§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill).
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Power to make grants to distressed unions).
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he desired, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, to steer clear of any controversy or any recriminatory speeches. His Amendment was framed with a special view to two Unions in Donegal, Glenties and Dunfanaghy. The population in those two Unions had, since November last, been supported by private charity, and neither the Government nor the Poor Law had done anything for them. He did not wish to go back to that now, but merely to mention that, as a matter of fact, no relief whatever had been given to those poor people from either of those two sources. Private charity had kept them out of the prison; it had purchased seeds which enabled them to re-sow a great portion of the land. There was a promising crop in the ground; a good many of the people had gone away to Scotland for employment; and the object of the Amendment was to preserve those who remained behind, and who had no means of subsistence, until their potatoes were ready, which, in this barren region, would not be until the end of August. The funds which had hitherto supported them were 552 now exhausted, and he did not think it was too much to ask the Government to come to their rescue even now, at the eleventh hour, and for a few weeks to take up the work which the priests and other persons had been doing for the last six months. Nobody could question the reality of the distress in these two Unions. The Chief Secretary visited a mere strip of these districts in January last, and was horrified at what he saw—that was, when he trusted to his own eyes, and not to the obsequious officials in Donegal. In March last the Poor Law Inspector, Dr. Woodhouse, admitted that in one of these districts one-third of the people had no means of subsistence. Nothing had happened to alter their situation in the least, for Dr. Woodhouse admitted that none of the people had migrated from Glen-columbkill to Scotland. Mr. Macfar-lane, another Inspector, admitted that the Rosses was the most distressed part of Donegal. Father Gallagher, the parish priest, had stated that the Government had given the people no assistance whatsoever, and they had been left to struggle alone with the monster, Famine. There were, he said, 3,500 people on the poor relief list, and that immense number of human beings were dependent entirely upon him for support; but he was not able to give them half sufficient food. Men were fainting at their work, and, but for Mrs. Lalor's assistance to the children, many of them would have died. The other day he (Mr. O'Brien) had directed attention to a letter in The Daily Chronicle from a lady whose authority he should have thought would have outweighed that of a great many interested officials, Mrs. Ernest Hart. In that letter she mentioned that a Captain Hill had sent his bailiff to collect the rents of tenants who were reduced to the lowest ebb of poverty. She said—
While Captain Hill is pressing for his rents, hundreds of wretched tenantry are being kept from starvation by doles of a pennyworth of meal per day, and all the paupers are kept by two biscuits a-day. The poverty seen is enough to make the most stony-hearted weep.Mrs. Hart showed the extreme distress existing in Gweedore; how from November to May, 800 persons had been receiving relief in the shape of Indian meal. Of Captain Hill's 600 tenants 400 were so relieved; and in Glencolumb- 553 kill, on June 22, there were still 600 poor recipients of such relief. Father M'Fadden, last week, wrote to the effect that the funds at his command were gone, and that the allowances of food would have to be stopped. If the Government, he said, would step in with relief during the next six weeks, a few hundred pounds would bring the people safely through; but, unless something was done, he did not know what might happen. If there were any prospect of outdoor relief, the danger might be dealt with; but he was sick of appealing to landlord Guardians, who would not give it. He (Mr. O'Brien) did not contend, and never had contended, that the distressed area in Donegal was not very circumscribed; but that was all the more reason why he implored the Government to have regard to these claims of these impoverished people and of probable starvation. While this Bill proposed to give £50,000 for the relief of Irish poverty, he, if it was of any use, adjured the Government to insure that some portion of that should go to the people most pressingly, most cruelly in need of relief. In these miserable Unions there was no outdoor relief, because the Guardians who were withholding it were those who would have to pay it out of their own pockets; but it would be a different thing if a grant of public money was made in aid of their own resources, and if their powers were enlarged to embrace every case of honest destitution during the next six weeks, then they might exist until, please God, a bountiful harvest took the poor people off the Guardians' hands. He earnestly hoped that the Government would not, for the mere sake of sticking to a theory, leave these poor creatures for the next six weeks utterly helpless. They had suffered enough already, much more than the House would ever know; they would feel it in their emaciated constitutions. He hoped the Government would step in now, after private charity had done so much for the past six months, and do something for them, and, in that hope, moved the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 13, after the word "union," to insert the words—"It shall he lawful for the guardians of any union to whom a grant shall he made under the Act, or, in their default, for the Local Government Board, to
554
grant relief, either in the workhouse or outside the workhouse, as to them shall appear expedient, to destitute poor persons, whether such persons are disabled from lahour or not, for any time not exceeding two calendar months from the passing of the Act."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper altogether separate from that which had been proposed by his hon. Friend; but, in the course of the evening, he had handed in a copy of an Amendment he intended to move to this part of the Bill. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had seen it; but, if he had, he would see that the same reasons and arguments used by his hon. Friend would tell in favour of his Amendment.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I may inform the hon. Member that I have looked at the Amendment handed in in manuscript, and it appears to me to be identical with the Amendment now before the Committee, and could not be moved. Though I give this information, it would be irregular to discuss it now; the discussion must be addressed to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, as the Chairman had ruled his Amendment was identical with the present, he should wait until he could put an Amendment before the Committee for discussion.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he regretted to trouble the Committee, and he very much regretted that the measure had been brought on at such a late hour, because it involved a question of vital moment in regard to the position of a portion of the people of Ireland. He was not very sure that the question that had been raised came properly within the scope of the Bill; for, as he understood, the purpose of the Government in bringing in the Bill was with the object of legitimatizing the action of those Guardians who had got into a false financial position, and they calculated that the amount of the grant in aid would be something like £50,000. Therefore, if for the relief of those Unions by loans to that amount the Bill was limited financially, it was impossible to afford any relief for any other object under this measure. He should have preferred that this question had been raised in another, and an in- 555 dependent shape. He could speak in regard to several of the Unions in Ireland from personal observation. For certain reasons with which he would not now trouble the Committee, it became his duty to visit considerable portions of Ireland during the present year, and some of the distressed districts he had had an opportunity of re-visiting at a recent time; and he was justified in stating that the amount of distress prevailing in these districts—and into which he had inquired in the closest possible manner with every feeling of impartiality to arrive at the real facts of the case—that the state of destitution was really appalling. Nothing but the superhuman efforts made by a number of individuals acting from feelings of humanity had enabled the people to be kept alive. He visited Donegal, and made a circuit of the whole county in the early part of January; and having made a very close inspection, having visited the houses of the people, having himself made inquiries in every possible way to exclude error and exaggeration, he could state that such was the state of destitution that, but for the exertions made in Ireland, and the charitable contributions there and elsewhere, the House would have had to face an appalling state of starvation there. From all that he saw, and from all his inquiries, and after examination and cross-examination, he was satisfied there was an absolute want of food at that time, and nearly a complete failure of seed potatoes. But for the exertions of the charitable we should be facing, not only famine in the present, but a condition of things infinitely worse in the coming winter, and for some time subsequently. He could not but mention with all honour the exertions made by a lady whose name was now widely known, Mrs. Power Lalor. She undertook the feeding of a number of poor people, a number that reached to 5,000, poorly clad, and who, while experiencing the effects of the storm that swept over the country, had little protection from the weather. He could not fail to recognize that the people must have been swept off in vast numbers, but for the exertions of this most charitable lady, prompted by feelings of charity, and assisted by an amount of personal energy and ability, enabling her to do what in other hands would have been impossible, the work of keep 556 ing the people alive. Nor could he speak too highly of the exertions of the local clergy in the districts of Gweedore, Glencolumbkill, the Bosses, and on the West Coast, but for which there would have been a large mortality to face; or the exertions of that very distinguished and accomplished man, the Catholic Bishop of Raphoe. His efforts were unceasing and untiring.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I must point out to the hon. Member that the proposal before the Committee is to amend Clause 1; he must confine his observations to that Amendment.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he understood the Amendment dealt with the subject of workhouse relief. Of course, he bowed to the ruling from the Chair; but he was leading up to his point by showing the exertions made to keep the people alive, and in a manner different from that now proposed. He would come to what he wished to say in that respect. He was briefly alluding to the exertions made to keep the people alive by giving them employment—that was the point he was coming to. The exertions of the Catholic Bishop and the clergy, and the contributions made, were all utilized in giving occupation to the people. He wished to bear testimony in favour of this principle, which was instituted in all eases except those of children and those unable to work. Donations were applied under the direction of the distinguished ecclesiastic and his clergy to whom he had referred in the direction of giving employment. The invariable feeling on the part of the people was for occupation, for honest work, not for doles of charity. The point to which he wished expressly to address himself was this—He did not think the Amendment placed before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman went in a direction which would be acceptable except as a dernier ressort, and to meet the wishes of Bishop, clergy, and people. He had travelled the whole of the county, and in no single instance did he find any disposition on the part of the people to avail themselves of workhouse relief in any shape whatever. Their cry was invariably in the direction of work—honest payment for honest work. He thought it most desirable the Committee should fully understand that there was, undoubtedly, a creditable spirit of independence growing up and finding expression in all 557 parts of Ireland, to which statesmen should give full recognition. This was one of the reasons why he expressed regret that this question had been raised in the form in which it had been sought to raise it, and under a Bill strictly limited to an amount of money to be applied, and having for its object the relief of the pressing financial needs of Unions which had, wisely or unwisely, rightly or wrongly, on this or that principle, by outdoor or indoor relief, undoubtedly got themselves into a position of financial distress from which a sum of money must relieve them. He regretted that this discussion should have been taken upon this particular Bill and in this particular shape. It was of the greatest importance, in a statesmanlike point of view, that the Government should take some steps to meet the condition of distress that existed at present; but he did not see how anyone could hope to do it under this Bill, strictly limited in amount and object. Therefore, he regretted that the question was not raised in an independent manner. It would be worth the attention of Government in some other way to deal with it.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Again I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he was endeavouring to address himself to the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment might not be in strict accordance with the principle of the Bill; he did not think it was, and he was surprised that the Chairman had put it; but he was endeavouring to point out how any attempt to relieve the people from their present position in a manner uncongenial to their feelings was not in the direction in which it was desirable the Government should give aid.
§ THE CHAIRMANThat is not the Question raised by the Amendment. The Question is the expediency of giving certain powers to Guardians they do not now possess. The hon. Member must address himself to that Question.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, the Amendment was that where relief was proposed, it should be given the workhouse or outside, and he was arguing that this was not congenial to the wishes and feelings of the people in the County of Donegal and other parts of Ireland; and he begged leave to say that he dissented 558 from the principle sought to be established by the Amendment. That was the object to which he was directing himself. He believed it would be quite possible and quite proper for the Government to deal with the distress actually existing, and almost certain to be intensified in the next two or three months; and in regard to that, he thought to contemplate six weeks as the probable duration was to take too short a period, for he believed, having regard to the lateness of the harvest, which at present promised to be a bountiful one, the people must be carried on to the first week in September, for the crops would not be available for the support of the people until then. He challenged the principle which was implied in the Amendment; he was opposed to the principle of outdoor relief. He believed it was not necessary to have recourse to the workhouse, and he believed that Government could readily find means of employing the people on works that would be reproductive, while the people would be raised in every essential point of view from their condition of wretchedness, and a new stimulus would be given to industry throughout the whole of Ireland. That, however, he did not desire to enlarge upon; it was a problem to be solved; but he believed it would be possible, and it was desirable that the Government should take some steps to employ the people in the period that must intervene before the harvest was available for their support. It was not possible that the harvest could be utilized until towards the end of August at least, and in some instances much later; therefore the necessity existed for something being done. He did not believe that what was proposed in the Amendment was the right or the best way, or that most congenial to the people. But at that late hour he would say no more. Anyone who knew the condition of the people could not but feel the duty imposed upon him to make their real condition known to the House, even at the risk of exciting those expressions of impatience which his observations had called forth. He could not support the Amendment before the Committee, and could only express his surprise that it was allowed to be put.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he did not know whether it was absolutely necessary to bring into an Act of Parliament 559 a provision for affording outdoor relief to the poor in Ireland between the finishing up of one harvest and the commencement of the next; but one object he had was to shorten the debate, for no Irish Member was more anxious than he was that relief should be given if required, and to have it voted as quickly as possible. He had heard there was some misapprehension about the Bill, and he rose for the purpose of getting some explanation from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, not in reference to the Amendment. There was an idea that the Bill was being passed for the purpose of paying off old debts; and if that point were cleared up when the Chief Secretary rose, it might possibly enable the Bill to pass in a few minutes. The 4th clause seemed intended to cover a multitude of sins.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)It would be quite irregular to enter upon the 4th clause; the hon. and gallant Member must address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he would ask leave of the Committee just to mention one thing which was outside of the Amendment; and he desired to say that, if he was allowed to mention it, and an answer was given, it might be that the Bill would be got through in a few minutes, and, otherwise, might take two or three nights.
§ MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order. There was a Chairman of Committees, and, without any disrespect to the present occupant of the Chair (Mr. Courtney), he wished to ask whether this Bill was not a Bill dealing with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and whether it was right or proper, on a Bill dealing with Treasury interests, that the Secretary to the Treasury should occupy the Chair?
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)That is not a question of Order.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not quite certain if he understood the mysterious hint of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer); but, no doubt, the difficulty would be cleared up when Clause 4 was reached; but certainly there never was a Bill which more completely contained on the face of it its nature and scope.
§ MR. TREVELYANThe hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had raised a point which he knew the hon. Member had much at heart, in a speech which did not surprise him by its earnestness—for he knew how earnest the hon. Member was—but which did surprise him, to a certain extent, by its extreme brevity in putting his case, which enabled him to put the opposite case without a long speech, which he would be unwilling to inflict upon the Committee with reference to the Bill. The hon. Member had spoken several times upon this question of outdoor relief when it had been raised by Resolution; and he could hardly complain that now, when the hon. Member saw an opportunity, not of abstract debate, but of embodying his views in an Act of Parliament, that he should ask the Committee to insert a particular clause in the Bill. But though certainly he did not complain of the course taken, he did not propose to follow by arguing at great length this most important question of dealing with prevailing distress by means of outdoor relief or workhouse test. It had been discussed—he would not say until the House was tired of it, for it was a question too full of interest not to carry the House through two or three debates—but it had been more thoroughly discussed than any other question during the Session. There had been two debates of what he might call first-class order, one in the month of February, and the other last Friday. On the first occasion the House, by a majority which at the moment he had forgotten, but which he fancied was somewhere between 90 and 120 to a minority of 32, decided, after a long debate, that the policy of the Government with regard to outdoor relief should be supported; and on Friday the House came to a similar decision by 82 to 22. It must be remembered in regard to this Division that the majority represented, to a considerable extent, the feeling of the House of Commons, because it was an occasion upon which hon. Gentlemen who took the view of the hon. Member for Mallow were pretty sure to be present in as large numbers as they could muster. On the last occasion he spoke for nearly an hour, and expressed his opinion upon the bearings of this question of outdoor and indoor relief, both as applied to general and normal distress and to exceptional 561 periods of distress, and he did not intend to repeat the arguments he then used. The hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had quite rightly described the Bill as definite and limited in its purpose; it was a Bill for enabling Unions which, with the permission of the Government, had met distress during the winter months by borrowing money on the local rates, to be indemnified, and in addition, in cases where they required it, to enable them to borrow further; and in cases where the Government considered these Unions had placed themselves in an impoverished position by no fault of their own, to enable the Government to make a grant of the amount of the sum they had borrowed; and this was a power of which the Government intended to avail themselves. In a Bill of this sort he could understand why the hon. Member should raise the question of outdoor relief, for this was the first practical opportunity he had of getting his view inserted into a Bill; but he thought the hon. Member would understand—and he was sure the majority of the House would understand—that the Government could not possibly, at that late period of the Session, and at a late period of the distress, the method of meeting which had been so much discussed—they could not quite suddenly face rightabout, and accept an Amendment which would stultify everything they had said in the House and everything they had done in Ireland. He felt, and he respected very much the sympathy which the sufferings of the people of Donegal had raised in the mind of the hon. Member for Mallow; but he had different accounts of the condition of Dunfanaghy. The accounts he had were to the effect that there was ten-fold more labour in the neighbourhood of the Union, and that the condition of the people was such as would enable them to pass through the time between this and harvest in a state which could not be considered one of very exceptional distress as compared with the state in which they had been for the last three or four months. His accounts were decidedly more hopeful, though, he allowed, they came from other quarters than those from which the hon. Member derived his information. He respected the motives with which the hon. Member had brought forward his Amendment; but it was im- 562 possible for the Government to accept it. He earnestly trusted that, although the hon. Member was disappointed on a subject he had very much at heart, he would allow the Bill, against the principle of which he did not understand the hon. Member had objection—[Mr. O'BRIEN: Oh, oh!] He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not know what the objection was, except so far as the hon. Member thought any of this money was to be expended in workhouse relief. He earnestly trusted the hon. Member would accept the decision of the Committee on the Amendment, and allow the Bill to go forward.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, it appeared that the impression on the mind of the Chief Secretary was that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would impose an obligation on Boards of Guardians to proceed at once to grant outdoor relief in distressed Unions; but it would do nothing of the kind. Simply the Amendment said it should be lawful for the Guardians of any Union receiving a grant under the Bill to grant outdoor relief during the next two months. Here was a sum of money about to be granted to certain Unions in Ireland, granted from an Irish fund, not from the pockets of English taxpayers; and his hon. Friend moved an Amendment giving these Guardians the power to grant relief to destitute poor persons, in or out of the workhouse. This was the Amendment the Chief Secretary said he could not accept, because, he said, it would be turning back from the position he took up a few months ago. Why did his hon. Friend ask for this Amendment? Because he knew that in the Unions where a great deal of distress prevailed a large number of the distressed people were small farmers, who could not go into the workhouse except at the price of breaking up their homes and demoralizing their families. His hon. Friend asked that a discretionary power should be given to Boards of Guardians in these Unions, to give some of this grant from an Irish fund to assist these poor people during the next two months, while they were waiting for the harvest to ripen. In these Unions these small farmers had been kept alive for six or seven months, not by the action of the Boards of Guardians or the Government, but by money contri- 563 buted by charitable people. As a matter of fact, on one estate in Donegal, there were 400 tenants whose land had been seeded by the money of charitable people, poor miserable farmers, watching their seed ripening while they and their children were starving. He did not ask the Government to put its hands in the pockets of ratepayers, and to give the money to these people, or to impose an obligation upon the Guardians to give this relief; he simply asked that the Guardians should have the power to give from this grant if they thought it expedient to do so. This the Chief Secretary refused, and he was not surprised at this from a Government which months ago adopted the course they had pursued in Ireland; of course, it would never do to admit that their Irish policy had been mistaken for a moment. Of course, the Irish Members present were small in number, and the Bill could be passed by the votes of English Radical Members. But Irish Members were asking nothing from them; they were only asking that Irish Boards should use Irish money to meet the needs of the starving people of Donegal. This request was denied, and the denial would be sanctioned by the votes of Members who never set a foot in Ireland, and who, bad as they were from a political point of view, and hostile as they were to Irish Members' views, would, he believed, if they saw the condition of the people, be the first to come forward and support the claim. The Amendment of his hon. Friend fell short of what he desired. Did hon. Members know what it was? By the law in Ireland, Guardians could give outdoor relief in cases where a man was disabled from work by sickness or accident; and the Amendment proposed that the Guardians should have power to give that relief to the destitute who were not disabled, but starving from want of work, and yet this discretionary power was refused. This grant of £50,000 was to be taken from an Irish fund; they did not seek to have it said how it should be distributed, but only that a discretion should be given to Guardians to dole out a few hundred pounds in the wretched mountain districts of Donegal, and also that the Guardians should not have this power for more than two months. Care would be taken that the privilege should not 564 be abused; the Amendment said the grant might be made, but it did not compel it; the Guardians might grant the relief until the harvest ripened, and then the Guardians would no longer have the power, because the people would have the means of supporting themselves. And this was to be refused. Of course, the Irish Members were too small in number to make an impression upon the Government that night, and it was a sad thing to think that hon. Gentlemen should come down to the House and remain until 3 in the morning, to refuse a concession for which Irish Members could gain no credit if the Amendment were put in the Bill. There was no political reason for their action, that Englishmen, who had sympathy for suffering people in every quarter of the globe, and extended their charity to every part of the world, should come clown to the House to prevent a discretionary power being given to Irish Guardians to use Irish money on behalf of starving Irish people.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Water-ford (Mr. Leamy) did not make full allowance for the attitude of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the condition of the poor starving people in Donegal, watching the grain ripening while they suffered the pangs of hunger, had escaped the notice of the Chief Secretary; but he did not think there was anything in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from which his hon. Friend could form that conclusion. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had, he thought, told the House that it would be an object of contemplation—an interesting subject for contemplation, so long as he had the privilege of misgoverning Ireland from that official Bench. Some months ago, he informed the House that the Government had adopted a certain line of policy; and as the result of the treatment in Donegal, charitable priests and ladies were obliged, by begging in charitable quarters everywhere—of course excluding Government quarters—to make up for the neglect of Government, and by their action they saved the lives of hundreds and of thousands in Donegal and other parts of Ireland; and while the Government made up its mind three months ago to face the risk of the people starving, 565 they were now prepared to add a couple of months more; for, said he, in those tones of satisfaction that found an echo from the Radical admirers of the Chief Secretary, even if they were in a starving condition they were not in a very much worse condition than they had been in so for several months previously. That was the position of the Chief Secretary. If these sentiments were held by a Cossack savage they would be regarded as barbarous and atrocious; but, coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Liberal Representative of a Liberal Government in Ireland, they were humane and like an Englishman. It was quite clear that argument was thrown away; it was apparent that it was utterly useless for Irish Members to appeal to a Radical Party whose consciences were in the possession of a Liberal Whip; and he did not know really what was to be done, except that it might assist his hon. Friends to make use of those Benches to talk to the Irish people if they were disposed to continue the subject to a length at which it might properly be discussed, when, perhaps, it might help to bring about another Monaghan Election before long. But it was quite clear that, although nothing was asked but that the Boards of Guardians, or, failing them, the official Board in Dublin, should have the power of relieving persons who were disabled from starvation during a short space of two months, though nothing more was asked than the power to relieve grievous cases during a limited period, this was refused because the Chief Secretary said, having laid down certain rules three months ago, the Government could not withdraw those rules now, and if the people went on to starvation, well, they had always been near starvation under a British Government, but the subject would continue to be one for interesting contemplation. The position of the Irish Members was merely to protest, and he was exceedingly sorry they could do no more. Such conduct as Her Majesty's Government were adopting in Ireland, if adopted anywhere else in the world, would be regarded as ample justification for insurrection and rebellion; it was a policy of spoliation, of cruel murderous torture of women and children; it was a policy of detestable barbarity and meanness; it was a policy that deserved the execration and curses of every honest 566 man. But the curses and execrations of honest men would always be matter of mirth to Her Majesty's Government, until honest men had got physical force on their side.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee at that late hour; but certainly he would, if only as a protest, carry his Motion to a Division, and see how many Members would follow him into the Lobby. Bitter as had been the words of his hon. Friend who had last spoken, he did not in the least exaggerate the feeling that the attitude of the Chief Secretary would create in Ireland. He had represented that thousands of unfortunate people were admittedly without means of support, and he defied the Government to point to anything that the Government or the Poor Law had done for them. He wanted no victory over the Government in the way of putting outdoor relief in an Act of Parliament, but some sort of pledge that something would be done for these unfortunate people, who, up to the present, had been trusting to private charity for support. In official Reports there had been a misrepresentation of facts, he would not say an amount of lying, though that might be justified. On these Reports the Chief Secretary relied, when he said that things were not quite so exceptionally bad as in the past four months; but during all this time the distress had been in full swing. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that he (Mr. O'Brien) had no objection to the Bill; but he must say that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject convinced him that, whether wisely or not, it was only part of the plan to substitute for help the expatriation of the Irish people, to the discouraging of any other mode of dealing with the distress. What was the Bill for? The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, in plain terms, that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had hit the right nail on the head when he said the Bill was to pay off old debts. It was a Bill to pay some debts already incurred by Boards of Guardians, and whom would it actually relieve? It was admitted that there were thousands wanting relief; but would this Bill buy one pound of meal towards relieving starvation? Would it give any relief until the people went into the workhouse, and it was known they would die 567 before they would do that? It would relieve the ratepayers, not the people in distress. But for the Bill, there would be nothing left but to declare the Union bankrupt, and the landlords would be the losers—the persons who all along had made light of the distress that they might not be called upon to relieve it, but who made a long face when there was a chance of getting relief from Government. It was the Boards of Guardians—the landlords and their agents—who had persistently followed the Government programme, denying the distress, enforcing the workhouse test, refusing outdoor relief, getting up long lists of emigrants, getting the people into a better mood for closing with the offers of emigration agents—these were the people who were to have this present of £50,000. All he could say was, he was heartily sick of appealing to the Government on this subject. He did not care in what way they phrased it, or gave the guarantee; but that the process of starvation should not continue among thousands of people for two months longer—that was his object.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)The hon. Member for Waterford did not move an Amendment, I think, though he intimated his intention of doing so.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not intend to do so. His Amemdment was simply to confer a greater discretion upon Boards of Guardians; but he did not think it was any use moving it. He would, however, bring it up on Report, when Irish Members would be prepared to support it, and to have a discussion of some length.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 59: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He did not know whether the Government had any great objection to it.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 17, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "and no portion of such grants shall be applied to the purpose of aiding or assisting emigration."—(Mr. Leatny.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
568§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, on this point he was able to explain to hon. Members the peculiar transactions on account of which the Bill was introduced, to show them there was no hidden purpose behind the Bill, and, at the same time, to show them how very small a Bill it was to attract so much attention. Had the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) inserted his Amendment, it would not have been a small matter; but what remained was a very small Bill indeed. There were three financial principles in the Bill, under none of which could any money, or would any money, be spent in emigration. On the principle contained in the 4th clause certain Unions had borrowed money, with the approval of the Local Government Board. Of these Unions, three out of four were Unions that had not contributed a single penny from their funds, or borrowed a single penny for emigration purposes—Bel-mullet, Clifton, and Newport—and in the fourth Union £500 had been borrowed, and none of that had been applied to purposes of emigration. The 3rd clause contained the power to borrow in the future, under the sanction of the Local Government Board; and he was able to say positively that with regard to Unions who might seek to exercise that power in future, the Local Government Board would not give its sanction to their so charging themselves for purposes of emigration. Then, the other object of the Bill was the relief of the four Unions which had borrowed from their debt; and he gave an absolute pledge for the Government that not one single halfpenny of the money should be spent, directly or indirectly, upon emigration. He should consider it a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government to extend a system of emigration which had created so much approbation, and, at the same time, some disapprobation, without giving hon. Members full and fair opportunity of discussing the question again, and of refusing or granting any further contribution from public funds. He was unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member; because it appeared to him, among other things, that it could scarcely be introduced without appearing to imply that the House disapproved of the system of emigration. He hoped the hon. Member would be content with the explanation and the assurances he had given.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's strongest objection was that it might appear to some people that if the Amendment were accepted the House disapproved of emigration. Now, what was the Amendment? The Bill proposed to grant £50,000 to certain Unions, and the Amendment proposed that no portion of such grant should be applied or spent to aid or assist emigration. That was merely a declaration that a particular fund should not be devoted to purposes of emigration; but in no way did it express disapprobation of emigration, or refer to any other fund. The Chief Secretary said no part of the fund should be so applied. Then, where was the substantial objection to the Amendment? He was not calling in question the right hon. Gentleman's word; he was quite willing to trust him; but suppose the present Government went out of Office—such a thing might easily happen—and another Chief Secretary came in, he might not consider himself bound by the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. He might probably say to Irish Members who got up and said there was a promise that none of this money should be applied to purposes of emigration—"Oh! many things have happened since then. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the cold shade of Opposition." Without offering any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, and without lessening the value of his word ever so slightly, some better, some stronger assurance, must be asked for. Of course, if the word of a Minister was to be taken as sufficient, then the House might give up passing Acts of Parliament altogether.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he understood the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman was given on behalf of the Government; and it was well known that if a change of Government took place such undertakings were always recognized and acted on.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the assurance carried no weight whatever. For weeks the House had been discussing the Corrupt Practices Bill, and the Attorney General day after day gave assurances and opinions; but, to carry out such assurances, he had been obliged to put them into words in the Bill. The Attorney General made statements to the Committee as clear and explicit as that 570 made by the Chief Secretary, as to what was the intention of the Bill; but he had to put words into it, clearly showing the limitations of the Act, simply because the Judges would not, in construing the Act, have any regard to what the Attorney General might have said; they would only have that before them which was contained within the four corners of the Bill. In the same way must the word of the Chief Secretary be regarded in relation to this Bill. How unscrupulous Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland were was well known, and they would have the working of the Act. The Chief Secretary said there would be no intention so to use the Act while he was at the head of the Board; then, why should he object to put that assurance in the Bill? His assurance would bind himself in the House; but they wished to bind his successors.
§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he should like to point out that, in effect, the Act would expire on March 31,1884. Surely, the hon. Member would allow the Government to remain in Office until then.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not think that anyone reading the Bill could suppose that the money could be used in the way hon. Members apprehended. The objects of the Bill were clearly stated, and he did not think any stretch of the wording would allow it. It was clearly imagination on their part.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he wished he could agree that it was distinctly stated what the money was for; he was at that moment utterly bewildered as to the destination of the money. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four Boards of Guardians as the destined recipients, so far as he understood, of grants under the Grants Clause of the Bill; but he (Mr. O'Brien) did not know what was to be done with the margin of the money at all. Of course, anyone would accept the guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman; but they knew very well he was only one partner—a sleeping partner—on the Local Government Board, which directed its policy to the object of driving the people from the country by stress of hunger. If, as the Chief Secretary said, beyond all doubt, it was not the intention of the Government that any portion of the money should be devoted to emigration, he could not, for the life of him, see what 571 was the difficulty in putting it in black and white to bind himself, his subordinates, and successors.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson) directed attention to the fact that the Bill would only be in operation to the end of March, and surely, he said, the Government would be allowed that length of existence; but he (Mr. Callan) did not know that he would allow them even that length of time, if the hon. Member interested himself in many more elections with such disastrous results as attended his efforts at Monaghan.
§ Mr. BIGGARsaid, he did not wish to interfere; but he must confess his experience of the conduct of the Chief Secretary did not encourage his inclination to believe his statements with regard to this or any other question. He had already broken his word once in regard to this Bill.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I must call the hon. Member to Order. He must retract that statement.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)The hon. Member must retract the statement.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw the statement that the right hon. Gentleman had made a false statement; but, at the same time, he stated he would not bring on the Bill after half-past 12, and he had done so.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 59: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. O'BRIENsaid, before the clause was passed, he would like to elicit some definite information as to the destination of the money. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned four Unions, and these were not the most distressed, which were to receive the benefit of the Act. He would like to know how it had been arranged, and whether any other Unions would receive anything?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the operation of the Bill upon what had taken place was confined to the four Unions 572 named, and the sum borrowed was very small, in amount about £3,000. These the Local Government Board would assist by the 1st clause; but when the accounts for past distress were wound up, distress which had involved a certain number of Unions in an amount of expenditure that might be fairly called unusual, the Local Government Board would take into consideration, with the object of seeing, in addition to the grants of 1880, whether they should assist any embarrassed Unions, or Unions in the way of becoming embarrassed, out of this sum of money. Hon. Members would remember that after 1880 a sum of something like £19,900 was, under the Relief of Distress Act, given to embarrassed Unions. This sum of £50,000 was named when the Government thought the necessities of the Unions would be greater than would probably be the case now, and it would enable Government to assist Unions to get through a period of embarrassment and start afresh. The four Unions he had referred to would, no doubt, be assisted.
§ Mr. LEAMYsaid, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the debt incurred was not more than £3,000; so power was given to the Commissioners to grant £47,000 to other Unions. He had mentioned only four Unions as being in a distressed condition, and the amount of the debt incurred by them did not exceed £3,000; so it seemed to him the sum named was too high, seeing that the Church Fund might be applied to many other legislative objects. The maximum might, he thought, be lowered from £50,000 to £25,000, and he did not quite see the object of asking for £25,000 when the debt incurred was only £3,000.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
§ Clause 2 (Extension of borrowing powers).
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
§ Clause 3 (Power to borrow).
573§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
§ Clause 4 (Confirmation of borrowing by Boards of Guardians).
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
§ Clause 5 (Short title).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, which he hoped the Government would agree to. It was, in fact, to make the Act in consonance with its title. It was to make temporary provision for the destitute poor in Ireland, and the short title was the "Relief of Unions (Ireland)." He would move to leave out "Unions," for the purpose of substituting "Destitute Poor."
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Unions," and insert "Destitute Poor."—(Mr. Callan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Unions' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the title in the 5th clause properly expressed the contents of the Bill. It was precisely the purpose of the Bill, which had as its main object the relief of distressed Unions.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, if the title "Relief of Distressed Unions" was the proper title, why was that title not given when the Bill was introduced? Was the first title given to mislead? The short title should be in consonance with the title of the Bill when introduced.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was not in favour of christening the Bill with a dishonoured title. It would not be decent to say it was for the relief of destitute poor in Ireland. It had not been very pleasant to the Irish Members to press their opposition; but they would have failed in their duty if they had held any compromise with a Bill they considered a cruel evasion of the duty of the Go- 574 vernment towards the people, thousands of whom were in such deep distress in Ireland. Month after month had the Government been face to face with this destitution; the Chief Secretary had witnessed and confessed it; the Poor Law Inspectors had confessed it, admitting that the Poor Law was inoperative; and then, when the supporters of the Government cried shame on the Government, after all the Government came down with this miserable shuffling little Bill, seizing £50,000 of Irish money, not to feed the Irish people—he did not care what was its purpose; its effect would be to relieve Unions that were injuring and banishing the people.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the Bill was not for the relief of the destitute poor. It was nothing of the kind. He was certain that some of the money would go to Unions which joined in the exportation of the people to America.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, assuredly the objections of his hon. Friends were well founded; but his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) was probably actuated by a desire to maintain the symmetry of the Government proposition. Of course, the Bill was not for the relief of the destitute poor; but, the Government having started the Bill with that description, his hon. Friend tried to preserve the hypocritical character of the Bill from the first line to the last. It was more with a view to artistic effect that he had brought on his Amendment. The Bill undoubtedly was of a deceptive character. It appeared as a Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill; it went on to say it was expedient to make temporary provision for the destitute poor in Ireland, and it was not a Poor Relief Bill; but, on the contrary, when an Amendment was moved to make temporary provision for two miserable calendar months the Government opposed the suggestion. However, though it was almost a pity that the truth should be allowed to come in in part of the title, on the whole he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Amendment, and let a Division be taken on the clause. It would be impossible for him at this stage to invest the Government proposition with any more merit than it already possessed.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, there was one thing in regard to the Bill that should 575 be noticed, and that was that the first two lines and the last two lines diametrically contradicted each other. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen should think it strange that he should raise doubts as to the veracity of Gentlemen who directly contradicted themselves in a document they introduced into the House.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the Chairman had prevented him putting a question, some two hours ago, by which he then hoped to prevent a long discussion; but the discussion had now been raised upon the title. He was particularly anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman—and this was the question he wished to put before—whether this money was wanted to meet distress between the present time and the harvest, or whether it was all to be devoted to the relief of former distress?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had stated the sum which had been borrowed, the total amount being £3,000. That was the total amount of borrowed money which would be paid off. If there were other Unions which had hampered themselves, which could not pay their way, or come near paying their way, the Government would consider whether they should be relieved. The Unions sure to be relieved were the four he had named.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, then four-fifths of the money would be devoted to relieving distress between now and the taking in of the harvest. He knew there was a misunderstanding on the subject among hon. Members below the Gangway, they believing that the money was going to the payment of old debts. If the Chief Secretary would say that £40,000 out of £50,000, or, at all events, a very considerable proportion, would go to relieve distress existing, or likely to exist, in the next two months, it would stop a long discussion.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, his sole object in his Amendment was that if the Bill was honestly intended the title should be that under which it was introduced. By his Amendment he had marked the divergence in title, one falsifying the other. The probable effect of the Act would be equally to falsify the assurances with which it was introduced and the pledges given. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sorry the Chief Secretary had not yet cleared up 576 the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer). The hon. and gallant Member was plainly under the impression that the Bill made provision for distress actually existing, and which would continue to exist for the next two months. Now, he would ask the Chief Secretary, was there any provision in the Bill that would give 1 1b. of meal to anyone actually starving at the moment, or was the Bill meant to do more than to clear off the liabilities already incurred?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the probable effect of the Bill would be to clear off the liabilities already incurred. The Bill gave power to Unions that might find it necessary for the relief of distress to borrow between this and the 25th of March, 1884, to do so. He hoped and trusted that there would not be such distress in Ireland as to give occasion for that clause being brought into operation; and he thought it probable that, as the Government provided against a much greater amount of embarrassment than had actually occurred, that £50,000 would not be needed. Such of it as was spent would be spent in relieving those four Unions, and any others that had embarrassed themselves in the relief of distress.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was a great master of language; but he might have said "Yes" or "No" in answer to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. That question referred to Clause 3, which gave to Boards of Guardians power to borrow money, and that was altogether independent of the £50,000. He wanted a specific answer to the question—was any of the £50,000 the Commissioners took power to lend to Boards of Guardians to be spent in the relief of distress existing at the moment, or likely to exist in the next two months? "Yes" or "No."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, it might be spent in relieving such distress; but spent in relief under the present Poor Law.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, the effect would be, in those Unions which were of all most affected, that of which he had complained all along. In those Unions, owing to extreme poverty, the landlords were in dread of being mulcted for outdoor relief; therefore, in those Unions the Act would have no effect at all, but 577 an encouragement even would be given to those Boards of Guardians who had been refusing to relax the Poor Law rules. Nothing absolutely would be done for the relief of distress; but some thousands of pounds would go to remunerating Guardians.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had voted with the Government on the assumption that some of the money was going to the relief of distress in Ireland; but, as he had got to the fact that the money would simply go to pay off debts that had been incurred, he would give the Government Notice that he would oppose the Bill on the third reading.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, when that was confessedly the object of the Bill, he wanted to know why the Bill was introduced under a deceptive title? Here was a Poor Relief Bill, and it gave no relief to the poor. It was described in the most hypocritical and mendacious manner as a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of destitute poor. Why, next day there would be leading articles in the Press denouncing the conduct of Irish Members who opposed a Bill for the relief of destitute poor in Ireland! Thus, by false pretences, was the opinion of the country turned against sympathy for distress in Ireland in a scandalous and disgraceful manner.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would not answer the epithets of the hon. Member. The title of the Bill was perfectly justified. The debts these Unions had incurred were debts to flour and potato merchants, debts incurred for the support of people in the workhouses and the infirm and persons incapable of labour outside, and therefore the Bill was described justly as for the relief of destitute poor. He quite allowed that hon. Members did not agree in the mode of spending it; but every penny was well spent in feeding and clothing destitute poor. As to confessions being wrung from the Government, he would remind hon. Members that he gave the same explanation last Monday when he moved that the Bill be allowed to go into Committee.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he would point out that the Bill was described as a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of the poor; and did that not convey the meaning that it was to meet immediate pressing wants? But now the Chief Secretary admitted that its object was to merely pay off old debts. They had no 578 objection to the Chief Secretary granting as much of the £50,000 as was necessary to pay off debts; they had not fought the Bill on that ground. What they asked from the first stage of the Bill was that, while taking £50,000 of Irish money, the Government should give some of it for the temporary relief of the poor in Ireland. What other object had they in their speeches that night?
MR. O'BRIENsaid, no charge could be brought against them that they had any wish to obstruct Business; their action in regard to this Bill was because they felt that miserable people in the North of Ireland were starving. He could not, for the life of him, understand why the Chief Secretary should object in a Bill taking £50,000 to spend £1,000, £2,000, or £3,000 to keep the people from starvation. It was not the first time that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), who usually differed from Irish Members in politics, had voted with them on questions relating to Ireland of a practical nature; but he was grieved to find the Liberal Members from Ulster opposed. But he supposed the Government were persuaded that so long as the Liberal Members from Ulster backed them up, they must be right, and that they had the approval of the people of Ireland. He hoped they would regret their harsh conduct to the miserable starving people of the North of Ireland.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 9: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
§ Motion made, and Question propose d, "That the Bill be reported without Amendment."
MR. O'BRIENgave Notice that on the Motion for third reading he should move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to the insertion of clauses making temporary provision for the destitute poor in Donegal County.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 7: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.