§ On the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Resolution to make provision out of the Consolidated Fund for the Temporary Relief of Destitute Persons in Ireland,
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSsuggested the adoption of measures for rendering dormant charities effective. Such a course was especially advisable at a time when so great demands were made on the Government. He should be glad to know whether anything had been done in reference to the Reproductive Loan Fund. Some provisions in the new measures of Government would do more injury than the system of public works. There were 2,050 electoral divisions in Ireland. Double the number of boilers for soup would be required on the lowest calculation; and a staff would be needed not only for the purpose of giving out soup, but of persons competent to keep accounts. All these matters would fall to be arranged by a central committee; and the scheme would be found so utterly impracticable, that he must beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the nature of the Bill. He felt that, at least as regarded the western part of Ireland, it would be found utterly impossible to obtain a staff requisite for carrying on these kitchens in any satisfactory manner. What he would suggest was, that the operations should be carried on through the means of the assistant commissioners, who had some experience in the working of the poor law, rather than the parties indicated in the Bill. There was also a material point, which seemed to have escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It would be necessary, in pursuance of this measure, to form new districts throughout the whole of Ireland. According to the third clause of the Bill, it was proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should
—"give orders for the constitution of a relief committee in any one or more electoral divisions of a union formed for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland in which it shall appear to him that this Act should be put in force.Now, the very first thing that would require to be done would be to decide upon those districts. This would require persons 890 of considerable experience, local information, and sound judgment; and he did not see any machinery in this Bill sufficient to enable the Lord Lieutenant to come to a just decision. He had objected last night to any one connected with the constabulary in Ireland being a member of the proposed board. The other members named were objectionable on another ground, that they could have little time to bestow upon it. He confessed that, pro formâ, Colonel Jones, the head of the Board of Works, might properly enough be chosen a member of the board; but he did not see how it was possible, with the mass of business which Mr. Redington, Colonel M'Gregor, and Colonel Jones had on their hands, that, however willing they might be, and willing he was sure they were, they could spare time to carry out so important an arrangement. He hoped, that in going into Committee the Government would not consider themselves bound to admit anything else but what was already in the Bill; but that they would have recourse to some other machinery, so as to make the scheme work if possible.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it would be infinitely better to postpone discussion on these matters till they got into Committee. He rose merely to answer a question which his noble Friend had put to him. If his noble Friend had referred to the correspondence which had been published on the subject, he would have seen that 5,000l. of the money in the hands of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund had been voted for the encouragement of the fisheries on the western coast of Ireland, to be expended under the direction of the Board of Works.
§ Report received.
MR. WILLIAMSwished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention, with respect to all the moneys which were to be advanced for carrying out the objects of this Bill, to take the votes specifically, as he was doing in the present instance?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
§ Resolution agreed to; and instruction accordingly given to the Committee on the Destitute Persons (Ireland) Bill.
§ On the Question that the House go into Committee on the same Bill,
§ MR. HUTTsaid: Before the House shall proceed further with the Bill for relieving destitution in Ireland, I am desirous of saying a few words on a subject which, 891 although referred to the other evening by the Government in a tone of disparagement, I conceive to have a very important relation to the question before us. It is a subject which has for many years engaged my attention, and in connexion with which I once held a public employment under a commission from the Crown. I allude to the subject of colonization. I am led to notice it the rather because of the appeal made to me in this House on Monday last, by my hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Smith O'Brien). Several years ago my hon. Friend and I were engaged in a laborious attempt to ascertain the value of the colonial dependencies of the British Crown as seats for the location of the suffering population of the United Kingdom. Since that time my hon. Friend has been involved in pursuits in Ireland, with which, as he knows, I feel little sympathy; but it was a source of real gratification to me to observe him in the hour of his country's distress turning, for practical relief, to those measures of colonization which, at an early period of our lives, associated us in a common study. In all that my hon. Friend has said and written on the subject, in reference to the present state of Ireland, I heartily concur; and I am the more anxious to co-operate with him now, because I know that, in recommending colonization to his countrymen, he is following anything but the vulgar path of popularity in Ireland. I rejoice at it. Of my hon. Friend, at all events, it will not be remarked, however lamentably true of other Irish proprietors, that when multitudes of his perishing countrymen were looking to him for counsel and assistance, he thought he had discharged every duty towards them by voting inflammatory resolutions at public meetings, or by making clamorous demands on the Imperial Government for impossible relief. I concur, too, with my hon. Friend in regretting that the noble Lord at the head of affairs, when pointing out the means of Irish relief, should have spoken of colonization in terms of only qualified approval. To me, Sir, it appears indisputable, that systematic colonization is not only one of the best means to which we can have recourse for mitigating the destiny impending over Ireland, but I believe it is the only means by which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland can escape the calamities attendant on the sudden transition of the whole Irish people from potato to corn as the staple article 892 of their food. Do not suppose that it is only the famine of 1847 with which you have to contend—that it is the pressure of instant want alone which you are required to relieve. It is a something far more formidable; it is a great moral revolution; it is a fearful dispensation, not only unexampled in the history of the world, but one which, I believe, was never before contemplated in the speculations of man—the sudden and compulsory transfer of pauperised millions from a cheap to a dear system of diet, without any alteration of their wages. I am not raising the question whether it be more desirable for a nation to subsist upon potatoes, or upon corn: no one doubts about that. I am asking you how you will provide for the people of Ireland while they are in the state of inevitable transition? That is what I want the Government, and the House, and the country to consider. The noble Lord at the head of affairs, in the course of his masterly speech the other evening, referred for important facts connected with Ireland to the commissioners appointed some years since to inquire into the condition of the labouring classes of that country. No higher authority could be appealed to. A report, sanctioned by such men as the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whateley, the Catholic archbishop, Dr. Murray, and Mr. Anthony Blake, must always carry with it the weight of unquestionable authority. It is of a peculiar value now, if for no other reason than this—that it enables us to estimate the magnitude of those difficulties with which the noble Lord and the Government have to grapple, and which I am sure we all hope they may be enabled to overcome. Now what says the report? That in 1831 there were in Ireland 1,131,000 agricultural labourers, and half that number of labourers non-agriculturists—the heads of families—who existed on the verge of starvation, at wages varying from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a week, by means of a potato diet. Well! the potato diet is at an end. It is impossible to read the papers on the Table of the House relating to Irish destitution without seeing that the potato crop, to which the population of Ireland have so long looked for their almost only food, will never again be resorted to for that purpose. Upon what then must they now rely; to what mast they resort for their subsistence? They will go naturally to the lowest, the cheapest description of grain. But they cannot resort to grain of any kind, not 893 even to meal of Indian corn, without a considerable augmentation of their wages. They must be swept from the face of the earth, unless, with a corn diet, they can obtain 6s. or 7s. a week. But what does that fact mean? It means that it is impossible for the present population of Ireland to exist, unless something like 15,000,000l. can thenceforward be added annually to the fund from which they derive their wages. From what source is this sudden and prodigious demand to be supplied? From Irish estates? I know that there is an opinion prevalent both in this House and throughout Great Britain, that the property of Ireland ought to support the poverty of Ireland. But look for a moment to the report of Archbishop Whateley. He tells you that, in 1831, the whole rental of Ireland was less than 10,000,000l. sterling; (oven the assessment recently made under the Poor-law Act showed it to be less than 13,000,000l.;) that is, less than would be sufficient to provide the labouring population with the lowest and coarsest description of cereal produce. What must they do in such an extremity? Must they draw upon that fund in aid of their wages which goes to the annual replacement of capital expended in cultivation? I need scarcely remark that, if they do so, they will necessarily diminish agricultural production in Ireland, and enormously increase the difficulties of meeting their present destitution. Let us hear no more, then, of the doctrine, that the property of Ireland most support the poverty of that country. It is a wild and a mischievous delusion; seeing that the whole rental derived from the soil of Ireland would be insufficient, in the sudden disappearance of the potato plant, to supply the people with the cheapest description of food. Perhaps the emergency at which we have arrived may be yet more strikingly represented. The whole annual production of Ireland—all that is distributed in wages, rent, profit, and replacement of seed, &c., is estimated by Archbishop Whateley's commission at 36,000,000l. Now let us suppose that you abandon the whole of the annual production of the country to the people (who are taken at 2,000,000 of families)—that you give it all; you would not by that means provide each family with more than 7s. a week; but the inevitable consequences of such a wild partition would be to convert the whole island into a universal charnel house. The truth is, that the de- 894 struction of the potato plant in Ireland has made it impossible for that country, in the actual state of its agriculture—utterly impossible—to feed its actual population. Say what you please, devise what you may, unaccompanied by improvements for creating a larger production of food, the poor law, giving a right to out-door relief, which, in some shape, you are going to pass, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope) seems to turn with so much hope and expectation, never can be carried into practical effect. And for this simple and manifest reason, that the gross revenue derived from the land in Ireland would be inadequate to the rate necessary for the maintenance of the aged, infirm, and destitute population. The great, the all-absorbing consideration is, then, how to increase the quantity of food attainable from the soil of Ireland. The report, to which I have so often referred, will of itself suggest by what means this work can be achieved. It is stated in the report, that Great Britain, with 34,000,000 of acres of cultivated land, obtains an annual production which is estimated by the commissioners at 150,000,000l.; that Ireland, with 14,600,000 of acres, produces an annual return estimated at 36,000,000l.; or, to state the comparison more simply, the production per acre in Great Britain is four times as great as it is in Ireland. What is the cause of so startling a difference? The climate of Ireland is not less favourable, the soil of Ireland is not less fertile than that of Great Britain; with an equal system of cultivation equal results might be ensured. The question, therefore, is, how to introduce into Ireland that mode of cultivation—that beneficial combination of capital and labour which prevails in this country? To any such introduction—there is no doubt of it—the present subdivision of land-holdings in Ireland presents insurmountable obstacles. It appears by one of the volumes connected with Irish distress laid on the Table of the House, that the greater portion of the whole area of Ireland is cut up, not into small properties, as in France and the Rhenish provinces of Germany, but into small holdings varying from two or three roods to ten acres in extent. Now what style of farming can be carried on when land is let out in these miserable shreds and patches? What kind of stock can be kept? What sort of drainage can be executed? What rotation of crops can be observed under such a sys- 895 tem of agriculture as we have here? With the present subdivision of land among occupiers, it is impossible that any combination of labour and capital can be applied to cultivation. But industry performs her miracles only when many hands are employed at the same time on the same work. The British farmer, with more or less of capital, cultivates his farm by means of combined and therefore effectual labour. The Irish peasant, almost destitute of capital, makes the most of his miserable holding by means of his isolated and unassisted exertions. The consequences are before you. It requires four labourers in Ireland to raise the same amount of produce as is raised in England by one. My argument may therefore be thus summed up. The present population of Ireland cannot be maintained by the soil of Ireland, without a large increase of its production. Increase of its production is unattainable without improvement in the system of Irish cultivation; and no such improvement can be looked for without a consolidation of the holdings into farms of a moderate extent. What is to become of the crowd of tenants who must necessarily be dispossessed by the formation of farms of—I do not say 500 or 1,000 acres as in England, but of—fifty or sixty acres each? How can we provide for them; or rather, how can we place them in circumstances to provide for themselves during the season of transition? The noble Lord has referred to two modes: home colonization, by the redemption of waste lands in Ireland; and foreign colonization, by settlement in the ultramarine possessions of the British Crown. Home colonization would afford them present employment in the work of reclamation, and afterwards as labourers on the recovered lands when divided into farms. Foreign colonization would also open out new fields for their industry, with this additional and important advantage, that it would, at the same time, diminish the demand for food at home. Home colonization must be very gradual in its progress. The reclamation of waste lands could not, until after the lapse of a considerable time, alter the relation between the quantity of food in the country, and the people to be fed. It may be doubted, indeed, whether, until the vicious system of parcelling out small patches of land to occupying peasants shall have been eradicated in Ireland, the reclamation of waste lands will have any tendency to remove the inherent evils of Irish society; whe- 896 ther the new lands, under whatever restrictions they may be disposed of by the Crown, will not quickly become as crowded with cottiers as the old lands now are; and whether the only change which we shall effect by the proposed outlay of British treasure will not be a wider extension of the same barbarous modes of cultivation, and of the same wretched condition of the people—the creation, in fact, of a larger Ireland. Foreign colonization, however, might be undertaken on a scale sufficient to effect a sensible alteration in the proportion between the demand and supply of food, even during the present year. Nor is this all. We at the same time plant the colony and prepare the way for progressively increasing immigration to its shores. The demand for labourers at this moment is intense in the colony of South Australia. Five thousand men could probably at this moment find employment, at high wages, in the mining operations of that colony alone. There are, moreover, in that flourishing province, nearly half a million of fertile and lightly timbered acres already surveyed, marked out, and mapped, and in a state for immediate occupation. A considerable body of labourers would find a welcome reception in New South Wales: and I have no doubt whatever, that under the wise and energetic administration of the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office, the same prospects will soon be developed in the magnificent islands of New Zealand. On the eastern shores of South Africa there are millions of acres of the finest soil in the world, wanting nothing but industry and capital to support a large and prosperous community. I know not what amount of labourers might be comfortably located and provided for in Canada, under arrangements which might be instituted between the Colonial Office and that valuable portion of the British dominions; but of this I am quite certain, that the British dominions comprise, at home and abroad, unoccupied land sufficient to support generations yet to come, of the constantly increasing population of the United Kingdom. I come now to the question of cost. We are proposing to expend 10,000,000l. this year on temporary expedients of relief, or at best on undertakings which have but a remote tendency either to secure the permanent amelioration of Ireland, or to prevent the recurrence of the present distress hereafter. The future is dark and threatening. The present palliatives deepen 897 its forebodings. Much of the expenditure in Ireland on the part of the Imperial Government, however necessary by reason of the utter destitution of the peasantry, has a demoralizing effect on their minds. It teaches them the dangerous lesson, to lean for support on anything but their own prudence and exertions, and to prefer abject fawning on the pity of others, to manly self-reliance and honourable independence. Moreover, the sacrifice by which this is accomplished is prodigiously great. It is surely a strong recommendation of the measures I am advocating—home and foreign colonization—that they might be undertaken without any eventual cost at all to the Imperial Treasury; that if engaged in with prudence and guided by experience, we have the certain assurance that they may be made to defray, within a brief period, the whole amount of their outlay. We know that the reclamation of waste land in Ireland, if judiciously conducted, would remunerate the undertaker: this is an inference drawn from a comparison of the charges of reclamation, and the market value of land of similar quality. But when I say that foreign colonization would reproduce the whole of its cost, I state it not as an inference merely; it is the result of operations of which I have had practical experience. I was a member of the commission which planted the experimental colony of South Australia. I shall always remember with deep gratifition, that, in co-operation with one of the most valuable philosophical writers of our age and country—I mean Colonel Torrens—and generally in subordination to his superior intelligence, I assisted at the foundation of that important and remarkable colony. I entreat the attention of the House to these facts. We sent out a population of 15,000 persons to South Australia—at that time a wilderness not only uninhabited, but positively unexplored. The presence of the population gave to the wilderness such a value, that we were enabled to sell 225,000 acres of Crown land for a sum which exceeded by 85,000 the whole cost of the emigration. Startling as this statement may be, it is not all. We raised on the security of the future revenue of the colony, a further sum of 85,000l. for the purposes of the outfit and government of the colony. The loan was effected wholly independent of the Government, but it was afterwards assumed by the Treasury, on conditions of its ultimate repayment out of the colonial revenues. 898 That condition is now being fulfilled. By a recent order of the Treasury, the interest of the loan is no longer borne by the Consolidated Fund; it is paid out of the growing surplus of the revenue of South Australia. And thus you have the spectacle—one perfectly unexampled in the history of the world—of a colonial dependency which has not only defrayed all the cost of conveying its population from across the globe, but which is actually replacing all the charges of its original outfit and early government. Now, such has been the result of a first experiment in an untried field of improvement, amid all the embarrassments, the difficulties, and the errors which are incidental to such undertakings. It would be comparatively easy now to plant another South Australia—to lay open, without cost to the Parent State, in one of its distant dependencies, a new and a happier country for those whom the inscrutable dispensations of Providence have visited with suffering and privation here. Are we not to have recourse to this expedient? I wish to guard myself against misapprehension. I am not stating that any plan of home or foreign colonization, however judiciously devised and executed, could give very extensive immediate relief to Ireland. My allegation is this: that unless timely measures are adopted by the State to carry out systematic colonization on a comprehensive scale, it will be impossible to surmount the difficulties occasioned by the sudden and forced transition of a whole population from a cheap to a comparatively dear description of daily food, all of which will probably be of foreign growth, without the possibility of any corresponding augmentation of their wages. I desire to have it borne in mind, that without withdrawing the cottier occupants you can have no improvement of agriculture in Ireland, and, consequently, no increase of its present inadequate production; that unless production be promptly increased, the population of Ireland must be supported on imported food at the expense of this country; and that just, humane, and generous as the people of this country unquestionably are, they possess neither the will nor the power to pay 10,000,000l. for successive years to support Irish destitution. The very proposal to contribute another such amount would, I am persuaded, be fatal to any Government. I trust that the present Government, of the general principles of whose policy I have always been an adherent, while pressing 899 forward those measures of temporary relief which are contemplated in the present Bill, and in others announced by the noble Lord, will seriously consider whether it may not be possible, by adopting a plan of systematic colonization, to rescue property in the United Kingdom from confiscation, and the people of Ireland from the horrors of long-protracted pestilence and famine.
§ SIR G. GREYwas fully sensible of the importance of the subject which his hon. Friend had just brought under their consideration: so important was it that it ought not to be discussed incidentally in the shape in which his hon. Friend had just submitted it. His hon. Friend had fairly stated that his proposal was not applicable to the present urgent distress in Ireland. The Bill now under consideration was a measure which would more effectually meet the existing pressing day-by-day distress which prevailed throughout many parts of Ireland. It must be obvious that it would be advantageous that this Bill should be brought into operation at the earliest possible time; and he hoped, therefore, that it would be allowed to proceed without intermingling with its discussion other important questions.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENhoped that he should be excused for rising to call the attention of the House to a subject which was intimately connected with the present condition of Ireland, namely the propriety of establishing smaller territorial divisions in that country for the purpose of poor-law rating. To effect this object no Act of Parliament was necessary, for the Poor Law Commissioners were invested with the necessary authority under the 18th clause of the Irish Poor Law Act. The tendency of the present system of large territorial divisions was to remove the superintendence of the poor from authorities in the provinces to authorities in the towns. In other words, it favoured the principle of centralization; but there was no country less adapted than Ireland for the application of that principle, which was directly opposed to its social system, and to the character of the people. He thanked the hon. Member for Stroud for the benevolence which he had displayed upon the subject of the poor laws; but when he read in the hon. Member's pamphlet that townlands in Ireland were analogous to parishes in England, he apprehended that no one practically acquainted with the former country, would be inclined to attach much weight to the hon. Member's opin- 900 ions. Unlike most measures which were brought forward respecting Ireland, his present proposition would excite no religious or political feeling in that country; but he must declare at the outset that his object was to array two classes against each other, and he claimed the attention of the House whilst he attempted to describe those two classes. The House had voted, and it was about to vote, millions for Ireland. Whether it was right or wrong to do so, he would not then stop to inquire; but after the money had been given, the ever-recurring, never-ending question remained to be answered, "What are you to do with the Irish landlords?" Public attention had recently been directed towards the Irish landlords more pointedly than usual. It must be difficult for English Members to decide between the conflicting statements which were made in that House respecting the Irish landlords. On the one hand, they were attacked for their rapacity, cruelty, and oppression; whilst, on the other, were recounted instances of great self-denial, extraordinary exertion, generous philanthropy, and patient perseverance. Still the question recurred, "What are you to do with the Irish landlords?" He should have no difficulty in answering that question, if he were not aware from experience, and from the history of Ireland, that there was no body of men in any country more completely divided into two classes than the Irish landlords. Never were two classes of men more unlike each other in feelings and wishes. One of them still longed for what he must honestly call the unpopular and disgraceful past; the other looked for better days for Ireland, applied themselves benevolently to get at the root of the social evils which afflicted her, with the view of applying a remedy, and shrank from no exertion or self-denial to accomplish that great object. He stood there to call upon the House to draw a distinction between those two classes of men in all their legislation. It would become the House to show that it did not hold in equal favour those who stretched to the utmost the rights of property, and strained within the narrowest limits its duties; and those, on the other hand, who made the possession of property instrumental to promoting the happiness of all around them. The great objection to more minute territorial divisions for the dealings of the State with the poor, would be that urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, in a 901 letter published in the Correspondence with the Board of Works, relative to the relief of the destitute poor. The right hon. Gentleman had received a letter from the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland, calling for smaller territorial divisions than the electoral districts. That letter was not printed with the correspondence, though the right hon. Gentleman's answer to it appeared there: this he regretted; it was possible to put a sinister interpretation on its absence. It might be said that the letter of the society contained arguments which it was not at all easy to answer. But one of the arguments used against their proposal was, that it would give a stimulus to clearances. But the estates on which emigration had been encouraged for a number of years, and where the population had been kept down, would not be benefited by clearances: very few estates were so cleared now; fewer still would be cleared hereafter; and, if they were, the evil would be far less with the proposed extension of the poor law. There could not, then, be much stress laid upon this argument. It might also be said that the smaller divisions would act as a restraint upon labour. That might be true in England, with its complex law of settlement, but was of little force in Ireland, where, practically, there was no law of settlement at all. Neither as to the encouragement of clearances, the fettering of labour, or entailing greater expense, was there any difficulty that could not be overcome. The right hon. Gentleman further stated, as a reason for preferring the present divisions to smaller ones, that it brought together larger and more variously constituted bodies of proprietors, with good social and moral effects. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: That is not my letter.] The statement appeared in a document printed in page 301 of the Correspondence with the Board of Works on the relief of the poor, and dated December 4, 1846; it was official, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not write it himself, he must at least be prepared to support the views it took.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREexplained that the observations which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, formed no part of his letter; that letter was published along with a great many minutes and remarks, and both letter and minutes were included in the papers laid on the Table. The observations were drawn up by a gentleman connected with the Government; they contained a very sensible report on the subject, 902 and without pledging himself to particular expressions, he would certainly avow his general concurrence with it.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENunderstood, then, that it was a document inserted among the correspondence, but not a letter, as it was written by an unknown hand, and sent nowhere; that it was not a communication to the Board of Works or any public department; and that the book was altogether a peculiarly Irish correspondence, since it omitted all that were letters, and put in all that were not. On those observations, then, he would make no more remarks; but the argument the right hon. Gentleman concurred in was, that the meeting together of the gentlemen of a large district was a desirable thing. If there were no proprietors but those who did attend such meetings, this might be true; but when he had attended the meeting of a committee in any district with which he was acquainted, he found that those who ought to have been foremost lent them no aid, did not lead them, and gave them very little assistance. It had been proposed to levy an absentee tax in Ireland; whatever might be the merits of that tax, at present it would be ill timed. The Government were bringing forward a measure that would be heartily welcome, to facilitate the sale of incumbered estates. They were inviting the English capitalist to invest his money in Irish land, and it would be unwise to tell him before he had done so that he would immediately be taxed as an absentee. They were spreading their nets from the other side of the Irish Channel, and it would be better to let the capitalist invest his money and fall into the trap, before they showed him the uninviting hook that was laid for him; before they told him, that this said Irish Channel should be as Styx to him, over whose waters there was no return. He did not wish the Government to turn land jobber and agent, to make itself the gaoler of Irish landlords, or to dictate what should be drained, or enclosed, or purchased, or sold; but the Legislature ought to draw some distinction between the landlords who did perform their duties and those who neglected them. What had the whole of the present debate turned on? On the differences between Protectionists and Free Traders, or between Whigs and Tories? No; it might be fairly and truly said to have turned upon the question he was now pressing on the attention of the House. He thought it unfair to press heavily on 903 the landlord who had improved his estates, employed labour, and invested capital, for the misdeeds of another who had neglected his duties. Let him, for the purpose of illustration, take England for one townland, and Ireland for another. Ireland was miserable, suffering, destitute, and discontented. Did not English Members say, it was unfair that England should pay for the misdeeds of Ireland? They said, if Ireland was miserable, discontented, and wretched, it was because in past times its landlords had been improvident, neglectful, and unimproving; because they had not availed themselves of their opportunities; because they had not done justice to what was their own. He was not prepared to say these charges were without foundation; he had never, since he had paid any attention to the subject, been able to disguise from himself that the landowners of Ireland had much, very much, to answer for. To a great degree, though not altogether, perhaps, they were liable to the charges brought against them. Whether this were the case or not, taking Ireland and England separately, the whole course of this debate had resolved itself into a great "townland" discussion. England says, as she might justly say, "Let the property of Ireland support the poor of Ireland; England cannot be perpetually burdened with Irish poverty." However willing to meet the present great emergency, yet England must insist on its being no precedent for continual relief; but that for the future the property of Ireland must and shall support its poor. If then they gave up the system of entire centralization, he was fairly entitled to ask them to draw a definitive distinction between implacable enemies and those who necessarily would best aid and co-operate with them. If they were disposed to charge the poor rate on the Consolidated Fund, his argument fell to the ground; when they once admitted the expediency of a territorial division, then let them carry out the true principle, and take care that the property of the townland in Ireland shall be responsible for its poverty. Hon. Gentlemen were eager enough to cry out "Help yourselves;" and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had, not for the first time, pressed on the attention of Irish landlords the expediency of taking care of their own interests; but something more was apparently to be understood in that advice—that the Irish landlords were bound to help their neighbour also. And 904 when the adoption of that advice really was made compulsory, he called on the Government not to accumulate difficulties, and to separate in Ireland the good from the bad landlord. They must do this, for it was out of their power to strike an average. The Irish people were called a lawless people, and certainly the Irish people did reject the laws which had obtained the sanction of the constitution; but they had, in defence, created a code of their own, and it should now be the duty of the Legislature to win them from their allegiance to their dark and unwritten doctrines, to a system which should be more palpably based in justice, and better tending to their happiness and welfare. How could they better begin than by acting justly and fairly towards those whose interests were intermixed with the interests of the people? He had had opportunities, frequent and sufficient, of comparing the character of the peasants of Ireland with that of the agricultural population of Scotland and England; and the result of his examination convinced him that, peculiarly and especially, the Irish peasant was governed, more than the peasant of any other country, by territorial and ancestral influence. He did not mean the influence of rank; he meant, that when a landed proprietor exercised his power over those below him justly and benevolently, that man possessed more influence than could be given to him or kept from him by any law. And if that were the case, it was incumbent upon the Legislature to strengthen so serviceable an authority. As far as relief was concerned, the more minute territorial divisions were made, the more suitably and easily relief could be administered. The personal influence of landlords was of the greatest value. They all saw in every paper tales of violence, which no one could palliate or defend; but they did not see there the many acts of friendship and gratitude which the recent difficulties had called forth between landlord and tenant. They did not see in the papers how much had been done by the presence of a respected Irish landlord in times of great pressure and distress. He called on the House to strengthen the hands of those men, who, being the friends of the peasantry, were necessarily the friends of that House. He was, however, far from seeing any design or tendency in Government to diminish the area of taxation; he beheld in the Bills before them a very ominous sign of an intention to enlarge it. 905 If they succeeded in doing so—if they enlarged the present divisions made for the purposes of the poor-law rating, or, in other words, if they substituted unions for electoral divisions—he would abandon the matter in despair. Every one must admit that the Labour-rate Act had been, pro tanto, a nullity. The collection of large masses of men in one spot, and their abstraction from agricultural pursuits under that Act, was in itself a great evil; but the landlords had hoped there would be an end to it, and he sincerely regretted that the announcement of the intention of the Government on the townlands question, which had been so anxiously expected by those who had co-operated with the Government in all its difficulties, had not been made. A man might be very willing to pay for improvements on his own estate, but he could not pay for those on the property of his absentee neighbour. Every person acquainted with Ireland must know that this objection was well founded. He feared, however, they were going to resist the principle he advocated, and were prepared to persevere rather in the extension than in the diminution of the area of taxation. But they would not do so unopposed, and without his entering his solemn protest, that as far as the forms of the House would allow him, he would persist in objecting to this—he would not say vicious and dangerous, but to this—fatal principle. If the Government were by such means, applied to the permanent poor law of Ireland, about to discourage benevolence, to weaken responsibility, and to foster selfishness, at least they should not do so without a warning from one who had attentively studied the character of the Irish people. He feared, when he sat down, that he would remember something that he could have wished to state to the House; but he would conclude with observing that, if his experience of Ireland were worth anything, they could not give to the landed proprietary of Ireland a more heavy blow and greater discouragement than would be inflicted on them by enlarging the area of taxation.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwas very unwilling to detain the House one moment from going into Committee on the Bill; but in consideration of the great importance of the question brought forward, and because otherwise it might have appeared as personal disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, or as insensibility on his own part to the importance of the subject, he felt it his duty to make one or two observations. This 906 was no new question; he had had this townlands question, as the hon. Gentleman called it, urged upon him over and over again while he was in Ireland, by the hon. Gentleman himself and by others, landed proprietors, who entertained a very strong opinion on the point, and whose station in the country demanded from any Member of the Government that they should be listened to with deference and respect. But the more he had considered, the more was he convinced that very important principles were involved in the question now before the House — that it involved one consideration on which it would be impossible for the Government to give way. They had felt all along the great necessity, so far as practicable, of carrying with them the cordial co-operation of the landlords in the efforts they were making to rescue the people of Ireland from the effects of the calamity which had fallen upon the land; but they had, nevertheless, come to the conclusion, that the proposal on this subject was of such a nature, that, in their duty to the Irish people, taken as a whole, they could not comply with it. Now, what was this principle thus pressed upon their attention? He had never heard it stated so plainly, so nakedly, so broadly, and he would add, so honestly, as by the hon. Gentleman that night: it was neither more nor less than that, in providing for the destitution of Ireland, they should deal, not with communities, but with particular properties. That was the question, though it had never before been so nakedly explained. It was in a very different shape; it had been urged by the Agricultural Society when applied in the controversy on the Labour-rate Bill. It was then said—
When we ask you to adopt the townland division, the principle of individual properties, we admit it is not fair for the proprietor to say he will take care of his own poor, and will not look over the hedge to see what is being done by his neighbour; we are willing that the assessment should be levied so as to affect all the property in the electoral district for the support of the poor; we are willing to expend that money in providing for the destitute on our own estates, and even beyond the limits of our own estates; but we ask, when we have done this, that we shall be allowed to employ the people on our own estates, and that we shall not then be subject to any further taxation.He thought there were very great objections to any such arrangement. He would not now repeat all the arguments he had used on the former occasion, because the case was not now entirely before the 907 House; but it was clear that the hon. Gentleman asked neither more nor less than as had been stated. The hon. Gentleman objected to the electoral districts as the unit of taxation. Now, he would tell the House what an electoral district was. There were 2,050 electoral districts in Ireland, each from 10,000 to 15,000 as an average of acreage. This was not an enormous tract of country; it was a district in which it was reasonable to expect that the proprietors would act together for the public good. But still the hon. Gentleman objected to the system: he wanted the Government to go further—to go down to the townlands; there being 60,000 townlands, and in almost every instance coterminous with private property. The hon. Gentleman wanted them to deal with individual proprietors in their individual capacity; he desired they would not deal with the community. That, however, was a principle in which they could not safely acquiesce; it was dangerous, and it might often prove unjust. The hon. Gentleman asked if they would deprive proprietors in Ireland of all motive to take care of the condition of, and to employ their own people resident on, their own properties, by swamping them with an immense mass of destitution from the surrounding district? His (Mr. Labouchere's) belief was, that in this question a medium must be aimed at, and that the extreme of either principle was decidedly mischievous. He thought it wrong, in making divisions, to make them so large or so extensive as to deprive the proprietors of any district of all motive to interest themselves in the welfare of the surrounding poor. He considered that it was an excellent provision in the poor law which gave encouragement to landowners to employ the poor in their neighbourhood. This he fully admitted; but it was quite another thing to restrict the principle so far as to throw upon each individual proprietor the charge of taking care of the resident poor on his own property, and not to insist upon his combining with persons in his neighbourhood in the responsibility of relieving the destitute of his district. He looked upon that as an inadmissible principle; it was not, so far as he knew, admitted into the poor law of any country in the world; it was not the principle applied to an English proprietor in an English parish. The English proprietor was not permitted to say that if he employed the poor in one form, he was not to employ them in another. They told the 908 English proprietor that he was bound to take care of the poor of the parish in which he lived. They told the different proprietors of a district that they must concert and combine and co-operate in this object; and they forbade him to deal alone in his individual capacity. He believed, without wishing to say it in an invidious sense, that it was a principle not built upon anything applicable to the present day. It applied to a state of serfdom; it was founded on the feudal principle. The noble Lord opposite, the Member for Newark, cheered that sentiment, and he (Mr. Labouchere) knew that the noble Lord liked the proposal of the hon. Gentleman all the better for being based on the feudal principle; but to him it was a great objection that it was a feudal principle, and that it was not at all applicable to the condition of England and Ireland in 1847. He had stated that he had an objection to the principle of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but, even if the principle were conceded, he held that it would be found quite impracticable in detail. He believed that if they had subdivisions of 60,000 townlands all over the country, with separate machinery at work, and separate officers to carry out the objects of this Bill—or even if they had only one-half or one-fourth of that number of townlands, it would be utterly impracticable to carry it out. But he would not go into that, as his objection was to the principle of the Motion. He ought to say here, that he thought the proposed measure would operate most unjustly in many cases. Take the case of a great proprietor who had a large property on which there was scarcely any population at all: because such a man undertook to support his own poor—though scarcely a single individual lived on his estate—was he not to be called upon to aid in supporting the poor creatures who lived upon an estate adjoining? Such a thing was perfectly inadmissible, and he believed would not be listened to for a moment in that House. But there were other reasons, peculiar to Ireland, why the proposal of the hon. Member would work most unjustly. He thought every encouragement should be given to improving landlords; he thought the man who improved his property and gave employment to the people was a benefactor to his country, and ought to be encouraged; but there were cases in Ireland where men had improved their estates, but who nevertheless turned off and manifested no concern as to what became of 909 the people who had lived upon those estates. Now, he thought it would be a monstrous injustice if persons who so acted should profit by such a scheme as that of the hon. Gentleman; while those who, on neighbouring estates, from motives of humanity, had allowed their people to remain, should be burdened with the support of those thus left upon their hands. He must also say that the plan of the hon. Gentleman was altogether inapplicable to the case of towns. The minute subdivision of the country which he proposed, would throw an intolerable burden of taxation on many of the towns, and large villages even, in many parts of Ireland. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, that if he had come to this conclusion with regard to his plan, it was not without serious consideration, or without having availed himself of every opportunity, while in Ireland, of communicating with parties most interested in the subject. And he must say that, considering the way in which the population of Ireland was at present constituted—how the people were, in particular places, huddled together—considering the mischievous manner in which the population was, from particular causes, distributed at the present moment, he was convinced that such a course as this — that each townland, or each collection of a few townlands, should support its own people, and not be called upon to contribute to any larger division—would have the effect of exempting many who ought to bear the expense from the burden of maintaining the people; while, on the other hand, a crushing weight of taxation would be thrown upon particular townlands in many parts of the country. [Mr. S. O'BRIEN was here understood to say that he did not mean to make townlands the principle of division in all cases, but that he considered the electoral divisions too large.] He understood the hon. Gentleman to plead for the principle of townlands—for the principle of dealing, not with communities, but with the property of individuals; and he repeated that he did not think such a principle applicable to Ireland at the present day. He thought the hon. Gentleman very much underrated an advantage derived from managing these matters in local districts—he meant the advantage of co-operation in those districts. He knew that the hon. Gentleman had great experience on this part of the subject. He had exerted himself with most praiseworthy activity in the district in which he lived as a member of the local 910 committee; and he feared that the hon. Gentleman had not met with the support and co-operation which he ought to have done. But in Ireland, generally, there had of late resulted the best effects from the combination of all classes which had taken place for the purpose of giving relief to the people. They had met in the relief committees and in sessions who had never met before. The Protestant and Catholic clergyman, the landlord, the tenant, the cess-payer—men of different creeds and different politics, were forced together by the pressure of circumstances, and learned to act together, to know one another, to understand one another, and to appreciate one another. The system which had been pursued promised to confer the most lasting advantages upon Ireland; and he should therefore regret to see it in any degree stopped, or that any course should be adopted to discourage it. He thought that in asking the people of Ireland to meet in the electoral districts, they were conferring great advantages upon themselves, while they were thus enabled to give their support to Parliament, and to render material assistance to Government, in the great work they had to perform; a work which, they would readily believe him when he said it, required the co-operation of all classes of the community. Now, he thought the principle of the hon. Gentleman would put a stop to all this; and therefore for that, and other reasons, he considered it his duty to oppose it. He had made these observations with reference to the Bill before the House; and he would not be tempted to enter upon the question, whether the system of electoral divisions or the system of unions, as applied to rating, would be best under the poor-law relief measure. That was not the question before them; but, when it did come under their notice, he hoped it would receive from the House a careful and dispassionate consideration. Of course, Her Majesty's Government would approach it with a full sense of its importance, and with an earnest wish to take that course which they considered would be most for the advantage of Ireland. The question before them at present, was not whether they would make the electoral districts smaller or larger; but it was, whether they should desert the principle of dealing with communities, and go down to the principle of dealing with individual properties. To that he was decidedly opposed. He had come to the conclusion that they could not 911 justly or safely accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; and he hoped the House would not give that proposal their sanction.
§ MR. M. O'FERRALLexpressed a hope that Government would not oppose this proposal when the Poor Belief Bill came to be discussed; and, in that case, he would suggest that the House should waive all discussion of the subject for the present.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwould deline giving any pledge on the subject.
§ SIR H. W. BARRONregretted exceedingly the tone adopted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) on the present occasion. Nine-tenths of the experienced men in that part of Ireland in which he resided, said that the electoral division was much too large, and was exceedingly dangerous to the rights of property; and that it did not stimulate the landlords sufficiently to watch their own interests or the interests of those located on their property. If they extended the poor law in Ireland, and did not at the same time contract the territorial responsibility, they would commit an enormous and incalculable mischief on the landed proprietors in that country. It was quite a mistake of his right hon. Friend below him to say that the principle propounded by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire would require new machinery. What the landed proprietors required at present was, some measure which would have the effect of stimulating them to employ their tenants in the improvement of their property. Let them narrow the responsibility, and bring home to each landlord, in the plain manner pointed out by the hon. Member, the duties which he was required to perform towards his tenantry and the poor around him. They must be told that they would be required to employ their poor in useful works on their own property, or feed them in the poorhouse. Was it not plain that every landlord, no matter how negligent, no matter how ignorant, or how unwilling he might be to employ the people around him, would, as a matter of necessity and self-defence, say, "Why, I would rather, of course, have some labour, some productive work from the men that I am obliged to support, than be compelled to feed them in idleness in the workhouse." He thought, therefore, that the deduction was clear, that the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire would have the effect of stimulating the landlords, as a matter of necessity, to employ the poor in the improve- 912 ment of their own estates. The great argument, in fact the only tangible argument, that had been brought forward against the principle of the hon. Gentleman, that he could understand, was, that it would have a tendency in stimulating landlords to clear their estates; but he was surprised that it did not strike his right hon. Friend that against such a procedure there would be a complete remedy; and it was this: the landlord would be bound for three or five years (the number of years was of no great interest) to employ or support the parties whom he might have ejected; that was to say, if they should happen to apply to the union workhouse. It would be, of course, left to the board of guardians to decide whether applicants for relief had been ejected from estates in the townlands where they applied for support. That, in his opinion, was a complete answer to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the principle proposed was not in accordance with the custom; but he begged to state most distinctly—and it had been already again and again stated, and could not be too often repeated—that the custom which prevailed on this subject in England, had been handed down from one generation to another. And if that custom had been found to work evil, for Heaven's sake let them not inflict the same principle upon Ireland. It had manifestly worked incalculable mischief for England. The Irish landed proprietors believed that it was their duty to support the poor on their own property. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about theories, but what the hon. Member had laid down were practical measures; and as long as he could meet with such measures he would throw theories to the wind. Let them make every landlord accountable for the pauperism which, by his neglect, by his ignorance, his absenteeism, or bad management, he had brought upon his estate. By so doing they would compel every landlord, in self-defence, to take care of his people, and to manage his property to greater advantage than he did at present. That was plain common sense, and he was surprised that theories had been brought forward as objections to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. But he begged leave to ask whether the poor in England were supported on the electoral division system? He believed that they were not. He believed that the law in England was, that every parish should support its own 913 poor; and if that were the law, let the same be introduced into Ireland, if the plan of the hon. Member were rejected. Let them not be tormented in Ireland with some newfangled system that might be of incalculable mischief to it. A parish in England was, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, only one-fourth the extent of an electoral division in Ireland, and the law in the two kingdoms was, therefore, not analogous. He knew an electoral division in Ireland which extended sixteen miles in one direction, and ten miles in another. Let them make property accountable for the pauperism that was upon it. The Legislature had now a tabula rasa, a blank sheet of paper as it were, for their legislation. If they adopted the system now propounded by the Government, he believed in his conscience that it would amount to a confiscation of the property in Ireland. He implored the Government not to persevere in their present measure. He felt strongly upon, and was perfectly acquainted with, the whole of this matter; he had also had the benefit of the experience of some of the most practical landed proprietors in Ireland; and they believed with him, that unless the Legislature narrowed the responsibilities of property, the greatest mischief would be inflicted upon Ireland—that this measure would, in fact, tend to involve the whole of that country in one common ruin.
§ MR. BELLEWsaid, there was no doubt that this measure would have the effect of confiscating some of the landed estates in Ireland, but he thought that such confiscation would be richly deserved. He would ask whether such confiscation would not also be highly serviceable to the country? Believing that the measure was calculated to administer to the wants of the poor of Ireland and the food of that country, in many respects, he would give it his support.
§ LORD J. MANNERSwished to ask the practical gentlemen of the nineteenth century whether they were prepared to oppose the principles laid down by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, merely because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) said that he had a great objection to anything which related to feudalism? Why, did the right hon. Gentleman ask what was the principle of feudalism, of which he had talked in so strange a manner? His idea of feudalism was, that it involved the performance of mutual duties and respect for mutual rights. He might be right or 914 he might be wrong in his view of the principle of feudalism; but the view which the right hon. Gentleman had taken was totally opposed to the principle that property had its duties. Now he might be wrong, but his first conviction was that the community would best be served when individual rights and individual duties were properly maintained and performed. But, as an English Member, he thought that he might be pardoned if he took a part in the discussion of this question, because the right hon. Gentleman laid down this principle that the duties of the community were to be regarded in the first instance; and in laying down such a principle, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had opened the door which might at no distant period lead him to march on for the increase of the area of local taxation in England. If the right hon. Gentleman meant anything, he meant that the areas for local taxation in England were at present too small; and when he saw that this was an undecided question, he thought that English Gentlemen might be pardoned if they criticised a little the important position taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He thought that they ought to look very carefully into this matter, and he as an English Member would be prepared, whenever this Bill came to be discussed in Committee, to pay the utmost attention to the practical statements of the hon. Member for Kildare, the hon. Member for Waterford, and those other hon. Members who would not, he trusted, be led away, or suffer the House of Commons to be led away, by the expression of opinions upon feudalism or anything else which had really nothing to do with the question at issue.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwas not about to enter into any discussion of this measure at present, although he might say that he believed that if the plan of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire were carried out, it would lead to a national rate. He thought that the hon. Gentleman had been misrepresented in the course of this debate. He did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he recommended the townland division, but that the proposed division was too large. His (Mr. Osborne's) immediate object in rising was to warn the Government of the necessity of narrowing the bounds of the responsibility of landlords in Ireland with regard to the relief of the poor. He gave the Government every credit for kind and good intentions, and 915 thought that, except the poor people who were starving, no body of men were more to be pitied than the Government. However, he must, in justice to his own conviction, say that he believed this Bill would prove a complete failure. There would be two systems going on at the same time if it were adopted—the Labour-rate Act and the Act for the Temporary Relief of the Destitute. Thus there would be two continuous drains from this country, which he, for one, was anxious to avoid. It was estimated that 500,000 of the population were employed upon the roads; and the object of the present Bill was to turn the surplus labour towards agricultural pursuits. Now, let them just see what an expense the maintenance of those 500,000 involved. There were five in each family, or, in all, 2,500,000. The lowest estimate for the support of each was a bowl of soup, which cost one penny. Now, even this scanty maintenance cost more than 70,000l. per week, or something above 3,000,000l. per year. The Government said they had given attention to all these things, and that their anxiety was to promote the cultivation of the country. But men fed upon this soup were not able to work as men ought to work on the farms. Medical men said it was a great mistake to suppose that the human frame could endure much labour upon such diet. Supplies of meat were exceedingly scanty, and in many of the workhouses deficient. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had stated on a former occasion that there were 1,500,000 acres of potatoes planted, and that the value was 10l. per acre, making a total value of 15,000,000l. Three-fourths of the ordinary crop was lost, amounting to 11,250,000l. And the right hon. Gentleman continued to observe, that of 4,000,000 of acres of oats annually cultivated, the value of which was 14,000,000l., a loss of one-third had been sustained, or about 4,600,000l. Thus, by the failure in the crop of potatoes and oats, a total loss of 15,916,000l. had been incurred. The total loss in weight was calculated at 11,250,000 tons of potatoes, and 2,270,000 quarters of oats. He believed these estimates were accurate, and that if there was a failure in cultivation there would be a want of double the present deficiency, or somewhere about 30,000,000l. sterling. He must enter his protest against this Bill for the temporary relief of the destitute, because he thought it would not accomplish the object the Government had in view.
§ VISCOUNT BERNARDwas of opinion that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible, so that it might come into operation at the earliest possible day.
§ House in Committee.
§ On Clause 1 being proposed,
§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHobjected to the appointment of the inspectors under the relief commissioners being in the hands of those commissioners, and proposed an Amendment giving the appointment to the Lord Lieutenant.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that great responsibility was entrusted to the relief commissioners, and it was but fair that the selection of those agents should be vested in them.
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSobjected to the constitution of the commission altogether. If the Bill was to be properly carried out, let commissioners be appointed who had time to fulfil their duties, and he thought the official persons to be appointed had already plenty to do.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREadmitted that a great stress of business fell upon these gentlemen; but, at the same time, Sir John Burgoyne, Sir Randolph Routh, and Colonel Macgregor were in a position to render most efficient service, with occasional assistance from departments. The board was constituted in the manner in which it was thought it would work most effectively.
§ MR. B. OSBORNEcontended that it would be impossible for Sir J. Burgoyne and Sir Randolph Routh to get through the duties the Bill imposed upon them, and argued that the business ought to be done by the local boards.
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSthought that this part of the Bill ought to be made part and parcel of the poor law, and the duties given to those who would act as Poor Law Commissioners.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ On the 3rd Clause,
MR. S. O'BRIENmoved an Amendment to the effect, that all magistrates having property in the electoral division (as well as resident magistrates), all subscribers of 20l., and clergymen of all religious denominations, be members of the various relief committees.
§ MR. F. FRENCHobjected to this proposal. The clause as it stood, secured the proper administration of the law.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwas decidedly of opinion that clergymen of all denominations ought, ex officio, to be mem- 917 bers of the committees. The relief committees which had heretofore been in existence, would never have been able to get on had it not been for the individual services of the clergy, both Catholic and Protestant. They hindered jobbing, and in all respects rendered most essential service. Were it not for the Catholic priests, no business at all would have been done. Votes of thanks had been passed to ladies and others; but certainly sufficient compliment had not been paid to the united efforts of the clergy, Protestant as well as Catholic. One clergyman of each denomination, at the least, ought to be on every committee.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the constitution of the committees was vested in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, who was, no doubt, deeply sensible of the value of the co-operation of the clergy, and would take care practically to testify his appreciation, for he had the discretion of appointing whomsoever he pleased. The third clause merely specified the persons who were to be members as of right.
§ COLONEL CONOLLYwas in favour of making all magistrates members of the committees, who had property in the electoral division. If the rule were to be restricted merely to resident magistrates, he should himself be cut out of five electoral divisions in which his estates were situated.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLthought that the clergy of all denominations ought of necessity to be members of the relief committees. They had rendered most invaluable services already, of which he could speak both from his personal experience and from the testimony of every gentleman who had been connected with them.
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSwas also in favour of the appointment of the clergy; and he particularly objected to the matter being left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, who merely spoke as Sir Randolph Routh or Mr. Redington directed him.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, if it were a question of paying a compliment to the valuable services of the clergy—services which he knew to have been most efficient—he should be most desirous of doing it. But he did not think that was now in dispute; and he agreed that it would be much better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. The committees being intended to check the existence of gross abuses, it was desirable that they 918 should not be too extensive, for if forty or fifty members were appointed on one committee, it would be apt, especially with such an eloquent people as the Irish, to degenerate into a debating club.
§ MR. SHAWthought the proviso either went too far in defining the persons who were to be ex-officio members of the relief committees, or not far enough. First, as regarded the justices, it should be not only the justices resident in the electoral divisions, but also those having rateable property in the electoral divisions. Secondly, as regarded the clergy, whom his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick proposed should be ex-officio members, he (Mr. Shaw) thought it very desirable that there should be at least one clergyman of each denomination; but if, instead of specifying any ex-officio members, the Government preferred that the whole should be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, he (Mr. Shaw) would not object to the proviso being omitted altogether. In reference to an observation of the noble Lord near him, the Member for Leitrim (Lord Clements), that a Lord Lieutenant was nobody, and you never could fix him with any responsibility, he (Mr. Shaw) must, in justice say, that the present Lord Lieutenant was no nonentity, or mere pageant, for, if there ever was a Lord Lieutenant, in reality as well as in name, who did his own business, and shrunk from no responsibility which that involved, it was the present Irish Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREobjected to leaving in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant such a wide discretion as to place in his hands the appointment of all the members who were to distribute the funds of the ratepayers. He was certain that no slight was intended to be cast upon the clergy by the omission of their names in the Bill; but a clear distinction was made in it, by placing in the Bill the names of those only who now had a constitutional right to distribute the funds, and they ought not to go any farther. He had no doubt whatever that the Lord Lieutenant would do this year what he had done last, place on the committees the clergy of all denominations.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENwithdrew his Amendment relating to the justices of the peace; but said he would persevere in the Amendment, that the clergy of all denominations officiating in such electoral divisions should be members of the relief committee.
§ The Committee divided on the Question, that the words proposed be inserted:—Ayes 32; Noes 128: Majority 96.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Acton, Col. | Kelly, J. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Lawless, hon. C. |
| Archbold, R. | Martin, T. B. |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Miles, W. |
| Norreys, Sir D. J. | |
| Barron, Sir H. W. | O'Brien, C. |
| Bellew, R. M. | O'Brien, T. |
| Chapman, B. | O'Connell, Dan. jun. |
| Cole, hon. H. A. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Conolly, Col. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Corbally, M. E. | Osborne, R. |
| Dawson, hon. T. V. | Rice, E. R. |
| Grattan, H. | Shaw, rt. hon. F. |
| Grogan, E. | Smithwith, R. |
| Hamilton, J. H. | Somers, J. P. |
| Hamilton, G. A. | TELLERS. |
| Harris, hon. Capt. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | O'Connell, J. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aldam, W. | Forster, M. |
| Allix, J. P. | French, F. |
| Arkwright, G. | Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. |
| Baillie, Col. | Godson, R. |
| Baine, W. | Gore, hon. R. |
| Barclay, D. | Goulburn, rt. hon. H. |
| Barkly, H. | Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Harcourt, G. G. |
| Bateson, T. | Hastie, A. |
| Berkeley, hon. Capt. | Hatton, Capt. V. |
| Berkeley, hon. H. F. | Hawes, B. |
| Bernard, Visct. | Hay, Sir A. L. |
| Blackburne, J. I. | Heathcoat, J. |
| Blake, M. J. | Henley, J. W. |
| Bodkin, J. J. | Hope, Sir J. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Howard, hon. C. W. G. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Howard, hon. E. G. G. |
| Brotherton, J. | Hume, J. |
| Brown, W. | Hutt, W. |
| Buck, L. W. | James, W. |
| Buller, E. | Jervis, Sir J. |
| Bunbury, W. M'C. | Labouchere, rt. hon. H. |
| Clay, Sir W. | Lambton, H. |
| Clements, Visct. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Lockhart, A. E. |
| Collett, J. | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Coote, Sir C. H. | Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. |
| Corry, rt. hon. H. | Mackenzie, W. F. |
| Courtenay, Lord | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Cowper, hon. W. F. | Maitland, T. |
| Craig, W. G. | Mangles, R. D. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Manners, Lord J. |
| Damer, hon. Col. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Deedes, W. | Morpeth, Visct. |
| Denison, J. E. | Morris, D. |
| Dickinson, F. H. | Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. |
| Duncan, Visct. | Mure, Col. |
| Duncan, G. | Napier, Sir C. |
| Dundas, F. | Newdegate, C. N. |
| Dundas, D. | O'Brien, A. S. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | O'Conor Don |
| Egerton, Sir P. | Ord, W. |
| Escott, B. | Parker, J. |
| Evans, W. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Power, J. |
| Finch, G. | Protheroe, E. D. |
| Pulsford, R. | Vane, Lord H. |
| Rawdon, Col. | Verner, Sir W. |
| Reid, Col. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Repton, G. W. J. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Rich, H. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Roebuck, J. E. | Walker, R. |
| Ross, D. R. | Warburton, H. |
| Rutherfurd, A. | Ward, H. G. |
| Scrope, G. P. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Seymour, Lord | Williams, W. |
| Sheridan, R. B. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Somerville, Sir W. M. | Wood, Col. T. |
| Spooner, R. | Wyse, T. |
| Stansfield, W. R. C. | Yorke, H. R. |
| Stewart, J. | Young, J. |
| Taylor, E. | |
| Thornely, T. | TELLERS. |
| Troubridge, Sir E. T. | Tufnell, H. |
| Turner, E. | Hill, Lord Marcus |
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 7,
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSbegged to call attention to Clause 18, which must be read together with the 7th. He had no doubt that this Bill would pass nearly in its present form; but he, nevertheless, felt it his duty to point out the dangers which they incurred in passing it. As he had already stated on a former occasion, the ill effects of the Labour-rate Act had arisen from the neglect of the Government to define who were to be relieved and who not. The same defect appeared in this Bill; as it stood, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland might himself go and receive relief. The effect of this Bill would be to cause a scramble for relief; and the farmers would receive relief to the exclusion of the poor man. There were many more difficulties in the Bill than the Government expected. In his own parish, there was not a single individual capable of keeping the accounts of the soup required to be kept by this Bill; and unless the Government reconsidered this clause and the 18th, they would find the difficulties insurmountable. If the commissioners were the most honest and the most clever, as well as the firmest, men, they would be unable to resist the pressure which would be made upon them. Under the Labour-rate Act, the Government had adopted as a test a rating to the amount of 6l., which any person who was acquainted with Ireland must know to be absurd. The duty of the Government was, in the first place, to define who were to receive relief; some rating test must be laid down, and he would humbly suggest a 4l. rating as the pivot. No person rated to that amount should by the Bill be allowed to receive relief under it.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the 921 question raised by his noble Friend on this clause was, whether the distribution of relief should be left to the committees, or whether the Bill should give an exact definition of the persons to be relieved; and it would be, in his opinion, extremely unwise in the House to lay down any such definition. It would, he believed, be impossible to do so without the greatest mischief; and he thought that it would be much better to leave it to the discretion of the commissioners. He acknowledged that under the Labour-rate Act shameful abuses had been practised, and that in too many instances the relief had been given to those who were able to procure subsistence for themselves, and so far, therefore, to the exclusion of the really destitute. He was not sanguine enough to hope that under the present Act all abuses of that kind would be avoided; but Government had framed the Bill with the greatest consideration; and unless they were assisted by those who had local knowledge and influence, let them do what they might, let them employ what staff of officers they would, he was afraid they would not succeed. He would say, however, that obviously there was not the same temptation to abuse when the relief was given in food; and he did hope that the Government would receive the cordial support of the local committees. His noble Friend had said, that it should be an invariable rule to give no relief to the persons rated to the poor rate to the amount of 4l.; but he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that in some districts, if any such strict rule were laid down, many persons so rated might perish from starvation. It was true, as had been noticed by the noble Lord, that as a general, though not an universal rule, under the Labour-rate Act, they had adopted a 6l. rating test; but he knew, from his own experience, that even that test, if adopted as an universal rule, would have left many really destitute persons without relief. He therefore objected to any such definition as the noble Lord desired.
§ MR. F. FRENCHcould, from his own experience, confirm the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland as to the 4l. test.
§ MR. BELLEWsaid, that it was not, in his opinion, desirable to establish any definite line, beyond which no relief should be given. As to the Bill in general, he thought it would have been better not to have had any such temporary measure, but to have relied upon the permanent 922 poor law, because, at the expiration of the period for which the measure was to last, there must be an interregnum, during which there would be a strong necessity for some similar measure.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 8,
§ COLONEL CONOLLYthought it very hard that the guardians should be required to find money which notoriously they had not received. He had received a letter from a guardian in Ireland, stating that they could not collect the rates; and he thought it a very unjust thing to make the guardians, under another Act, responsible for the rates which they could not collect.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that this was a money question, and could assure the House that not one farthing of these rates could be collected—not until after next harvest at all events. He begged therefore to suggest to the Government, whether it would not be wise to let the guardians of unions charge interest on money which they advanced.
§ MR. ROEBUCKbegged to ask the hon. Member how they could expect to borrow money, when they were told that not one farthing of these rates would be levied. That was a statement which he had made on a former occasion, and not a single Member from Ireland had omitted to abuse him for making it. Shortly, the House would have another clause to consider, which pledged the money of this country upon the faith of these rates, that would never be collected. He had before warned the Government and the country that the money so advanced could not be repaid; and when he made that statement, the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Rawdon) said that it was a direct attack upon the honour of Ireland. When these matters came out, they were of great interest to the people of this country. Let them not be persuaded by one set of Irish Gentlemen that they were lending money which the high honour of these Gentlemen would compel them to pay; and by another class of Irish Members, quite as honest, but rather more plain-spoken, that they were quite willing to receive the money, but that they never intended to repay it. He had one other remark to make, in reference to one observation of the noble Lord opposite, which was this, that this money, like that already expended, would be expended, not on the suffering poor, but that all the charity of England would 923 go to minister to the grasping desire of those who were trading on the miseries of their fellow-countrymen. Such was the statement of the noble Lord in substance, though, perhaps, not expressed in language so strong; so that they had these two clear propositions, that the money advanced by this country would be spent, not only uselessly, but corruptly; and that the money of his honest and industrious fellow-countrymen was not on any occasion to be returned to that Exchequer from which, under false pretences, it had been withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT CLEMENTSadmitted that the statement of the hon. and learned Member was in the main correct. He (Lord Clements) asserted most positively that the money had been mis-spent, to the knowledge of the Government; that the farmers had received the relief, and the poor man had been defrauded. In the poor-law union of which he was himself one of the board of guardians, the board had been obliged to levy a new rate before they had succeeded in collecting the old. In fact, there was 1,000l. of the old rate due at the time. With respect to the present measure, he could assure the House that his solemn conviction was, that in the main it would be impossible to collect the rates till the next harvest, if it would be practicable even then. He was quite aware that what he was saying would prove unpleasant to many Members, but a sense of duty compelled him to say that the consequences of the calamity were only beginning to be felt. His conviction was, that there would be no crops next year; he held it to be physically impossible that one half of the land could be cropped, and for this simple reason, that no manure had been collected. The land was exhausted, and even the burning system had failed. The people were altogether broken down, and he had himself presented a petition to that House, signed by 2,000 poor people, praying to be enabled to emigrate as a dernier ressort.
§ MR. ROSSthought that the hon. Member for Bath had misunderstood the remarks made by Gentlemen opposite as to the non-payment of rates. These Gentlemen did not mean to assert that that portion which fell upon the landlords would not be paid. He emphatically denied the imputation which had been made, that hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland came before the House to solicit assistance to save them from ruin. He would like to 924 see the man who would attempt to prove that because Irish Members supported measures calculated to give employment to their starving countrymen, through the instrumentality of pecuniary advances, they were actuated by mercenary motives. For himself, he lived in a part of the country where no human being was in danger of perishing from want of food; but this did not make him the less anxious to assist in procuring relief for less favoured districts. With respect to the landlords, he did not know so much about those of the south as he did about those of the north; but of the latter he could say that many of them were an honour and credit to the class to which they belonged.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENwas surprised at the ignorance which had been displayed on the part of some Members of the Government as to the relative circumstances of occupying tenants in Ireland. Why, many of those persons whose holdings were rated above 4l. were neither paying their rents nor cultivating their lands. He was convinced that in many parts of the country, he would not say in all parts, it would be next to impossible to collect rates at all, with the exception of what was payable by the higher classes. Members connected with Ireland had distinctly told the House that much of the money about to be advanced could not be repaid, and that in many cases the assistance which was intended to be rendered to the poor would be diverted into other channels. With regard to the manner in which the public money granted for the relief of the distressed people had been expended, there had been much cause for well-grounded complaint. A system of intimidation had prevailed. The farmers who had the management of the affairs had, in some districts placed themselves and their relatives upon the relief works: and the disturbances which had taken place had not been committed by the poor, but by those clamorous persons who had established and acted upon a regular System of intimidation. He recommended the House to leave as little as possible in the power of such persons. Let the difficulties which presented themselves be settled in the House, and be provided for in the Bill before it passed. At least, if it were not done, let no one say they had not been sufficiently forewarned.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the picture which had been laid before the House of the present 925 condition and future prospects of Ireland, afforded little encouragement to the Government to persevere with the present or any other measure. Still it was not till they had taken the whole subject under most painful consideration, that the Government had arrived at the conclusion that the present measure was the best which could be proposed under existing circumstances. As to the abuses which had prevailed under the Labour-rate Act, in some districts the relief committees must bear part of the blame. In Clare, Captain Wynne, the officer employed under the Board of Works, struck off, in two weeks, from the list of persons employed on the public works, no fewer than 6,000 names. He was not sanguine enough to believe that all fraud or abuse had been effectually guarded against; but it was believed that the best check which could exist was the one adopted—that of placing the working of the measure in the hands of those who had to bear the expense of it. He believed in some parts it would be next to impossible that the rates could be collected; but the portion due by the landlords would be realized, and he had no doubt that a considerable portion of what was payable by the tenants would also be paid. Nothing was so false as to say that an indisposition to fulfil pecuniary engagements prevailed throughout Ireland. He believed, that in many instances where rates had not been collected, the fault lay with the parties whose business it was to make the collection. Under the present Bill, more summary power was given to enforce payment than previously existed. The hon. Member for Donegal had stated, that in requiring the guardians to collect the rates under the Bill, the Government were asking them to perform a duty which they were not called upon to perform. This was a mistake. The guardians were bound to collect all rates for the benefit of the poor, and this would include the rates imposed under the present Bill. In the case of the Castlebar union the parties in arrear were not the poorer ratepayers, but large holders of land; and the fault of allowing the arrears was attributable to the guardians. To guard, however, against the imperfect performance of duty by such parties, the Bill now submitted contained a provision for superseding them, and appointing a paid board. He thought, that, although the probability of repayment was to some extent doubtful, still it was the duty of the Government to persevere in its 926 efforts to afford relief to the starving population. Such was the object of the Bill; and he was sure that if an appeal were made to the country, the course pursued by the Government would meet with general approval.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEdid not agree in thinking that the relief afforded under the Labour-rate Act had been abused by the circumstance of the small farmers, or their sons, having availed themselves of its advantages. These persons were driven by distress to the Government works. He hoped that what had occurred in the county of Clare was an exception to what had been generally experienced; he was sure that such was the case at Castlebar. As to the payment of the rate, he had never asserted that non-payment would be universal; he had always excepted that part which was payable by the landlords.
§ MR. C. O'BRIENaccused the persons connected with the Board of Works of unfair dealing and favouritism. The object of these persons, he said, was to keep themselves and their numerous cousins and favourites in employment, no matter whether the works were profitable or not. The people of the county of Clare, who were remarkable for their attachment to the principles of civil and religious liberty, had been represented in the reports of the officers of the Board of Works as savages, and everything that was bad. As to the payment of the rates, he could state, that in the remote district where he had lived for the greater part of his life, and where he had endeavoured to do the utmost good in his power, the rates had been paid. He could state this from personal knowledge; for he was the chairman of the board of guardians. The ratepayers would no doubt have to contend with difficulties between the present time and the next harvest; but abundant security existed that the Government would be paid. He hoped that an official inquiry would be ordered into the allegations made by the persons connected with the Board of Works.
§ MR. P. SCROPEhoped the House would not be led away from the main subject by matters of subsidiary interest. The question for consideration was, first, how were millions to be saved from starvation; and, in the next place, how was the money of the people of England to be protected from being wasted and squandered in jobbing. After the warnings which had been given by the Gentlemen opposite, as to the 927 non-collection of rates, the House would do well to consider how far it would be serviceable to place a larger portion of the rates upon the landlords. That suggestion had been made to him by many of the landlords themselves. If an effort were made to collect the rates from the small occupiers, a recurrence of the scenes which took place in 1834, when the Government was forced to employ horse and foot to assist the civil power in the collection of tithes, might be apprehended. The resistance then offered to the payment of tithes resulted in fixing the burden upon the landlord. He thought it would be well to follow that precedent under present circumstances. Were this course pursued, the landlords would take care that no jobbing occurred.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to explain. In referring to the county of Clare, he had merely spoken of it as an exception to what had occurred generally in Ireland. Let it be remembered, that it was in Clare that the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to issue a letter discontinuing the works, in consequence of the conduct of the people; and also that it was in that county that a murderous attack was made upon a person entrusted with the discharge of a public duty. For the satisfaction of the House, he would read the letter of Captain Wynne, which communicated the fact of his having struck off an immense number of persons from the relief works. In this letter, the Captain stated that he had struck off three thousand persons, and expected to strike off an equal number in the following week. This act had effectually stopped the mouths of thousands of clamorous persons, whose only claim to employment was, that persons employed on the works were as well off as they themselves were. The disbanding of the persons had led to their departure, and the departure of the other candidates to their farms. These were matters of fact which could not be controverted.
§ MR. C. O'BRIENrepeated his charge against Captain Wynne and the other officers of the Board of Works, and called upon the Government to grant a Committee of Inquiry.
§ MAJOR MACNAMARAremarked, that Captain Wynne had never visited the relief committee, and was not, consequently, conversant with the facts.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLconsidered that the statement which had been made as to the abuses which had existed, were exag- 928 gerated. In regard to the rate, there was, no doubt, great peril that they would not be collected in many parts. But what was then to be done? They could not get money from those who had none; at the same time, he was persuaded that the landlords would pay their share of the rate. For his own part, however, he was of opinion that the Government should resort to a large loan to Ireland, in order to keep the people alive.
§ MR. SMITH O'BRIENsaid, it would be impossible to collect the rates in certain parts of the country; but there were large portions of it in which he was sure there would be a great and honourable disposition to pay them. He would suggest that the Government should, however, give up all idea of collecting rates from the smaller occupiers.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the hon. Member for Clare (Major Macnamara) had complained of the conduct of a public functionary, Captain Wynne; but, in the correspondence which had been laid upon the Table, there was a letter from that gentleman, a passage from which he would read to the House. It was as follows, and was dated Ennis, December 5, 1846:—
I regret to say that matters are not improving with us in this district, nor can I expect them to improve so long as yesterday's scenes continue to be enacted daily.The extraordinary presentment sessions at Ennistimon, held yesterday, were a second edition of those at Corofin. Major Macnamara, M.P., was in the chair, supported by Mr. Cornelius O'Brien, M.P., MR. J. O'Brien, M.P., &c. The two first hours were occupied in attack and defence, without ever once touching upon the business of the day. It was obvious that it was not to transact business they had come there, and the result of course was that nothing was done, and nothing can be done till another extraordinary presentment sessions be called. This must lead to considerable inconvenience, as on many of the works in the barony the funds will be very soon exhausted, and the men will be obliged to go four or five miles to others, for which there remain presentments. All this, together with the evil consequences of leading the people to expect to be turned into their own gardens to till, I explained all to no purpose. I therefore had but one course to pursue, that of protesting against the entire proceedings, in which I was followed by Mr. Hill and Mr. Gamble. I, and the other officers of your board, have strong reasons to complain of the conduct of the two county Members, who appeared to come there for the sole purpose of holding us up, one and all, to the assassin, and hallooing on a mob of the very worst description who were present. Can it be wondered at, that the stewards and overseers will not discharge their duties, and that the men on the works are doing literally nothing but what they please? When I give directions to any of them, they resign, 929 rather than carry those directions into effect; and, I confess, I can scarcely expect any other course from any of them not gifted with strong nerves in the present state of county Clare society.Now this letter should be read by every Gentleman in the House. He would say nothing as to the rights of the case; but he had thought it but fair and proper that that letter should be made known.
§ MR. C. O'BRIENsaid, that nothing that fell from either his hon. Colleague or himself, on the occasion referred to could have led Captain Wynne to write that letter, which, in fact, was written by him with a view to get himself into the favour of the board. The committee over which his Colleague had presided was not at Ennistimon, but at another place; and he must say that it ill became Captain Wynne to talk of his Colleague and himself as he had done; for Captain Wynne had lately had a transaction which ought to have unfitted him for any place of authority. Captain Wynne, however, was absent, and he had no wish to say anything behind his back that he would not say before his face; and he would now only add that, if the House would grant him a Committee, he would undertake to prove before it that what he had said was true.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREregretted the introduction of this personal question; but after what had been said of Captain Wynne, he did feel it to be only due to a public servant, who was absent, to add his testimony to that of his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) to the fact, that it was the opinion of every Member of the Irish Government acquainted with Captain Wynne's conduct in the discharge of his public duty in Clare, that, though many officers of the Board of Works had distinguished themselves by the manner in which they had performed their duties, there was no man whose conduct had been more conspicuous under very difficult circumstances, or who had played a more gallant part than Captain Wynne. He had never seen Captain Wynne in his life, and he only bore this testimony to his public conduct from a sense of justice. He did not enter into the disputes between that gentleman and the hon. Member for Clare; but after what had been said of Captain Wynne, he felt it due to him to say that, in regard to the general scope and tenor of his conduct, the course he had pursued entitled him to the gratitude of that county and of the country, for the manner in which he had secured the public peace. He agreed that 930 there had been many abuses in connexion with the public works; but it was most unjust to argue, from their prevalence in particular cases, that abuses had been the general rule in respect of these works. In many places—as in Wicklow, &c.—the public works had been very well conducted, and the destitute had been employed; whilst those who ought not to be upon the works had been kept off. He did hope that the House would now be permitted to proceed with the Bill before it without further interruption.
§ MR. C. O'BRIENcontended that he had a just right of complaint against Captain Wynne, for printing a letter full of abuse of his Colleague and himself, whilst he suppressed the report in which they were acquitted of what had been laid to their charge.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, that he felt much of the previous discussion to be very degrading to Ireland, and calculated to convey a most unjust impression to the public mind in England, as regarded both the persons to be relieved by the measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and the prospect of repayment of the money to be advanced for that purpose. He did not deny that there had been some abuses and mismanagement under the Labour Act; and, considering that a new machinery had to be, as it were in a moment, applied to the supply of food for millions of persons who had lost their usual means of support, it was not surprising that there should have been some abuses, and some blundering; but it was unreasonable to argue from the abuse of a system against the use of it, and to make the exception as if it were the general rule of the country. There was great confusion in the minds of English Gentlemen as to the term "farmers" in Ireland; for when it was said that there were numbers of farmers getting employment on the public works in Ireland, what kind of farmers were they? Why, unfortunate holders of two or three acres of ground, who had lost in their potato crop their whole winter's supply of food, and who, with their families, must inevitably have starved if they did not by some means earn wages as labourers. He (Mr. Shaw) would not for a moment defend the abuse of a substantial farmer, or his family, being so employed; but he did not believe there was a more destitute class in all Ireland than that of the so-called farmers, whose case he had been describing. The noble Lord (Lord Clements) 931 spoke of perhaps the most distressed county in Ireland, the county of Leitrim. A gentleman possessing property there had told him (Mr. Shaw) within the last two days, that finding his local agent was unable to collect any rent, he had sent a very active and intelligent agent from another part of Ireland to report to him upon the case. That agent assured him, that where 700l. should have been collected in the ordinary course, he could get but 5l.; that he had visited the house of every tenant; that there was in them scarcely an article of furniture, or a morsel of food; and that, so far from asking them for money, it would be absolutely necessary to give them, not only seed to sow their land, but food to prevent their families from starving. Such persons must be relieved, and, no doubt, could not for the present pay either rents or rates; but still, he hoped and believed, that in the greater part of Ireland the rates could be levied; and sure he was, that no party of men ever made greater exertions or sacrifices than the abused and maligned landlords of Ireland were doing at the present time to alleviate the distress that surrounded them. They were ready to meet the call that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government had so frequently made upon them that night, cordially to co-operate in carrying out the remedial measures that might be passed by that House; and they would be no parties to any fraud upon the public treasury. For his own part, he (Mr. Shaw) deeply regretted that there had been a necessity for any appeal to the charity or generosity of England; he had at one time hoped and expected that Ireland, by a great and independent effort, could have righted herself; but a vast calamity had overtaken them, for which they were not answerable. It was a national calamity; and it was not unjust to England, or degrading to Ireland, that it should be met by the national resources.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ On Clause 12 being proposed,
§ MR. ROEBUCKmoved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion agreed to, and Committee to sit again.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.