§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government adhere to their determination not to take any special steps to remedy the destitution prevailing in Ennis and other parts of Ireland? The hon. Member said he addressed a question on the same subject to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 17th of April last, and he was then 198 told that the Government would do nothing beyond the ordinary administration of the Poor Law. A very unfavourable impression had been created by the course the Government had adopted. A memorial had been presented from Belmullet to the Government, stating that, of a population of 20,000 people, one-half were in a destitute condition; that hundreds were deserting their homes, and fleeing to other shores to escape the horrors of impending famine; and that thousands could not emigrate, and were therefore compelled either to seek refuge in a workhouse or perish by famine. The prayer of that memorial was supported by clergymen of all denominations. The Government, however, had done nothing. The subject was noticed in the foreign journals and in America. A newspaper published at Turin contained an article, in which the writer said:—
The British Government do not seem to trouble themselves about this Irish famine; they neither make efforts to check the emigration to America nor attempt to provide for the grievous necessities of the Irish people. They show great affection for our nationality, but wish that the Irish should be borne down in slavery, without being able to raise their heads.Of course it was exaggerated language, but it was the language of a Sardinian journal, which had eulogized the noble Lord for his sympathy in the Italian cause. In a French journal the writer said:—Let France send forth an offering worthy of that great nation. The French Government might throw into the balance its powerful authority and interfere in favour of Ireland. It would be a noble action indeed, and as serviceable to humanity as to that country.No doubt he should receive the same answer from the right hon. Gentleman as he did in April, that the Poor Law Commissioners had power to provide for the relief of the poor in those districts, and must insist on the people filling the workhouses before granting other relief. But it was well known that the peasantry of Ireland would perish of starvation rather than give up their cabins and little pieces of land and enter the workhouse. The total failure of the Poor Law system in an emergency like this had been amply proved, and to the mode of its administration he attributed the extraordinary tide of emigration from Ireland to the United States. When there was great distress in the village of Inniskeagh the Poor Law Inspector, after visiting the place, recommended the employment of 199 the people on public works proposed by the grand jury of the county, but was reproved by the Commissioners, who told him he must regard the case of the inhabitants in reference to Poor Law relief alone. It seemed harsh on the part of the Commissioners; but they knew that under the Act they had no power to give out-door relief to able-bodied persons while there was room for them in the workhouse. This destitution was going on increasing every day, and he therefore respectfully asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not take some steps to relieve it.
§ MR. CARDWELL, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, said it was quite true that eleven persons were under arrest at Dundalk on a charge of Ribbonism—an association which it was the duty of every Government to put down by all the means at their command. In the case at Belfast, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, while the right hon. Gentleman was Attorney General, the parties were put upon their trial twice, and on both occasions the jury disagreed and no verdict was obtained. On the third occasion the parties pleaded guilty, on the understanding, sanctioned by the Judge, Mr. Justice Christian, that they should be released on their recognizances. That was done when Mr. FitzGerald was Attorney General, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite disapproved of that course, he ought to have questioned it when Mr. FitzGerald was a Member of that House. With regard to the sergeant who the right hon. Gentleman had allowed to slip through his fingers, the information which the right hon. Gentleman had received was due to the imagination of his informant.
§ MR. WHITESIDEThe statement I received was from the police.
§ MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Government had never heard of the sergeant since he succeeded in slipping through the fingers of the right hon. Gentleman, and there was no truth whatever in the statement that he had been restored to his regiment, and was now receiving the pay of the Queen. With regard to the prosecution which had taken place in the south of Ireland, the same course had been followed as in Belfast, and with the approbation of the Judge, Mr. Justice Keogh. The parties pleaded guilty and were released upon their recognizances, with the exception of one, Daniel Sullivan, who had been convicted by the jury; as, however, his 200 case was precisely similar to the others, on consultation with Baron Greene who tried him, he also was released upon his recognizances; and since then his case had been represented to the Lord Lieutenant, who had granted him a pardon. With regard to Martin Farrell, who was tried in Westmeath, the learned Judge, Chief Justice Monaghan, was consulted, and the result was not favourable, as the antecedents of the prisoner were objectionable, and the prisoner was now undergoing his sentence. With regard to Ribbonism, it was a most nefarious system, and he was happy to say it was gradually but steadily diminishing throughout Ireland, and it was honestly discouraged by the clergy of all the churches in Ireland. He did not hesitate to express his confident belief that its progress towards diminution would be rapid as well as steady.
In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for the King's County in reference to the distress in Mayo, in the first place he must demur to the hon. Gentleman founding his information from Turin newspapers and extracts from French journals—which had the hon. Member been longer in the House he would not have read. He was sorry to say that extreme distress existed in the district of Erris. This had arisen from various causes. The storms in the autum had destroyed the oat crop; in the winter there had been a serious failure in the potato crop, and there had been an extraordinary failure in the fisheries. All this was followed by a further calamity, an extraordinary drought that deprived their cattle of the pasture on which they placed their entire dependence in the spring. It unfortunately happened, too, that the farmers had considerably increased their stocks of cattle, relying upon their finding provender on the mountains. From all those four causes combined very great distress was caused. The hon. Gentleman must not suppose for a moment that it was the intention of the Government to break down those laws which Parliament had provided for the relief of the necessities of the people under circumstances such as those of the present case. In the workhouse of Belmullet there was accommodation for 600 paupers, but the maximum number relieved had been 125; and the latest number which had reached him was 116, being however, more than double the number of the inmates last year. The guardians, with the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners, had determined not 201 to raise additional rates at present, but to incur a small debt for their supplies; and the supplemental rates raised in five of the electoral divisions varied from 9d. to 1s. 4d. in the pound. The arrangements for affording relief were reported to be quite satisfactory, and no person requiring assistance was refused. The persons who had really suffered the greatest distress were the small farmers of the district. But how would the hon. Gentleman propose that the Government should act with respect to them? He had found fault with a letter written by the Poor Law Commissioners to one of their Inspectors, who had taken on himself to travel into the province of public works instead of confining his efforts to the department of poor relief. The Commissioners not unnaturally thought the most satisfactory way of discharging public duties was, for each person to mind his own business. The hon. Member for the King's County wished the Government to engage in a system of public works; but there was no necessity for doing so. He was informed that the landed proprietors had not been inattentive to their duties, that considerable activity was displayed upon some of the estates, and it was reported to him that there an air of "cheerfulness and ease" prevailed. Supplies of meal were abundant, and arrangements had been made to facilitate the sale of seed at moderate prices. Any interference by the Government, he contended, would only have dried up the sources of private enterprise, and have been productive of far more suffering to the unhappy people.