most interesting nature had been made to the Government, offers which he did not wish to describe in detail, but which the Government believed involved a far smaller expenditure than that which would be required by the less extensive scheme for re-settling whole families in Ireland. Those offers showed that a very large number of families might be settled where they would be very much wanted, and where they would be welcomed under circumstances which would absolutely insure their success, as families and as small communities, within a very limited time. The only reason why the offers had not been closed with already was that the Government were determined not to spoil by hurry the success of their operations. If, as was now the case, the emigrants went out with friends and to friends, with a comfortable outfit, in a good ship, with everybody they cared for most about them—if, when they were on the other side of the water, they found themselves in a place where they were wanted and welcomed, they would send back accounts which would draw out those whom they left behind—their neighbours and connections; and by a process which was consistent with humanity, with sound policy, and with the true economic outlines and principles of Government action, a result would be produced which would make the West of Ireland a far more prosperous, and, as he believed, a far happier country in the future than it had been in 2032 the past. In what he had said be had endeavoured to be practical, and he did not think hon. Gentlemen would accuse him of having been heartless. He had only now to say that if the Government could not accept the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), even after his admirable speech, it was because they believed that it would deal a serious blow at the true doctrines of Government interference.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few moments while he addressed himself to this subject, to which, for many years, he had paid the greatest attention. He was, of course, well acquainted with the West of Ireland; and he and others interested in that part of the country could not but feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for his concluding observations. He confessed, however, that with this exception the whole tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had gone like a lump of lead to his heart. All that the right hon. Gentleman had said came to this—human beings, our fellow-countrymen in Ireland, were to be considered as so many economic entities, and were to be got rid of out of the country because it was too much trouble to consider, and too difficult to determine, what was to be done with them in their present condition. When Chief Secretaries, who knew little or nothing of the country, stood up in the House of Commons and proclaimed such sentiments, he felt sure they would be heard of in Ireland with dismay and horror. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in language which could not be mistaken, that in the economy of the United Kingdom Ireland ought to be a grazing farm. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) denied that. He maintained that the rearing of beasts consequent on the extirpation of the people was neither wise, nor could it ever be successful. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that wherever the population had declined there had been something like prosperity. How much would he like the population of Ireland to decline? Did the House know that, at the present moment, there were fewer people in Ireland than in any year during the present century? The decline in population commenced in 1800, the year of the Union of Ireland with England 2033 and with short intervals it had continued to decline, until, at the present moment, the population was 1,000,000 below what it was in 1853. How was that decline brought about? By emigration, forced by hunger and the pangs of suffering. If that was a thing of which a Government ought to be proud, he admitted the British Government had reason to be proud. Were they not, on the contrary, told by everybody who had written on economical questions that the glory and prosperity of a country depended upon its population? Let them compare the state of things in England and Scotland with the state of things in Ireland. In Ireland there had been, ever since the beginning of the century, a decline of population, until at this moment there were fewer people there than ever before—he believed that now there were only 5,129,000. The population of England during the same time had increased three-fold, for instead of 9,000,000 people in England and Wales in 1801, there were now 27,000,000. In Scotland, in place of a population of 1,608,000 in 1801, there was now a population of 3,731,000. Was it not a fair question for the House to ask itself—"How is it that in England there has been this trebling of the population and prosperity, and in Scotland there has been more than a doubling of the population and prosperity, while in Ireland there has been nothing but misery and famine and a decrease of population?" That was the practical question they had to answer; and the reply to it was that the mistaken economical laws which this country had imposed upon Ireland, against the advice of her chosen Representatives, had been absolutely fatal to the population. But more than that; he knew that during the whole time the country had been governed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had no practical knowledge of the place which they had to govern. If his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had told them, when they proposed to make a better use of the land which God had given to the people of Ireland, that it was impossible to reclaim it or make it better, was in earnest, he recommended him to take a tour in the West of Ireland and see whether reclamation and improvement were impossible. His right hon. Friend had intro- 2034 duced into his speech a number of figures taken from a Paper emanating from Mr. Ball Green, which were, no doubt, intended to produce a considerable effect upon the House. But he would ask what authority was Mr. Ball Green, who lived at the Valuation Office in Dublin, upon this question—what did he know about the reclamation and improvement of land? [A laugh.] The Secretary to the Treasury laughed at this; but he could assure the House that the person who had been quoted as an authority by the Chief Secretary had no knowledge whatever of what ought to be done in Ireland. He had always stated in that House, and it would soon be acknowledged in this country, that, however the population of Ireland might be thinned out by emigration, there would always be a residuum which would remain in a state of chronic starvation unless the Government did something to improve the quality of the land on which they must live. What was necessary to be done it was easy to see. In the West of Ireland, the part of the country he was best acquainted with, there was a great deal of the land in a state very much like that of a sponge saturated with water; and, if this had been a matter to be dealt with by any Foreign Government, the work of reclamation would have been carried out years ago. The amount of money required for that purpose was not nearly so great as that which had to be expended in keeping the Irish people in subjection. If the land were drained, he could say, from his own experience of 20 years, that at an expenditure of £10 per acre it could be raised from a state of absolute unproductiveness and made worth no less than £1 an acre. But they were told by the right hon. Gentleman that it was impossible to reclaim this land. He was not, and had never been, in favour of a great ideal scheme to reclaim the whole of the land of Ireland to be carried out by the Government, or by a Commission, or by public Companies. But he said that every portion of the country that was distressed should be separately treated after investigation of the particular circumstances of those portions of the country. That appeared to him the common-sense way of proceeding. If they wished to relieve the distress in Connemara, they must undertake some of those works, which he, in his 2035 private capacity, had carried out on a very small and insignificant scale, but with some success. The result would be that the land would not only pay for the expenditure of money, but it would be made as good agricultural land as could be found in England, Ireland, or Scotland. He did not say it could be made into land equal to the grazing lands in Meath and some parts of Wick-low, which yielded perennial grass crops without labour for the cattle to fatten upon; but it could be made to repay the cultivator as well as any average land in the kingdom. But what was the next tiling to be done? How could the Chief Secretary talk to the House about the prosperity, the happiness, and the prospects of the West of Ireland, if the farmers in that part of the country, after rearing stock remained unable to get it to market without a considerable loss? There was a large trade in pigs in Connemara which represented no less a sum than £20,000 a-year. But those pigs were 40 miles from a railway, and every head of cattle and every bit of produce which an industrious farmer had to sell in that part of the country lost one-third of its value, because it was out of the district of railways. He had never ventured to approach the present Secretary to the Treasury, or make any request of him on this subject, because he know how unfailing were his tendencies to economy, although he had besieged other Secretaries to the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for some slight assistance to make a light railway from Galway to Clifden; but as for getting any practical help or assistance from them, one might as well "bay the moon." And yet, what happened? They had been horrified, during the last two or three years, at crimes of the most dreadful character which had been committed in Connemara. Did the House know that previous to those years crime was almost unknown in that district; that the peace had been kept within its area of 50 square miles by about 20 policemen, and that, too, for years in the midst of the starvation which prevailed there? But these were practical matters, and they had been congratulated because those poor creatures who were in a state of starvation were willing, when someone offered them a £5 note, to emigrate. He knew that 2036 any number of them could be induced to go, and he admitted that in regard to a certain number of them it would be a great kindness to remove them. But again he asked, what was to be done with those who remained behind? Was the question to come up year by year as it had done in the past? How many famines there had been in Ireland since the beginning of the century he did not know; but it was a fact that five years never elapsed without a public appeal being made, not to the benevolent of England only, but to the whole of Europe and America; and yet, because it was said that the political economy of this country required that the works of the kind he had indicated should be carried out by private enter-prize, they did not take the smallest pains permanently to relieve the distressed districts. Supposing that 4,000 people were emigrated as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, or even if that number were doubled, it must be remembered that Irish families were not very small as a rule, and in the course of a few years the children of the present day who remained in Ireland would have grown up, and then there would be the same congestion of population as now existed, with the same distress, unless the quality of the land on which they had to live was improved, and the people were placed within easy communication with markets. But there was another matter to which he would allude very briefly. Had the House seriously addressed itself to the question why it was that the poverty of Ireland was so intense and distressing? The real answer to this was, that the wealth and produce of the country came over to England in the shape of taxes and rents to absentee landlords. While, in England, the taxation did not amount to 10 per cent of the income of the country, very nearly one-fourth of the whole income of Ireland went in taxation. They might talk of political economy and benevolent intentions; but was it not a scandal that while the income of Great Britain was £1,000,000,000, there were many hundreds of people in Ireland who, at some time of every year, lived upon boiled seaweed sprinkled with oatmeal? That went on from year to year; and he asked whether it was not the duty of our statesmen to grapple with a problem of the kind, and endea- 2037 vour to raise the condition of those people. Were they to be told that the only thing that could be done was to clear them off the face of the land. It was impossible that this state of things could continue. They knew what the present condition of Ireland was. He had condemned with perfect sincerity what had occurred during the past two or three years, and the views he now expressed he had maintained from the first, having neither swerved from them nor gone beyond them. But he firmly believed that unless a different view of the Irish problem was taken than that which favoured the proposal to clear away the Irish population, no measures of repression would shelter this country from the inconveniences resulting from Irish disaffection. The good feelings of a people could not be aroused by treating them as stocks and stones. England, at the present moment, was employing a very large portion of its Army in Ireland; and they knew very well that it would be impossible for her to go to war, while that state of things continued, with any foreign nation. The man who prophesied that the distress in Ireland could be permanently removed by getting rid of a certain number of persons, and who, by means of the emigrant ship, would put out of sight this dreadful spectre of starvation and destitution, was no friend to this country. The friend of England was the man who would tell the naked truth, and that was that neither political disabilities nor questions of nationality were the causes of the difficulties with Ireland. The causes of these difficulties were to be summed up in the simple phrase—Empty stomachs and idle hands. If those hands were idle from causes over which the people had control—that was to say, if the people were wilfully idle—he would be the first to condemn them; but he knew well that the poor Irish cottier was one of the most hard working of God's creatures, and when he came over to this country to work in the way of trade or harvesting he presented a picture of self-denial and perseverance that was not to be met with amongst any other class. Let hon. Members consider how these men conducted themselves at harvest time in this country, and at such places as Jarrow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Liverpool, where they worked from morning till night for 2038 the smallest pay. It was only that evening that an hon. Member had said to him in conversation, when urging the desirability of giving something for the people to do in the shape of task-work—"I have seen the Irish labourer in our towns engaged in such work as digging out the foundations of buildings, and my heart has bled for them when I considered the kind of work they have to do for the merest pittance." These were the people who in England readily did hard work, but at home they had none to do. How could they till a soil that was saturated with water, and what hope had they from their flocks when they found that one-third of their value was lost in the cost of getting them to market? But the Government held out no hope that they would do anything for the starving population of the West. He had addressed the House in warm tones on this question. For the last two or three years these subjects had not been under discussion. They had had exciting political topics, and many matters had engaged their attention, the memory of which was not very sweet to him; but throughout all he had cherished the hope that his right hon. Friend, when he came into Office, and before making up his mind, would go to the West of Ireland and see for himself the state of things which existed there. But he had not done that; he had preferred to go on in the old way, getting his information from the old sources in Dublin. If this were continued he saw no hope of any amelioration of the people's distress. He concluded as he began, by stating that the land in the West of Ireland could be reclaimed economically, wisely, and profitably; and he repeated that until they did deal in some way with the land, upon which a certain residuum of the population must live, they could never hope to solve, in a satisfactory manner, the dreadful problem coming constantly before them.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have no wish to prolong, except for a few moments, this very interesting debate; but I cannot refrain from making a few observations on the Motion before the House. In his closing words the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said the land of Ireland was capable of being reclaimed profitably, and he implied that it was the duty of the Government to attempt that work, which has not yet 2039 been successfully accomplished. I cannot help reminding the hon. Member that there exists on the Statute Book a positive obligation on the part of the State to advance, to any persons properly qualified and able to give sufficient security, money at a rate of interest considerably below that at which money can be borrowed for any other undertaking. It seems to me that this country have given an invitation to persons who, like the hon. Member himself, are interested in the prosperity of Ireland, if only they will undertake the task of doing that which they say will be profitable. There is a margin between the interest to be charged on that money, and the ordinary interest on money, which would give a profit to the hon. Gentleman if he and his friends will undertake the duty. The Resolution which the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) has asked us to assent to is not in any sense a Party Resolution, nor is this a Party debate; but the House is asked to consider a question of the most vital importance concerning the interests of the people of Ireland. We are asked to consider what will be for their best interest; and, for my own part, I wish to put aside all considerations which usually enter into debates in this House, and, if it be possible to do so, to ask the House and the country to deliberate on the course which should be best for the distressed people of Ireland. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to object to emigration, because it is treating human beings as if they were economic realities. What are human beings but economic realities? How can we get rid of the fact that we are realities, and must be dealt with upon sound economical principles? The great fault in all our discussions has been that we have not been willing to look on the people of Ireland as if they were economic realities, but have discussed their condition with a great amount of sentiment, and I am afraid with an amount of Party feeling, which has deprived us of the power of looking upon them as economic realities. What we have desired to do has been to put these people in a position in which they ought to be, to maintain themselves as they ought to do, and to not only sustain themselves, but to discharge their duties to society as they ought to discharge them. The 2040 hon. and learned Member for Mayo says that it is impossible and we who know anything of the west of Ireland know that it is actually impossible, for the people who are located in the distressed districts to discharge the duties of human beings in the condition in which they are placed. We are all agreed that something must be done to lift them from that position; and the hon. and learned Member for Mayo proposes that there shall be a double process. He admits that emigration is desirable, and he distinctly recommends emigration; but the hon. Member for Galway declines to accept emigration.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYI have always favoured emigration from congested districts; but I say it is not a permanent remedy. There are railways and drainage works.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI entirely admit that drainage and railway works are desirable; but why are not such works provided for these districts? Simply because there is no probable economic result. The hon. Member is acquainted with the ordinary ways of business; how is it he has not put himself at the head of some organization to set on foot railways and drainage which would yield a moderate profit, while providing occupation for the people and fix them on the land on which he desires that they should remain? There is no one in this House or in this country who would not desire to see the people now in Ireland actively and profitably employed, if proper and successful employment could be found for them. It is a painful necessity of the position in which we are placed that we should offer them an opportunity to emigrate to improve their position. I regard it as a misfortune that the sufferings of these people should render it expedient and desirable to offer emigration to them; but I feel that emigration is better than starvation. Emigration is, no doubt, a misfortune; but it is a misfortune which many English people have to face, and do face. The circumstances under which the people of Ireland at present exist are such as to render it expedient, and a matter of simple kindness to the people, to offer them that assistance which the hon. and learned Member for Mayo admits as necessary in regard to a certain portion of them. Then the question is—Is migration 2041 possible? The hon. and learned Member says there are 500,000 acres of land to which migration would be possible, and recommends that occupiers should be compulsorily expropriated, that this land should be acquired, and these cottiers placed on 20 acres of this poor land each, where they could obtain happiness and prosperity. I have some knowledge of this poor land, and I cannot imagine anything that would be more pitiful than to remove occupiers who have very little knowledge of farming from the West Coast of Ireland to 20 acres of bog land, or improvable land as it is called, which is only worth 5s. an acre. My own conviction is that we should only change a very bad condition for something which would be infinitely worse, and perpetuate the state of things to which attention has been called—a condition of things in which sub-division and increased poverty and misery must result. The hon. and learned Member for Mayo referred to one circumstance which certainly was alarming and saddening—namely, the great increase of sub-divisions in 1881, especially of holdings between five and 15 acres. I do not know whether his figures are strictly accurate; but if they are, the argument I should draw from them is that there exists an incurable disposition to sub-divide small holdings in Ireland; and if you transfer the people who have that inclination to poor and miserable holdings, with a perfect right to sub-divide, you will have in a few years a repetition, in a still worse form, of the distress and misery from which the people are now suffering. I trust the Resolution which the hon. and learned Member has moved will not be accepted by the House. It is one which I think cannot bring any hope of redress or security to Ireland; it will not heal the distress from which the people are suffering; and it will only postpone the evils which at present afflict that country.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I do not propose to enter into the general debate, nor do I rise to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated generally the views of the Government; but I wish to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the vote will be taken. The noble Lord the Member for 2042 Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington) has moved an Amendment in two portions, and the first part is to leave out the words "migration and optional." It is our intention to vote with the noble Lord on the first part of the Amendment; but I do not thereby mean to convey—nor did my right hon. Friend mean to convey—that the Government are opposed, under all circumstances and conditions, to every plan of migration. That does not at all follow; but the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) has proposed—and, I must say, in a speech of very great ability and moderation of tone—a plan of migration which is based on large public advances, with a thorough and complete re-imbursement. That being the basis of his proposal, my right hon. Friend has shown that, however well-intended re-imbursement might be, it would be impracticable. In the first place, the tenants could not bear it. The Lord Lieutenant could not, I believe, venture to tax them outside the area, for the purpose of making those inside the area pay the rents of certain occupied lands of the State; and if the Lord Lieutenant should so charge rents on the rates, I am afraid the temptation would be irresistible to the favoured occupiers to decline to pay the rents, when they knew that the rents would be paid from the public funds. I am bound to say there is another reason why we cannot accept the plan of migration. Although a largo portion of the plan and the speech of the hon. and learned Member proceeded on an exposition of this method of making the resources of Ireland liable for reimbursing this money, there is not a word of that in the Motion. Hon. Gentlemen who will consider the Motion will see that the Motion charges the entire liability on the funds of the State, but says not one word about replacing those funds. Therefore, not from any universal or pre-conceived hostility to plans of migration which, under other circumstances, I can conceive might be practicable, we must support the Amendment. I am sorry that we have not had an opportunity of considering all the Amendments which have been put on the Paper. I do not very often agree with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but I must say I think there is a good deal of sense 2043 in the Amendment he has put on the Paper. My object is to explain to the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that we are obliged to vote against the introduction of the words "migration and optional" in his Motion, but that it is not out of any general hostility to every plan of the kind that we cannot accept the responsibility for or accept his plan.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he thought the House would be in some difficulty if the proposal of the Government was accepted. He had come down to vote for the Motion; but after hearing the discussion he was not able to do so. If, however, the House divided on the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Barnstaple they would strike out a certain part of the Amendment, and then pledge themselves to deal with the distressed districts in Ireland in a manner which might not be agreeable to all, because they would pledge themselves to a plan of State emigration. It seemed to him that if the Government did not approve of the Motion in its entirety, much the simplest course would be for the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and then the Government might move the Previous Question, and so enable the House to go to a direct vote.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, with his very brief experience of the West of Ireland, had put himself at issue, not only with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), but with a Catholic Archbishop and four Catholic Bishops, whose dioceses were affected by this Motion. The Chief Secretary, instead of being guided by the views of those eminent ecclesiastics, who so well knew that part of the country, preferred to take his information, forsooth, from Air. Ball Green and other officials, whose knowledge, compared with that of the personages to whom he had referred, must be extremely limited. Nothing was more disappointing to the people of Ireland than to find that when right hon. Gentlemen came over from England to govern them, they fell back for all their information on gentlemen of this kind—gentlemen of proved worth, no doubt, but, compared with the Arch- 2044 bishops and Bishops, of no importance, and of no experience in regard to the internal affairs of the Island. It was a great misfortune that the right hon. Gentleman had almost entirely ignored the opinion of those high ecclesiastics, and that he had almost retired from his own platform as a responsible Minister by putting to the fore the opinions of men whom nobody knew in Ireland, and who were only humble officials. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they made the State the landlord and the rent collector there would never be any return—nothing would ever be paid. Well, they could only judge in such matters by the experience of the past. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been speaking, he (Air. Dawson) had, as the House would remember, called his attention to a Church Body who had acquired land. That Body had got in the thin end of the wedge in this matter by advancing sums and giving credit to small tenants in Ireland. Could anyone show him a single one of the tenants who had been so treated who had not loyally met his responsibilities? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the people of Ireland, to point out a single case where these tenants had neglected to pay for their holdings. Were the Irish Members to tell the Chief Secretary to read the Cobden Papers—to toll him how small advances in Germany and Prussia had been made and repaid; were they to tell him that in those countries the very system advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo had been carried out by means of the consolidated taxes of the country? Were they to tell him that the great land revolution in those countries had been worked out, and how, if he appreciated the importance of the statement, he could work out a similar reform in Ireland? But the right hon. Gentleman had said that a nation like Ireland could not buy the land, and had gone into statistics and figures upon the point—and everybody knew that statistics and figures could be made to prove anything. Well, he (Mr. Dawson) would give the right hon. Gentleman three points in proper order of time which might serve to alter his opinion on this matter. In the first place, the Society of Friends, after the Famine of 1816, had spent a great deal of money in reclaim- 2045 ing waste lands, and these had been secured by a well-to-do peasantry. The Devon Commission had referred to the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland, stating that the people had been supported on the mountain sides, that small sums had been advanced to them which they had paid back with interest; and they had become, as they reclaimed the land, respectable and well-to-do, instead of wretched and impoverished. He (Mr. Dawson) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was not in the House at this moment pursuing the rôle that he at one time affected—for the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Society of Friends, who had recommended the plan which the right hon. Gentleman had put in practice in Ireland with benefit to the tenants and profit to those who had managed it. Then, again, would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tell him that he did not know that Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his work on Political Economy, had laid down abundant proofs of the profitable reclamation of land in Ireland—reclamations which had not been attended by a single loss to those who had made the advances? And, lastly, would the right hon. Gentleman tell him that he had not read the statements of Professor Baldwin? That gentleman had told them, in regard to Donegal, exactly what the Archbishops of the Province and the four Bishops had told them—namely, that there was an immense quantity of land in that district capable, not only of supplying the people with food, but of keeping them in plenty, if it were properly reclaimed and cultivated. Donegal was only half reclaimed, and Professor Bald win told them that land, which years ago was only valued at 1s. an acre, was now worth 20s. and 25s. an acre, and was capable of supplying the people with comforts which before they knew little or nothing about. He (Mr. Dawson) was no sentimentalist, and should not advocate the keeping of the people in Ireland; and he should not complain so much if the Government could say that in this matter they had done all they could—if they could say—"We have developed Ireland all we can, and we find there is really a superabundant population." No false sympathy whatever would induce him to keep the people in their own land if 2046 it was not capable of supporting them; but he maintained that the evidence to which he had referred incontestably proved that there were millions of acres of land in Ireland capable of reclamation, and of supplying the means of support to the people. He believed the real reason why these lands were not reclaimed, and the capacity of the country for maintaining its population was not fully developed, was this—that the very moment they got anyone in Ireland who knew anything about the country, whose experience was considerable, and who had plenty of intelligence and knowledge of the country, he was drafted away and someone put in his place. They had an example of that just now in the Irish capital; a man who understood everything connected with his department was being drafted away, and some new apprentice was coming to try his hand at the work. The opinions of the Bishops were all set at bought in that House. The right hon. Gentleman told the House nothing, either from his own knowledge or on the authority of these Bishops; but he gave them all the information he received from Mr. Ball Green, or other raw recruits in the administration of Ireland. He would put it to the House, was it right for the Chief Secretary to put the opinion of such a man as that against the opinions of such high authorities in all matters concerning the condition of the country and the welfare of the people as he (Mr. Dawson) had mentioned? He asked the House, was it right for the right hon. Gentleman to put the opinions of these officials against what he might call National opinion in Ireland—was it right that the opinions of people who were paid for advising should be taken before those who had only the morality and well-being of the country at heart? His advice to the Irish people, through their Representatives in that House, would be that they should keep their money from the Post Office and from those banks in Ireland which sent their capital over to England to develop the resources of that country—if they kept their money from the payment of extravagant duties—if they kept their money from whisky, and, as the people of Northern Italy had done, restrained themselves for a time from luxuries—if they kept away from England that 2047 £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a-year which they sent over, and applied it to developing their internal resources, they would be doing more for the country and more for its industry and commerce than anything they could do by other means. He only hoped that the talent and earnestness and eloquence of the Party with which he was connected would be devoted to instructing the Irish people that every penny of money of theirs which crossed the Channel, in the shape of deposits in the banks and the payment of duties, went out, not to improve their position, but to advance the interests of Great Britain; and to show the people of Ireland that their duty was to keep their money at home for the forwarding of industrial, progressive, and reproductive measures. But. whatever they might do, it was not for a responsible Minister for Ireland to tell them, after the proofs they had received of reproductive reclamation, after what they had seen as the result of the action of the Society of Friends subsequent to the Famine, to tell them that the lesson they had never learnt was that a radical cure for the evils Ireland was suffering was emigration. The amelioration of the condition of Ireland was not to be found in that, nor by the adoption of terrible repressive measures such as they had passed in a few hours the other night. With regard to that measure, he did not blame them for passing it; but, while they only took a few hours to pass that Bill, a Bill, as he said, of a repressive and terrible character, which might be very questionable in its results, it took hours, and days, and weeks, and years of weary talk to induce them to adopt a policy which would tend more than anything else to secure a lasting peace in Ireland. Every decade was showing them a decreasing population in Ireland. Lord John Russell, when he introduced his Poor Laws, had said that the population of Ireland, which was then 8,000,000, was one which he would not say it could not support, but that it was a population which might increase and still be supported. Was it, then, for an administrator in 1883, in view of the large reduction that had taken place since the time of Lord John Russell, to say that it was only on a diminishing population that they could base the loyalty of the Irish people? 2048 Was it a prudent thing for this country to send 80,000, or 90,000, or 100,000 people a-year perforce across the Atlantic to the United States—and he said the United States, because everybody knew that Irish emigrants went there in preference to Canada? Was it a prudent thing to expatriate so many people forcibly? Who could sleep safely in his bed in this country threatened with such a course of conduct as that which they had to contemplate when they hurried through the Explosives Bill? Was it worth while, for the sake of keeping up a small minority in Ireland, to risk the expatriation, the defection of millions of the Irish people—to drive them from their own land, and sow the seeds of revenge in the breasts of millions of people in another land? No doubt, the problem was a grave one. For his own part, he had never advocated, either in that House or out of it, any but Constitutional measures. He had said, give the people a share in their own government; but he looked in vain for measures of that description. They were always postponed; and he saw in their place only a lot of useless measures of oppression hurried into law. He would suggest that the Government should say to the people—"Emigrate, or cultivate the land you have got." They should give the people the chance of cultivating the land of their I own country—give thorn the opportunity, give them a chance, and then, if they preferred to emigrate, they would not leave their homes with heart-burnings, and with the fearful feelings of revenge which possessed so many of them now. It was extremely dangerous to tell the Irish people, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, and as he (Mr. Dawson) had heard him tell them with extreme sorrow, that the only possible answer that he had to give them in this matter was—"Emigrate, emigrate, disappear, disappear; and the more you go, the more you emigrate—the more you depopulate Ireland, the more prosperous will that country become." If that was what the I right hon. Gentleman preached to the Irish people to produce permanent peace and prosperity, he would undertake to say that a more mistaken course was never followed by any English Minister.
§ MR. T. F. O'CONNORsaid, that a considerable portion of the discussion had been occupied by hon. Members 2049 who had a very slight acquaintance with. Irish affairs; and now, perhaps, an Irish Member, who did know something about Ireland, might be allowed to occupy a few moments. It had been proposed that the Amendment to the Motion should be withdrawn; but to that course the Irish Members objected. They should insist upon its being put to the House, because it pledged the Government to emigration pure and simple as a remedy for the ills of Ireland; because it was the only remedy the Government had to propose. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to say the Government objected to migration put forward in the form in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had put it forward. The Government said they were ready to consider a scheme of migration, and such a scheme was now before them on the Books of the House in the Motion they were now debating. The Motion simply dealt with migration, and the plan the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed was his own, to which he had definitely pledged himself. The Government put their foot down against it, and, by so doing, showed themselves opposed to migration in any form. Let them take the attitude of the Government as demonstrated in the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and was it not evident that the only plan they had to offer was emigration? If that were so, let them say it frankly—let them vote for the Amendment, or let that be the record of the opinion of the Government which should go forth to the people of Ireland. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if it meant anything at all, meant that emigration was the only possible remedy for the distress in Ireland. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman had said so distinctly, and it was all nonsense for the Prime Minister to shake his head at that proposition. When a right hon. Gentleman was declaring that it was with sorrow and distress that English Members found themselves compelled to agree to the emigration of the Irish people—when the right hon. Gentleman said that that was the feeling of every Member of that House—he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had cried out "No, no!" The right hon. Gentleman had turned on him, and re- 2050 peated that he was expressing the real feelings of every Member of the House; and then he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had ventured, perhaps contrary to the Rules of the House, to interject in an interrogatory manner, when the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the numbers of people in this country in a state of; distress—"Why don't you propose emigration for them?" There was not a city in England or in Scotland in which there were not tens of thousands who would be only too glad to go to New Zealand, America, or Canada, if the State would emigrate them. They were not so much attached to the aristocratic institutions of this country that they would not care to leave it if they had the opportunity. Had the Government more sympathy for distressed Ireland than they had for England or Scotland? Why did they not propose emigration for the people of England and Scotland? Because they did not want to get rid of them, and they did want to get rid of the Irish population. He was willing to admit there were a certain number of Englishmen who were awakening, at a late hour, to the wrongs and injustices of the people of Ireland. He was aware there were a certain number of Englishmen who considered the emigration of the Irish people a desirable thing from a pecuniary point of view. Even Lord Derby had said that a few millions of pounds spent on the people of Ireland would pay very well. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had been accused of cold-bloodedness; he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) accused him of levity. The right hon. Gentleman brought to the consideration of the question as clear and able a mind as other Members of the House did; but he spoke in one way and acted in another. The right hon. Gentleman was diffuse upon the want of economy in regard to the system of reclamation. He supposed the Chief Secretary could have told them that reclamation had been tried and failed in this country, and could have said—"See how many acres are going out of cultivation on account of the inclemency of the seasons and the severity of foreign competition." How was it that, with American competition the same in both cases, land was going out of cultivation here and not in Continental countries? The answer was plain. In foreign countries they had a small land system and 2051 small holdings, while here there was an unsound land system and large holdings. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted Sir Richard Griffith; but if he had gone to Madame Tussaud's and trotted one of the figures out as an authority on agriculture, it could not have been more antiquated an authority on the subject than Sir Richard Griffith. In Switzerland some holdings were as small as one acre, and the majority of the people were a great deal better off than the people of England; and yet the right hon. Gentleman quoted Sir Richard Griffith to show that 30 acres was the smallest holding upon which a man could live respectably. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had asked why Companies did not take up the task of reclamation. The real reason was that there was no security and no tranquillity in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He was very glad to find himself for once at one with the Tory Party. He repeated, there was no peace and no security in Ireland. Did the House think there would ever be peace until the Government was placed on a better basis? And what would be a proper basis? A basis which was approved by the people. Did the English Government receive the approval of the people? Did it not meet with their constant and earnest, and sometimes violent protest? If there were a popular Government in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary would not long remain in Office. He objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Lymington). The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Connor Power) might have been assented to by the Government without any hesitation. They had not chosen to accede to it; and, therefore, he and his hon. Friends intended to force them to stand true to their principles.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 99: Majority 66—(Div. List, No. 54.)
MR. GLADSTONESir, I now propose to put a negative upon the Resolution, because, if carried in its present shape, it would give a place and a sense to emigration which was not placed upon it in the speech of my right hon. Friend 2052 the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and which never has been placed upon it by the Government. It would, moreover, involve the appointment of a Royal Commission on Emigration, which, in our opinion, would be inexpedient.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, after the division that had taken place, he did not propose to trouble the House to go to a division.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and negatived.