§ MR. TREVELYAN, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting the extension of Tramway communication in Ireland, and for assisting Emigration, and for extending certain provisions of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," to the case of Public Companies, said, that, as a considerable number of hon. Members had been good enough to stay in the House until that late hour, he would explain the Bill fully, and yet in a few minutes. The Bill contained several subjects which, at first sight, appeared to be heterogeneous, but which had this, common to all of them — that the Government believed they would all conduce to a permanent belief in justice and to the advancement of the prosperity of Ireland. With the object of attaining these ends, the Government were compelled to ask the House to confirm certain new principles, and to run the risk of disbursing public money for objects never disbursed for before. The Bill was in three parts, of which the first, and much the largest in hulk, and involving by far the largest pecuniary considerations, referred to the extension of steam tramways in Ireland. Some months ago a certain number of Members of Parliament laid before the Prime Minister several proposals with regard to developing the resources of Ireland; and, after careful consideration of what experience and theory had shown the Government to be the limits of State action in the matter, it was decided to do something—and, he thought, 1966 something tangible — to complete the communications of the country. That being determined upon, the next question was, to what class of communication State assistance should be afforded. Ireland was not provided with railways as some countries were; but the whole machinery for promoting railways was so familiar, and railways were so profitable, that it was probable that almost as many railways as would answer for some time to come had already been made in Ireland. Besides that, there were a considerable number of Irish railways constructed by means of Government money. About £1,000,000 sterling had been lent for Irish railways, as against nothing in England and Scotland; and the rate of interest had recently been reduced from 5 per cent, in some cases, to 4 per cent in all. Canals were hardly to be thought of—they could not be constructed in those parts of the country which the Government wished to most benefit; while in parts of the country in which they could be more favourably constructed—such as Galway or Mayo—the experience of the Government had not been such as to encourage such construction. The high roads of Ireland might be said to be exceptionally good; but high roads were a practical bar to commercial prosperity in districts where the only means of drawing goods was by cattle driven 30 or 40 miles. In the West of Ireland, the amount of traffic was not such as to justify the most sanguine Railway Company in running branch railways; but there was a class of communication which had hitherto only received partial development, but which was singularly likely to be applicable to Ireland. The cost of steam tramways was very much less than that of railways. The cost of rolling stock was very much less, and the speed was less; but the speed had already been and could be made greater. It was already practical enough for the purpose of country districts, which hitherto had only know ordinary horse draught. Steam tramways followed the high roads, and connected thinly-peopled districts with the great railway systems. They were not immeasurably and immensely inferior to railways, and they would tend to connect places where it would be quite impossible to make railways. He did not mean to say that all these results were certain; but the experience of steam tramways, on the 1967 whole, led practically to the belief that these results were exceedingly likely. It was believed that steam tramways were beginning to be appreciated in Ireland, and only required a little more encouragement to set a good many schemes on foot. And that encouragement the Government had determined to give, and their scheme would be contained in about 15 clauses. He was informed that there were many districts in which, if the local authorities consented, tramways would be made. Whether the local authority was the ideal authority or not he was not prepared to argue. At the present moment, the county funds were disbursed by the Grand Jury, and he was told that if the law allowed the Grand Juries to step forward, and equip the country, that would be accepted; but that power did not exist by law, and the Government, therefore, taking the county authority as it found it, simply proposed to empower Grand Juries to attract shareholders by means of a guarantee from the county rate of a portion of the interest of the barony through which the line ran. Rate of interest was not the correct description. Whatever would attract money best would be left to the operations of the open market; but the Government proposed to go further than that, and in order to give encouragement to the local authorities and confidence to the baronies of the State, according to this scheme, would support and back up the baronies with a guarantee of half the interest, so long as that interest did not exceed 4 per cent on the whole of the capital. To the extent of 2 per cent on the entire capital the Government intended to advise the taxpayers to contribute to providing tramway accommodation for Ireland. This part of the scheme was quite a new idea. As far as he was aware, it was only known at present in India, in the British Dominions; but the Government thought it was an obligation worth undertaking for the purpose of testifying their goodwill to Ireland, and starting certain districts on a course upon which they could not start by themselves. This guarantee would apply to the whole of Ireland. That was the outline of the scheme; but it was obvious that there were several interests which would have to be carefully guarded against. In the first place, there were the cesspayers of the baronies, Nothing would be more unjust 1968 than that Grand Juries should be able to place a crushing tax on any one person; and the existing Tramway Law, which the Government proposed to follow, lent itself to the protection of the cesspayer. It contained several provisions for that purpose. In the first place, the Grand Jury would hear everyone; and on each Grand Jury there would be one or two persons from each barony—though he did not lay great stress upon that point. In the second place, any ratepayer would be able to traverse the presentment at the Assizes; and if the presentment was objected to, and if the preliminary notices had not been duly served, or if there were any other illegality, the Judge would disallow it. In the third place, the Privy Council would investigate the case and hear everybody interested; and that was, he thought, as good a tribunal as could be devised. In the fourth place, if there was any dissatisfaction with a Grand Jury, then, by a Petition to the Privy Council, the Order of the Council only being provisional, and requiring to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, it would be open to any person to oppose it, as if it were a Bill. The danger of a Grand Jury exercising tyranny appeared to be nil. Their resolution had no force; it was simply a recommendation; it was only provisional until Parliament should confirm it, and Parliament alone could impose any tax. The next interest was that of the taxpayer. He might suffer by the guaranteeing of a scheme which did not contain the element of solvency; but no scheme would be guaranteed unless it was shared in equal part by the local body, which might be presumed to be conversant with the local wants. At any rate, the local body had every reason not to guarantee a scheme which was likely to become bankrupt; and local bodies in Ireland, he was told, were not accused of recklessness in spending money. However anxious a local body might be to get money, it would have to show 1d. for every 1d. from the Government; and before the Grand Jury recommended a Tramway Company, the scheme must be approved of by the engineers of the Local Government Board. Then there was the danger of a great rush of schemes. It was possible that there might be a great rush of schemes, especially if it was believed to be a ease of first come first served, 1969 In order that there might not be an unlimited burden put upon the Treasury by the 9th clause, the amount which, under this Bill, the Treasury might guarantee was £40,000 a-year in all—that was to say, 2 per cent on a capital of £2,000,000 sterling; and the Government hoped that £2,000,000 might be the extent to which, under this measure, communications in Ireland would be made. Then there was one other cause of apprehension, and that was, perhaps, the most difficult point to be dealt with. There could be no doubt that if Stock of 4 per cent was guaranteed, half by the Treasury and half by the local authority, that would call forth twice as much money as in the case of a Company. The danger was that a Company would be formed to get desirable Stock at 4 percent, which would sell at between 110 and 114; and then, when the line was constructed, the projectors would find it very convenient to withdraw their interest and not work the tramway. In that case, the barony and the Treasury would have to pay the guarantee, and would get nothing in return for it, except a tramway which did not run. This contingency was provided against thus. If a Company made a default, either by not keeping the line in repair, or failing to pay working expenses, and so could not keep the line open after a certain time, the property would be transferred ipso facto to the Grand Jury, who would then work the line for the guaranteeing persons. He would not now enter more fully into details, all of which had been carefully considered. Baronies which joined in the guarantee would be represented on the Directorate. [Mr. HEALY: How?] By Directors. [Mr. HEALY: Who will elect them?] Presumably, the cesspayers. If a barony could secure money on more favourable terms, the guarantee might be only for a very limited time. Then there were certain defects in the Tramway Law which this Bill proposed to remedy—notably, that enactment which forbade a line to be taken beyond a limit of 30 feet from the centre of the road. If it was a question of going round a hill, tramways under the Bill would have the power to run round just as if they were practically along the line of the road. Finally, so far as tramways were concerned, instead of restricting the speed to 10 miles in the open country, 1970 and six miles in town and villages, it was proposed to raise the speed to 12 miles in the open country, and leave the limit at six miles in towns and villages; but the Government would not be indisposed to consider an Amendment for raising the speed still further. If the Bill did not immediately cover with tramways that part of Ireland which the Government were most anxious to see developed, at least it would proceed steadily to open out the country; and that, they hoped, would give a great deal of labour where labour was much wanted; and that it would be of service to the congested districts he had no doubt. All were agreed that these districts existed, and the only difference of opinion was as to the best mode of remedying the existing state of things. All were of opinion that there were fewer people in some of these places; and while some hon. Members thought that the redundant population in some parts should go to other parts of Ireland, other hon. Members thought they would be better off in Canada and Australia.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked if that was all there was about the tramways?
§ MR. TREVELYANreplied that, practically, that was all. In the opinion of the Government the success of the emigration scheme had been such as to induce them not to let the machinery cease until more had been done. He would not, however, now argue that point; he was only asking leave to introduce this Bill; but when he considered the number of people there were to emigrate, but who could not emigrate without assistance, he could not help asking Parliament to add another £100,000 to that granted last year. That money had been employed in giving relief in certain districts which were helpless and prostrate. The Bill proposed to give another £100,000 for emigration, and the money would have to be used very carefully and judiciously. He hoped to say more on this head on the second reading, for he was informed that this sum represented the extreme limit of what was forthcoming.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was to come from the Church Fund. There were a number of gentlemen who were disappointed with the slow effect of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and 1971 at the absence of any philanthropic Companies and regulations for the purpose of encouraging and assisting the peasant proprietary. He did not now deny that the Purchase Clauses had acted slowly; and if the present were a debate on the Land Act, or the occasion were otherwise fitting, he could give reasons for this. The Government proposed, under the 26th section of the Land Act, to permit Companies, on satisfying the Land Commission that it was their object to buy for the purpose of re-selling to the tenants, to purchase from the landlord, on the same terms as occupying tenants were now allowed to purchase—that was to say, by putting down one-fourth of the purchase money and leaving three - fourths on mortgage. [Mr. GIBSON asked what was meant by a Company?] An individual was not meant. The idea at present was that it should be a Company, and a Company which intended to re-sell—that, in fact, re-selling should be an absolute condition in the matter. One of the great difficulties in the way of the operation of the Purchase Clauses was that individual tenants had to deal with landlords who might not want to sell. In the course of this year, only three small estates of 45 farms in all had been purchased by the Land Commission, the amount paid for them being some £15,000. [Mr. PARNELL: By the Land Commission?] Yes, by the Land Commission; and that represented the extent of those operations in the direction of purchasing holdings. It was hoped that the Bill would give a real impulse to the sale of land in Ireland. He had done his best to describe the measure in outline, and he earnestly hoped that hon. Members would allow it to be printed.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for promoting the extension of Tramway communication in Ireland, and for assisting Emigration, and for extending certain provisions The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' to the case of Public Companies."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish, at that hour, to go into the merits of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). He would only say that he trusted that the tramway scheme would be as successful as the right hon. Gentleman hoped. There was no doubt that, in many parts of Ireland, main 1972 lines of tramways might be made with considerable advantage, to supply the place of lines of railway which the country, on account of its poverty, would not be able to support. He must reserve a fuller expression of opinion until they reached the future stages of the measure. With regard to the baronial guarantees, at present it appeared to him that the proposition to share the responsibility between the baronies and the Government was a fair one, and would remove some of the objection which was felt in 1880 to the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), under which the whole of the guarantee was to be given by the local authority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not be too sanguine as to the amount of employment likely to be given by the construction of these tramways. They all knew that the construction of tramways on common roads afforded, to only a limited extent, employment for the labour in the locality. The works were not nearly as heavy as those on railroads, and they did not involve the same permanent construction—in fact, the amount of money spent on labour on tramways would be very small in proportion to the amount expended on labour in the case of railroads. He thought he should be making a correct estimate in saying that probably four-fifths of the cost of these tramways would go into the pockets of English iron-masters, English builders, and locomotive engineers. Probably the amount spent on actual labour would not exceed one-fifth of the total cost. He desired, however, to pass to another portion of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He was very much disappointed to find that the right hon. Gentleman had not determined to leave the very vexed question of emigration alone, at all events, for the present Session. He could not imagine a more injudicious course than that which had been adopted by the Government. They were now very near the close of the Session, and the throwing down of another bone of contention between those who believed in emigration and those who did not could not but result in a very prolonged discussion when the Bill reached its later stages. He was sorry, therefore, the Government did not make up their minds to give a trial to some other mode of re- 1973 lieving the congestion which undoubtedly did exist in several districts in the West of Ireland. He regretted that the Government should have resolved to persevere in the course they commenced in 1881, and which they continued in 1882. He was also surprised and disappointed that the Government intended to take this money out of the Irish Church Fund. Until this session the Irish Government had considered themselves bound to consult, at least, the wishes of the Irish Representatives in regard to the disposal of that Fund. It was an Irish Fund, raised and paid out of Irish land in the occupation of tenants; it was a Fund in regard to which he and his hon. Friends had hoped, up to the introduction of the Relief of Distress Bill, in pursuance of which £50,000 of the Church Fund was allocated, that the Government would continue the practice of consulting the Irish Members. These continual calls upon the Irish Church Fund were nothing more nor less than the Government putting their hands into the pockets of the Irish people and stealing from them that which really belonged to them. If he interpreted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman correctly, there was only about £100,000 left.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that what he stated was, that the £100,000 was the last sum the Government could see its way to spend.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was glad to hear that was so. But he could not help expressing surprise that the Government should seek to extract this £100,000 from the Church Fund for the very obnoxious purpose of emigration. When he (Mr. Parnell) spoke of emigration as being an obnoxious purpose, he desired to the fullest extent to acknowledge the bona fides, the ability, and the desire to do good which had distinguished the gentlemen, some of whom were Members of that House, who had connected themselves with Mr. Tuke's scheme of emigration. He believed these gentlemen were sincerely desirous of benefiting the population in the congested districts of Ireland; and he was only sorry they did not devote their talents and ability to the development of a scheme of a different and more promising character, and one more in accordance with the sentiments of the Irish people. Undoubtedly, the emigration which had been conducted under Mr. Tuke's observation had 1974 abounded in those features which had distinguished emigration in times gone by. But then he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends would be able to prove, by unimpeachable testimony, when the Bill reached another stage, that Mr. Tuke's Committee had failed in doing that which they imagined they were doing. He would be able to prove that in many districts of Ireland the farmers, or the occupiers of land, were not emigrated, but that it was the small tradesmen, the shoemakers, or the tailors of the small villages and towns, and the labourers who had no land, who were taking advantage of the emigration funds. He did not mean to say that farmers had not emigrated in some districts; but he should be able to show that, in cases where the farmers had taken advantage of the fund, the object which Mr. Tuke and his Committee hoped to attain—namely, the bringing about of a reasonable and judicious consolidation of holdings, had not been attained; that, in many instances, the emigrants had not surrendered possession of their holdings to their landlords; that they had either locked them up, or left them with some person in charge, or else that they had handed over possession to some friend or neighbour to look after them until they saw how they were likely to get on in the country to which they had emigrated. He would be able to show that, although people were leaving the congested districts, many farms were left vacant, and nothing was being done to consolidate holdings. In fact, they were simply repeating the errors of 1847 and 1848. They were clearing tracts of land, but were not consolidating farms into holdings of a suitable size for cultivation. These, and other matters of importance, he and his hon. Friends would be able to lay before the House on a subsequent stage of the Bill; and he believed they would be able to prove, on the highest testimony, the statements he had made. They would be able to show also that the condition of the emigrants was not satisfactory; that those who had been able to find friends and relatives became a burden and a drag upon them; that others of them had obtained employment for which they were unsuited; and that they were likely, in consequence, to lose that employment, and to become a permanent charge on the poor rates of the 1975 country to which they had been sent. He believed the sum of £5 per head was miserably small, and inadequate for enabling the emigrant to settle comfortably and prosperously in his new home. He now turned for a moment to the last portion of the Bill—that which dealt with the amendment of the Purchase Clauses, There was no doubt that some of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881 had signally failed to work. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further, and given those of them who believed that migration or re-settlement of the population was possible in the West of Ireland a chance of showing the efficacy of such a scheme, by dividing this grant of £100,000, which he now proposed to take from the Church Fund, between the two operations of emigration and re-settlement, or migration. Surely, if the Government insisted, at that period of the Session, in forcing an Emigration Act upon the unwilling Irish Members, they could not expect to get one-tenth of the Representatives of Irish constituencies to vote with them. Surely, on the other hand, if the Irish Members were able to place before the House plenty of calculations based upon the experience of men who had had an opportunity of practically forming a sound judgment on this question in Ireland, they might then have a chance, at least, of proving this winter, once and for all, whether it was possible that anything could be done for the purpose of solving this difficult problem in the West of Ireland, by removing and re-settling a certain portion of the population on lands which were purchasable and available for the purposes in question. Several gentlemen had devoted considerable time and attention to this question. Surveys had been made in the counties of Mayo and Galway by engineers of skill and experience, and they had shown, most conclusively, that the re-settlement or migration of portions of this population was practicable. Capital to any extent could be obtained, both in Ireland and England, and America, and Australia; but what they asked the Government was this, and he thought it was a fair claim to put before the House in view of this demand for money out of the Irish Church Fund, to allocate, for the purpose of trying this experiment, a small portion of that which was asked for the 1976 purpose of emigration. The matter then would, once for all, be finally set at rest, and it would then be seen whether it was possible to remove or re-settle any of the tenants in these congested districts. If the Government followed that suggestion, they would be doing very much to obviate the prejudice against the Government and the House of Commons, which a great many people entertained in consequence of this enforced emigration. He trusted that before the Bill reached the Committee stage, the Government would have seen the reasonableness of the claim the Irish Members made, and would be prepared to allocate a moderate sum of money for the purpose of trying this experiment under such conditions as they might consider safe and necessary in order to prevent jobbery.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, it would be obviously out of place, at that stage of the Bill, and at that hour of the morning, to criticize the very interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which obviously challenged discussion in some of the principles which were involved. He (Mr. Gibson) did not clearly understand whether the tramways were to be made wherever local exigencies suggested they might be required, or whether they were to be constructed in any particular Province. He should like to know whether they were to be general wherever required? [Mr. TREVELYAN: They may be constructed wherever required.] He was not sure that there might not be difficulties connected with the rights of railways under existing Acts, and that they would not challenge and jealously investigate the operation of steam tramways, which were hardly distinguishable from railways. With regard to the emigration provisions, he would only make one observation. This proposal for emigration was, to his mind, petty legislation, and they could not magnify it into anything big; whereas the tramway transaction was a big one. Those who knew the history of Irish emigration would know very well that what was done in this Bill would go a very little way towards improving the condition of the people of Ireland. They should never lose sight, in considering the question of Irish emigration, of this fact—that the Irish people, by voluntary effort 1977 and by their own money, did a great deal towards removing themselves to other countries more capable of finding them employment. [Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN: Evicted people.] With reference to the Purchase Clauses, he would make this suggestion as to what was proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). As he listened to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Gibson) apprehended, as he thought, the hon. Member's point; and he was not sure that those who looked to migration might not find the best and soundest means of bringing their theory to the test under the Purchase Clauses of this Bill. Under the Purchase Clauses. as he had heard described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he understood that it would be recognized that Companies, or aggregations of individuals, might be formed for the purchase of land. He did not know whether there would be any check upon the nationality of these Companies—that was to say, whether there would be anything to prevent them from being American, or Australian, or English; but, at any rate, Companies of individuals might be formed who would be given the same advance that tenants could obtain at present under the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and would be able to purchase estates under conditions that the land was parcelled out and sold to tenants. There was nothing to prevent people who believed in the migration theory, as opposed to emigration, to go to the State—and they would not be bound by a limit of £1,000 or £2,000, but could make operations as extensive as they pleased—and say "We desire to avail ourselves by this money of the Land Act. Here is a Company formed for the purpose of availing ourselves of the new provision, and purchasing, it may be, in Meath, or Westmeath, or wherever you like, wherever you say the districts are not populated, properties, with three-fourths of the money of the State, and parcelling them out into small portions to people who desire to migrate rather than emigrate." This amendment of the Land Act he regarded as of importance, because it brought to an immediate, prompt, and practical test that statement about migration made by some of the Irish Members. Those who believed in migration could adopt the machinery which was now placed at their dis- 1978 posal. There appeared from the statement to be nothing in the Bill to prevent them. The hon. Member for the City of Cork himself had reserved his right to consider the Bill in detail when it was presented for second reading; and he (Mr. Gibson) trusted that when it was put down for that stage it would be put down when there could be something like a fair debate upon it, notwithstanding the late period of the Session, which he very much regretted. He must express his great regret that a Bill of this magnitude and of this great importance, which dealt with principles in a way which was most exceptional, and which challenged criticism on the first glance, and would necessarily excite wide discussion, was not brought on at a period of the Session when it could have been more fully and carefully considered. It was very much to be regretted that it was not brought on at a time in the Session when it could be discussed not only by hon. Members from Ireland, but by Representatives of Scotch and English constituencies who took some interest in this question. It was a matter of disappointment to him that there would be no opportunity for obtaining a fair and careful expression of public opinion with regard to the measure. They would be face to face with the second reading almost before the provisions of the Bill had circulated through the Press of the country, and before the mature public mind of the country could be brought to a careful investigation of it. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland could tell them when he expected to take the second reading. They could not expect such a measure to become law without a good deal of mutual forbearance and concession, and something like a disposition to meet difficulties in a conciliatory way. It would be a convenience if some indication could be given to the House as to when the second reading of the Bill was likely to be taken.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, on behalf of the Government, he could cordially join in the regret expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Gibson) that it had been impossible for the Government to bring in the Bill at an earlier period of the Session. He quite agreed that it was a very important measure and 1979 deserved full discussion; and he only regretted that, in common with other important measures, it had been impossible to give that time which they should have liked to have devoted to its discussion. He also agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at that period of the Session, it would be quite impossible to look forward hopefully to being able to make progress with the measure, if it did not generally commend itself to hon. Members in all quarters of the House. He trusted it would be received in the spirit in which it was introduced. He would appeal to the Irish Members to bear in mind the great sacrifices the Government had been obliged to make of their economic principles in proposing such a scheme. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] Unquestionably, the Government had had to make large sacrifices of their economic principles before they could propose such a measure as this. [Mr. O'DONNELL: As you did in reference to the Suez Canal.] Nothing of the kind had ever been proposed for England; and it was because the Government recognized, as fully as hon. Gentlemen opposite, the special circumstances with which they had to deal in Ireland, that they had laid aside everything like pedantry in dealing with this matter, and had honestly endeavoured to meet the difficulties to be faced in proposing, in a case of this kind, to make grants from the Imperial Exchequer for public works in Ireland. No such grant had ever been proposed in connection with public works in England. He had always recognized that, in dealing with a poor country such as Ireland, where commerce and enterprize had been for a long time at a very low ebb, it would be absurd to apply the principles which had been found to apply to this country. The Government, at all events, had recognized that fact in bringing forward the Bill; and he hoped that the spirit in which they had introduced it would meet with appreciation on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as he had every reason to believe would be the case, after the speech they had just listened to from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The only serious part of that criticism with which the hon. Member received the Bill were the remarks he had made as to the conduct of the Government in throwing down a bone of contention between those who were in 1980 favour of migration and those who were in favour of emigration. As he understood the hon. Gentleman, he did not contend that emigration was necessarily bad. What the hon. Member said was that he and his Friends preferred what they called migration. He (Mr. Chamberlain) thought he was right in saying that, in one debate on the Land Act of 1881, the hon. Member went so far as to say, for himself and his Friends, that the state of certain districts in Ireland was such that he, for one, had come to the opinion that some scheme of emigration would be worth trying. That statement, of course, did not exclude his present preference for a different scheme; but it included emigration as one of the means by which the difficulties of the present condition of Ireland might be removed.
§ MR. PARNELLWhat I said was, that if the Government brought forward any scheme by which these families could be placed in suitable homesteads in Canada or the United States, I should not oppose the Bill.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he recollected that that was what the hon. Member had said; and, therefore, any objection the hon. Member would have to offer would not be to emigration as such, but probably to the details of the scheme they proposed, which they admitted to be a matter for fair discussion. The hon. Member had gone a little further, because he had objected to their taking what he very properly called an Irish Fund against the opinions of the Irish people. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not put his own opinion against that of the hon. Member on the question of what might be the opinion of the majority of the Irish people; but, at least, they had evidence that a considerable number of the Irish people regarded with favour emigration as one of the means of relieving distress. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said that was not so; but he repeated that there was a considerable proportion of the Irish people who took this view. Emigration was not forced upon anyone. No one need leave the country unless they liked to do so. [An hon. MEMBER: They are starved into doing it.] When they found there were so many persons in Ireland ready to emigrate if they would only give them such limited assistance as the Bill proposed, they had a right to assume 1981 that those people considered it a great boon. The hon. Member for the City of Cork said—"Why do not you meet us in this matter, and give us half this sum to enable us to test our experiment of migration?" Well, in reply to that, he had to say that he did not think at that stage the matter was one upon which the Government could form a fair judgment. All they had said on the subject hitherto was, that they had not yet had any practical scheme of what was called migration put before them, and that, as far as they had been able to examine the suggestions which had been submitted to them, they certainly seemed to them to be wanting in the qualities which might be supposed to lead to success. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends would give them some further information to show that some small advance, such as he suggested, might be applied to the purpose of this experiment with a fair chance of success, all he could say was that he thought it would be a matter for the fair and full consideration of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said their scheme for the formation of Companies for the purchase and re-sale of land gave an opportunity for that experiment. No doubt, it went a long way in that direction; but he did not think it would enable them to go as far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork seemed desirous of going; because, as he (Mr. Chamberlain) understood it, the Companies would have to buy land, and would expect from the purchasing tenants a portion of the purchase money. In the scheme of migration he had heard suggested in that House, it was proposed that the tenants should be placed on land they were expected to improve, which was not now in a state of cultivation; and, in the second place, it was alleged that the position of these tenants was such that they could not find any portion of the purchase money. That was the distinction between the scheme of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the scheme that would alone be possible under the provisions of the Bill. He had said enough to show the spirit in which this measure had been introduced; and, on the Motion before them, he did not think the House would desire any 1982 fuller discussion. He hoped hon. Members would wait to see the exact details of the Bill, and that they would approach its further consideration in Committee in a spirit that would lead to a satisfactory issue.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, he rose to reply to the charges made against those gentlemen who had, happily, been actively engaged in the scheme of emigration—that was to say, the charge that the scheme had broken down. He did not suppose that, in dealing with a large number of emigrants, they would have been completely successful in every case; but he thought that, in the enormous preponderance of cases, they had done real good, and he believed they would be able to show that the result of the scheme, on the whole, had been to afford a better chance of living to those people who remained in Ireland. One word with reference to the question of emigration versus migration. He did not wish hon. Members opposite to suppose that when Mr. Tuke's Committee started their work they had any predilection for sending Irishmen out of their country; they had before their eyes those districts in Ireland in which it was impossible for the people to live. The House had never had placed before it any tangible scheme of migration. He should listen with the deepest interest to any scheme of migration which had, on the face of it, some indication that it would work. But the Committee found, from information in their possession, that there was no probability of that being the case. On the other hand, they had experience of emigration, and they knew that this would work in a satisfactory manner. They chose that course, then, because they did not believe that migration was possible. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) would put forward a satisfactory scheme of migration, he (Mr. Whitbread), for one, would welcome it: For his part, he would not send a single Irishman out of the country; he would much prefer that they should remain there, if it were possible to get a living. What they wanted, then, was a tangible scheme which would, on the face of it, lead to a successful result. He trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite would not seriously throw opposition in the way of the continuance of a work, which, from all the information he had received, had, at all events, benefited the 1983 large majority of those who had gone out. No doubt, there were individual cases of failure; but, on the whole, there could be no doubt that their efforts had been satisfactory.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), speaking as he did for a section of the Party by whom he was surrounded, had expressed his willingness to accept a system of migration. A tone and temper like that of the hon. Gentleman was quite new in the case of those with whom he was associated. With regard to tramways, he (Mr. Healy) would point out that the scheme was not new. The Italian State had taken up a scheme of tramways guaranteeing 4 per cent, and he hoped the English Government would do the same, because he thought it was likely to lead to good results. But there was a defect in the proposal before the House. The whole scheme of the Government depended on the assent of the Grand Juries; and, that being the case, it could not be completed with the rapidity and in the efficient manner which the Government expected; because it must be remembered that the Grand Juries did not always want to promote the good of the country. By allowing the Grand Jury system to continue to exist, the Government were, to some extent, rendering the new scheme nugatory. He was glad to hear the statesmanlike tone of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and he considered he had furnished the Government with an idea which they might develop. The right hon. and learned Member said that the Government could use the 24th section of the Land Act in a satisfactory way for the purpose of migration; but how could they do that by means of the Bill as it at present stood? They could not do it without the addition of some supplementary provisions. He also said that some encouragement should be given to the Tramway Companies. The Government gave Steamship Companies a-head to take people across the Atlantic. Why, then, should they not give Tramway Companies money for taking people from Connemara to Meath? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had made a mistake that it was 1984 quite natural he should fall into. He (Mr. Healy) pointed out that no reclamation ever had been, or would be, effected by planting a man on 20 or 30 acres of beg, and telling him to reclaim it. That could only be effected when a man had a little piece of good land as a nucleus to start from; the contrary idea was purely illusory, and could not be carried out. Now, with regard to the system of emigration, the English people never could be got to do anything right, but that they immediately tried to do something wrong; if they gave a present, they always accompanied it with a poison. What would be thought of the Irish people if they were to start some scheme of this kind, and force it down the throats of Englishmen? The worst of the matter was, that Englishmen were always so cock-sure of the result of their legislation for Ireland. There were two or three Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who had been to Dublin Castle, and had seen the Liffey, and whose only sources of information were the Resident Magistrates and the Police, whose business it was to keep the country in a state of ferment, in order to provide themselves with jobs. Those Gentlemen knew absolutely nothing of the actual requirements of Ireland; nevertheless, their views were allowed to be carried out, while no notice whatever was taken of the opinion of Irish Members who were born in the country, lived in the country, and had the good of the country at heart. It was impossible that this scheme should succeed in the hands of these Gentlemen. He would point out that the scheme was being forced upon the country against the will of the Irish National Party, and, as they contended, against the wish of the great majority of the people of Ireland; and then, as the "most unkindest cut of all," the Irish people were asked to pay for it out of their own pockets. If the English Government insisted upon this scheme, they should in all decency pay for it themselves. If England wanted to see Irishmen emigrated, and turned out of their country, there were plenty of other ways by which it could be done. For instance, they could send down a policeman, and tell a man that he was going to be arrested; he would then leave the country. That was a means of assisting emigration that had been 1985 much in use during the last two or three years. For these reasons, he said that the English Government should pay this money out of their own Exchequer, and that they should leave to the Irish people whatever money remained of the Irish Church Fund for the purposes of the Irish experiment of migration. If the Irish Church Fund was to be used, let it be applied in the way in which the great majority of the Irish Representatives desired. He believed that, if English Gentlemen would consider the position taken up by Irish Members on this subject of migration and the application of the Irish Church Fund, they would find it to be a reasonable one; and if the Government would consider the desirability of allowing the migration scheme to go forward, he believed they would find the way smoothed for the scheme of emigration.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he regarded that portion of the Bill which dealt with the scheme of tramways as extremely good. He thought that Her Majesty's Government were to be congratulated on the principle, but that they were wrong in going against the opinion expressed by the whole of the Irish people that the money for emigration should not be taken from the Irish Church Fund. As he was anxious that the Bill should pass, he would now offer no opposition to the Government on the question of emigration; but, at the same time, he contended that the cost should be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer. It was, in his opinion, unreasonable that the Irish Church Fund should be applied to any purpose not approved by the Irish people, but should be applied for the benefit of Ireland by the development of its resources. He trusted the Government would withdraw the objectionable provision.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he believed that, even if the portion of the Bill which related to tramways proved a complete failure, the Emigration Clauses would be carried out to the utmost. With regard to the question of tramways, it struck him as remarkable that the Government, which had expressed so keen a desire to establish local autonomy in Ireland, was, apparently, about to give a new lease of life to the Grand Jury system. If that system were now to be solemnly recognized, and set forth by them, the conclusion likely to be drawn 1986 was that the Irish people need not look forward to any speedy amendment of the system of local government. He would not spend any time in discussing the Bill as stated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He did not believe that such a scheme for the development of the resources of Ireland could result in anything but failure, except under the superintendence of a Government responsible to the people of Ireland.
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. COURTNEY.
§ Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 286.]