Commons Sitting of 11 March 1864

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report—Committee of Selection, Third Report (No. 62).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee*—Committee R.P.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [March 10] reported; First Resolution re-committed
Resolution [March 10] reported; Bills ordered.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Land Securities Company (Stamp Duty on Mortgage Debentures).
First Reading— Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000)*; Consolidated Fund (£584,650)*; Fish Teinds (Scotland)* [Bill 45].
Second Reading — Summary Procedure (Scotland)* [Bill 32],
Considered as amended—Mutiny*
Third Reading—Marine Mutiny* and passed.

THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Irish Government have received a Report from the Resident Magistrates commissioned to investigate certain charges preferred by the Rev. William Corcoran, C.C., against Sub-Inspector Boyce, of the police station at Dundrum, in the county of Tipperary; and if they will lay before the House copies of that Report, with its accompanying evidence, and of any Official Correspondence, Minutes or Orders, relating to the conduct of Sub-Inspector Boyce towards the late Constable Wiggins, or to the dismissal of Dr. Power from being medical attendant at Dundrum Station; and whether it is now intended merely to reprimand and remove to another station Sub-Inspector Boyce; and what is intended regarding Dr. Power? He hoped he might be permitted to ask the right hon. Baronet not to disport himself in his reply.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, the Government had received a Report from the Resident Magistrates, and after inquiring into the case the Lord Lieutenant thought it adequate punishment to remove Sub-Inspector Boyce to another place. The only matter involved was that a policeman on the point of death—
  MR. SCULLYrose to order. The rule was very strict, that in asking a question no one was allowed to make an explanatory statement. The right hon. Gentleman in the chair upheld the rules very strictly in that respect, and he (Mr. Scully) entirely objected to have the matter gone into by the Chief Secretary when merely replying to a question. If a statement was made, and the whole subject gone into, he should have no alternative but to move the adjournment of the House. He trusted the Chief Secretary would observe order, and confine himself to the question.
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman was answering the question on the paper.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the inquiry had appeared in the newspapers, and at the rate of a penny a day the whole of the discussion on the subject could be obtained.

  1817
  Of course, if the House thought proper, it could be published, but it was very voluminous. As for Dr. Power, he had been dismissed from being a medical officer to the Constabulary, and it was not intended to reinstate him.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to know whether the Chief Secretary objected to produce the Report of the Commissioners and the Official Correspondence on the subject.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the hon. Gentleman could give notice of a Motion for their production.

DAUNT'S ROCK AND ROBERT'S COVE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Is it finally decided, or still under deliberation, to place a Light Ship at Daunt's Rock, off Cork Harbour; has his attention been called to the proposal to mark the site of Daunt's Rock by means of a Lighthouse at Robert's Head; also to the construction, at trifling expense, of an entrance from the sea into the artificial Dock at Robert's Cove, excavated a few years since by the Irish Board of Works; and will he cause inquiry to be made respecting such Lighthouse and Dock Entrance as works of public utility, and to provide increased security or refuge on a frequented coast? He should not object to any explanation which the right hon. Gentleman might give, because that right hon. Gentleman would answer the question and would not be impertinent.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that the Trinity Corporation and the Ballast Board of Dublin recommended that a Light Ship or some kind of Beacon should be placed upon Daunt's Rock, but the Trinity Board had stated that the expense of such a Light Ship ought not to be thrown upon the general trade frequenting St. George's Channel, but upon the ships frequenting Cork Harbour. The authorities in Cork declined to bear the expense, and in that position the matter was now placed. The Mercantile Marine Fund was the only one at the disposal of Government for the purpose of supporting Light Ships, and as the authorities objected to throw the support of that Light Ship upon the fund, of course it must be provided from some other source. He trusted the authorities at Cork would be induced to support the expense. With respect to
  1818
  Robert's Cove, the dock there had been executed by the Board of Works in Ireland, and they had no information at the Admiralty or Board of Trade on the subject.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Harbour Commissioners of Cork had no power whatever to devote any portion of their funds to a Light Ship in a place which was something like five miles beyond their jurisdiction?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had no information as to the powers of the Cork authorities, but he thought if they assented it would be easy by legislation to provide a toll for the purpose.
  MR. SCULLY: Would the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made on the subject?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would.

  ADMIRAL FITZROY'S WEATHER PREDICTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any Observations have been made for the purpose of recording the actual weather corresponding to Admiral Fitzroy's daily forecasts and occasional warning signals; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay the results before the House?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, he had to state that observations had been made during the past year with a view to comparing the actual weather with the predictions which had been made by Admiral Fitzroy, and the Board of Trade were endeavouring to digest that information, and to put it in a shape which would be intelligible to the House, and when that had been done, and when Admiral Fitzroy had had an opportunity of seeing this information, and of making his remarks upon it, he hoped to be able to lay it before the House; and he might also state that by the kindness of the French authorities the Board of Trade had received a similar comparison which was made at Brest, and if possible that information would be laid on the table of the House at the same time.

THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  1819
  War, What opinion of the Judge Advocate General on the subject of the Mhow Court Martial was cited by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief in his Memorandum of 18th December, 1862; what was the date of the opinion in which, as stated by the Under Secretary of State on the 29th and 30th. June, 1863, after consideration of the whole of the proceedings, the Judge Advocate General advised that the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial was legal, and in consequence of which opinion Paymaster Smales was, "after a time," gazetted out of the regiment; whether he will lay upon the table the evidence upon which it was determined to bring Colonel Crawley to a Court Martial; whether that evidence was previously submitted to the Judge Advocate General for his approval; and whether, before the court-martial was ordered, any statement was received from Colonel Crawley in answer to ex parte evidence?
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would himself answer the question of the hon. Baronet. What he stated on a former occasion was, that he considered the proceedings of the Mhow Court Martial of such a kind that if the trial had occurred in this country he should not have advised Her Majesty that they should be confirmed without revision. But he did not upon that opinion advise Her Majesty to grant Mr. Smales a pardon. In point of fact, he stated as his opinion that, although the proceedings would have been submitted for revision, they were legal. The date of that opinion was the 27th November, 1862. He did not think that the evidence upon which it was determined to bring Colonel Crawley to a court-martial could be laid on the table of the House; but he would now read an extract from a letter written by himself—
  "The papers submitted to me appear to disclose evidence which, in the absence of contradiction or satisfactory explanation, would, in my opinion, warrant a conviction."
  With respect to the question as to whether any answer was received from Colonel Crawley in reference to the evidence, he had to say, that there was not time to have received an answer from him after the notice sent out that he was to be put upon his trial.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to know what was the date of the letter containing the extract just read?
  MR. HEADLAMreplied, that the date was the 23rd of June, 1863.

  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL—THE "PROFESSIONAL" AND "EUROPEAN" SOCIETIES.—EXPLANATION.
  MR. WICKHAMsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in his statement on Monday last on the Government Annuities Bill, he had any intention, when alluding to the transactions between the Professional and European Societies, to impute any dishonourable or improper conduct to the European Society?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had great pleasure in assuring his hon. Friend that he had no intention of imputing any dishonourable or improper conduct to the European Society. The fact he had stated was to the effect that in the amalgamation—or, more strictly speaking, he should call it the transfer of liabilities from the Professional Society to the European Society —there was registered on the policies the difference between the sum which was assured and the amount at which it stood at that period, and he described that deduction by the strong phrase of "wholesale robbery," rather than a fair commercial transaction. It was, however, his intention to deal with the relation of the Professional Society to its own policy holders. Of course, it was not to be expected from any other society that it would take these policies at their full nominal value. That was the state of the case, and he had no intention to imply that the European Society was in any way involved in the matter. With regard to the Professional Society, he should be very glad if any statements were offered to him on the part of that society which would enable him in some way to qualify the phrase he had used.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, What steps have been taken by the Government since the Reports of the Select Committee of 1857 and the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge for the construction or improvement of Harbours; and whether he will lay upon the table any Correspondence between the several departments of the Government on this subject?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that in 1861 a Bill was introduced by the Government, and was afterwards passed into a law, for the purpose of authorizing loans from the public funds to be made to the harbour authorities for the construction and improvement of harbours. That Bill was in accordance with the recommendations both of the Committee and of Commissioners acting under that Act; and he believed that a sum in round numbers of nearly £1,000,000 had been agreed to be lent for the improvement and construction of harbours. Moreover, other applications were under consideration at the present time, amounting probably to some £200,000 or £300,000. He had now before him a statement of some of the cases, and he might mention the case of Wick, which was making its own harbour, not, indeed, a large one, as suggested by the Commissioners, suitable for all ships, but sufficient for the local trade, and calculated to be useful in saving life in connection with the fishing trade of that place. Port Erin having got an Act passed for a harbour, application had been made to the Commissioners of Public Works for a loan, and the harbour there would be, in point of fact, better and more useful for the purpose even of refuge than that recommended by the Commission. Tyne was also making its breakwater, by means of the aid afforded by the Public Works' Commissioners; and in the Tees a breakwater was being constructed, also by loan from the same Commissioners. He could mention other harbours, but he might say, generally, that a great deal of use was made of the powers given by the Act of 1861. With respect to any correspondence on the subject of Harbours of Refuge, the Board of Trade would be prepared to lay it on the table of the House if the hon. Baronet moved for its production.

STARVATION IN THE METROPOLIS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of starvation in Bethnal Green, alleged to have taken place through the neglect of the relieving officer; and whether any investigation into that officer's conduct is to be instituted?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I beg, Sir, to say that this case had arrested my attention on reading the report of it in the newspapers,
  1822
  and I did what is usual in my office in cases of inquests. I applied to the Coroner for a copy of his depositions, and I further directed an Inspector to proceed to the authorities of the parish to ask for information on the subject. They stated that they were perfectly ready to make any inquiry with respect to the case at once. They stated, what perhaps it would be satisfactory to the noble Lord to hear, that in this case the man, whose wife was stated to have been starved to death, was in the receipt of fifteen shillings a week, and had been so throughout the winter; and the unfortunate woman herself was being attended by the medical officer, and she had made no application for nutriment notwithstanding that it was stated she was starving.

  UNION RELIEF TO THE WIVES OF SOLDIERS, &c—QUESTION.
  MR. ADDINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether any provision is made by Law for the stoppage out of the pay of Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Militiamen, of such sums of money as may have been expended from the Poor Rate in the relief of their wives and children when deserted by them and left chargeable to the Parish or Union where they are residing; and, if not, whether he will enter into correspondence with the Horse Guards' Authorities for the purpose of effecting an arrangement to meet the case?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that there was no provision made by Law for stopping from the pay of Soldiers and Sailors any sum expended in relief for their wives and children when deserted. On the contrary, there was a provision in the Mutiny Act that no proceeding should be taken against any Soldier, either in the Line or the Militia, who might have deserted his family. With respect to Sailors, when they intended to make provision for their wives and families, they gave an allotment note of their pay to them, and on the production of that allotment note the person holding it was entitled to receive the pay, but not Poor Law Guardians or Parochial authorities. He certainly had no intention of corresponding with the authorities of the Horse Guards on the subject, because, inasmuch as there was the distinct provision that no proceeding should be commenced against any Soldiers or Sailors on account of relief to their families, they no doubt would

  1823
  consider it injurious to Her Majesty's service in the way of enlistment that those people should be made liable.

EDUCATION REPORTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When lie will lay upon the table the Annual Report of the Committee of Council; whether he has issued instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools directing that this year and in future Reports will be required from only one-half of their number; and whether the Reports received this year from the Inspectors will be presented to the House in the usual manner, and without omission or mutilation?
  MR. LOWEreplied, that the Report of the Committee of Council would be laid upon the table about the beginning of June, which was the ordinary time. No Department made its Reports more speedily than the Department of Education. The Reports of the Inspectors up to the 31st of December were only just received, and, considering the labour those Inspectors underwent, and the examinations they had to make at the training colleges, it was impossible for them to Report earlier. With respect to the second question put by the right hon. Baronet, he answered that in the affirmative. Formerly, the rule was that the chief Inspectors should alone Report, and many of the chief Inspectors had assistants, who did not report. The distinction between chief and assistant Inspectors had been abolished, and the districts divided into smaller ones, so that each Inspector had a district to himself, and for which he was alone responsible; consequently, if each Inspector were to report, there would be double the usual number of Reports printed, and double the expense incurred by the country for that purpose, which now, including the time occupied by the Inspectors and the cost of printing, amounted to about £2,000. As to the third question, whether the Reports received from the Inspectors would be presented in the usual manner', and without mutilation or omission, he had to say that they would be presented in the usual manner. The right hon. Baronet did not seem, if he might judge from his question, to be quite aware what that usual manner was. It was the usual manner to present the Reports without omission or mutilation. A
  1824
  Report was either presented as it came from the Inspector, or not at all. If it appeared to the Committee of Council that any of the Inspectors had transgressed their instructions, his Report was sent back to him for correction; and if it was found, when returned, not to be in a proper form, it was not laid on the table of the House.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had called upon only half the Inspectors to report. He wished to know whether all the Reports so sent in would be laid on the table without the suppression of any of them?
  MR. LOWEsaid, he could not answer that question until he had made himself master of the Reports.

  COURT MARTIAL LAW.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Judge Advocate General, Whether it is lawful in the Army to prevent a prisoner on his trial from having free communication with the witnesses who are to be called for his defence?
  MR. HEADLAMreplied, that there was no difference in principle between Martial Law and Civil Law on this point. The question might, therefore, have been addressed with propriety to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He (Mr. Headlam) did not think that there was any more clearly established principle of English Law than that the prisoner should have the most complete access to all the information necessary for his defence.

INSPECTION OF NIGHT SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What provision is made for the inspection of Night Schools?
  MR. LOWEsaid, in reply, that the night school was deemed another meeting of the day school; and as provision had been made for the inspection of the day school, so far it had also been made for the other. The night schools besides were at work for only six months of the year; and if they were to provide for the inspection of all these schools, scattered as they were up and down the country, it would necessitate the employment of double the number of Inspectors to accomplish the duty

  1825
  within the period. It was, therefore, not in their power to make such provision.

BANK ACT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he intends to pursue as to this Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the Western Bank of Scotland shareholders were of opinion that if the issue of notes which they had lost were revived, they ought to enjoy to a certain extent the profit of that issue. The Government had not been able to concur in that view. They had, therefore, sent a negative reply to the application received from the shareholders; but it would, of course, be only fair that they should have time to consider what course they would pursue. He would, therefore, fix the next stage of the Bill for Monday, the first day after the recess.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as the House was to rise next Friday, it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to know what would be the course of business during the week. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to proceed with the Government Annuities Bill next Thursday? [Mr. GLADSTONE signified assent.] In that case would there be time to take the Penal Servitude Bill before Easter?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it would of course depend on the length of the debate on the Government Annuities Bill whether the Penal Servitude Bill would be taken next Thursday. He would not, of course, bring it on at a late hour.

THE DANISH BLOCKADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office has any later information on the establishment of Blockades on Danish or German Ports, or the Free Ports of Hamburgh, Lubeck, &c., than is contained in the Gazette; and, considering the importance to commerce of early information of Blockades being established, whether the Foreign Office will telegraph such informa-
  1826
  tion as soon as received to the principal Ports, and thus anticipate the Gazette?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the Government had received no further information than that which had already been published in the Gazette. If any fresh information of importance arrived, he would take care to make arrangements that the very earliest information should be communicated to those interested.

WHITECROSS STREET PRISON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the circumstance of several prisoners lately committed to Whitecross Street Prison by the Metropolitan Police Magistrates having been set at large, owing to the refusal of the Prison authorities to receive them; whether he can state the reasons of that refusal, and whether the Government are prepared to take any steps to apply a remedy?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the matter to which this question referred, arose out of a difference of opinion between the magistrates of the county of Middlesex and the authorities of the City of London, and in which the Secretary of State had no power to interfere. An order was made at the last Middlesex Quarter Sessions that the Westminster and Clerkenwell Prisons should be applicable only to certain classes of prisoners, excluding prisoners who might be by law committed to Newgate, or to the Debtors' Prison in Whitecross Street. The question which had arisen was, whether prisoners committed in default of the payment of penalties imposed upon them, might be confined as debtors in Whiteeross Street Prison. The Middlesex magistrates held that they might. The City magistrates held the contrary, and therefore refused to receive them. Steps had been taken for obtaining the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the subject, which was the only authority by-which the question of law could be decided.

  THE MALTA DOCK.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Sir JOHN HAY,
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETstated, that he intended to lay on the table the Correspondence relating to the proposed Dock at Malta. As the papers were of great importance, and as the Government had sent an engineer to Malta to make in-

  1827
  quiries on the spot, he proposed to defer the Estimate for the Dock till after Easter. It was not customary to defer a single item, and therefore he should put off the whole Vote for Public Works till that time.

  SIR ROWLAND HILL.—NOTICE.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I believe it is well known, that that valuable and deserving public servant Sir Rowland Hill is about to retire from his situation at the Post Office. He is entitled to a pension, which in the usual course would lapse at his death; and I now, therefore, move that this House shall, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the grant of a pension to Lady Hill for her lifetime, in the event of her surviving her husband.

  ST. MART'S BURIAL GROUND AT SYDENHAM.—QUESTION.
  SIR, GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, Whether he intends to go on to-night with his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Allegations contained in the Petition of Mr. Alfred Smee relative to the St. Mary's, Sydenham, Burial Ground, and further into the existence and increase of Conventual and Monastic Establishments in this country? If the hon. Member deferred the Motion, he should have no objection to produce the Correspondence relating to the Burial Ground in question, as well as that which had passed between Mr. Smee and the Home Office.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was aware that, as another Motion stood before his upon the paper, he would not be able to carry out his intention that evening. He felt much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer to produce the Correspondence with reference to the granting of the Licence for the Burial Ground, and also the Correspondence between the Home Office and Mr. Smee. He hoped he might be allowed to add that he believed the law upon the subject was in an unsatisfactory condition; but, at the same time, he did not wish to impute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DENMARK AND GERMANY.THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I wish to put a Question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government of which I have given him notice. It has reference to the reply made by the noble Lord a few nights ago in the House with regard to the question of a Conference on Danish affairs, and also to the statement of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary on the same subject in another place. On Tuesday last the noble Lord the First Minister, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, stated that proposals had been made for a Conference on the present state of the Danish question, there being no cessation of hostilities in the meantime, but the only basis laid down being the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark. That proposition, the noble Lord added, was made with the assent and concurrence of Russia and France. At the very same moment that the noble Lord was speaking here, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in another place gave an account of the present condition of affairs, not only inconsistent with, but almost totally contradictory to that given by the noble Lord in this House. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said that, though there had been such a proposition as that stated by the noble Lord the First Minister, the proposal then before Her Majesty's Government, and communicated by them to the Danish Government, was this — that there should be a suspension of hostilities, that the belligerent Powers should in the meantime retain possession of all those portions of the country which they then occupied, conditional on the acceptance by Denmark of certain points as bases of negotiation. These points, as we learn from abroad, are a personal union between the Crown of Denmark and the Duchies, and an indissoluble union between Schleswig and Holstein. That account of the matter received confirmation from the noble Lord, because he said that the points laid down by the Prussian and Austrian Governments were more unfavourable to Denmark than the arrangement made in 1851 and 1852. At the same time, the noble Lord stated that he had not communicated this proposa1 to the Governments of France and Russia, for he deemed it desirable, in the first instance, to ascertain the opinion of

  1829
  the belligerent Powers. I would beg leave to point out the extreme inconvenience of information being given in the two Houses of Parliament of so entirely contradictory a character. I wish to ask the noble Lord, On what bases the proposal of a Conference really has been made; whether it is understood that there is to be a cessation of hostilities; and, if so, whether it is to be conditional on the acceptance by Denmark of certain points; whether the noble Lord will communicate to the House what these points are on which the Conference is made conditional by the two German Powers; whether the noble Lord will state whether, in the opinion of the Government, these points are consistent with the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark; whether the noble Lord adheres to the statement that these proposals were made with the assent of France and Russia; or whether the case is, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary is reported to have stated, that these proposals have not been communicated to these Powers?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am not at all surprised that there should be some misapprehension on a subject so complicated as the Danish question, and the answers given to inquiries which I may, perhaps, be pardoned for saying had better not be put, because those answers relate to negotiations which are going on with various Powers holding different views on the matter. Therefore, I do not at all wonder that the hon. Gentleman should in his question have mixed up things which are in themselves distinct. What I stated, or at least meant to state, was that we had vainly tried to obtain the consent of the belligerents to an armistice as a preliminary to a Conference, because each party required conditions for that armistice which the other would not agree to. I said that therefore Her Majesty's Government had deemed it so important that negotiations should be begun, that they had proposed to the belligerent Powers that there should be a Conference without an armistice j that that proposal had been made to Austria and Prussia, who had agreed to it; and that it had also been made to Denmark, from whom we had not yet received an answer, and one is still wanting at this moment. I mentioned that we had reason to believe—good reason to believe—that France, Russia, and Sweden would concur in such a Conference, but that no positive question or communication had been made to them on the subject, or could be made
  1830
  until it had been ascertained that the belligerents consented to the matter. Then I stated that whereas England, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden all concurred in admitting the validity of the Treaty of 1852, and the obligation which it imposed of maintaining the integrity of Denmark, the parties who would assemble in the Conference would necessarily all stand upon that basis; but that no formal basis had been proposed, because in fact we had no knowledge that the two parties would agree to a Conference. When the Conference meets, the bases of negotiation will be arranged. That is what I stated, and what the hon. Member must have confounded with my answer, are the opinions which from time to time have been expressed by the different parties. It is well known that at different periods of the negotiations Prussia especially has intimated its opinion that there should be an administrative union between the two Duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and that they should be connected with the rest of Denmark by the link of the Crown. But that is not a basis of negotiation, nor is it a matter upon which the English Government has ever expressed its opinion—yes or no. It is one of the points which, of course, would have to be discussed by each party according to its views and interests when the negotiations had commenced. We know that the Danish Government has objected to it, and we know also that other Governments have agreed to it. I do not think there is any contradiction between what I have stated and that which my noble Friend has stated in the other House of Parliament. If the hon. Member will look attentively at the Report, I think he will see he is in error. I have not myself looked at the Report, but I am persuaded that, as my noble Friend and I are perfectly agreed as to the facts of the case, it is quite impossible that we could make any statements that should essentially differ the one from the other.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord and the House, but I wish to clear up a point which appears to be involved in some confusion. I have examined the Report to which the noble Lord referred me, and I find Earl Russell is distinctly represented to have said that the basis of the Conference was a cessation of hostilities conditional upon the acceptance of certain terms. What I want to know is, whether we are to understand that that is not the

  1831
  case, and that Earl Russell has been misreported if he is represented to have said so.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: What the hon. Gentleman alludes to must have been some statement with regard to the original proposal of an armistice preliminary to a Conference. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: No.] The present proposal is a Conference without a cessation of hostilities, because it appears to us reasonable to think that if a Conference were once assembled, and if the representatives of the different Powers concerned were met round a table, the first subject of inquiry would be whether an armistice or cessation of hostilities might not be agreed to; and I should hope, too, that the parties might be able to find some terms of agreement satisfactory to all.

CONDITION OF IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to call attention to some of the causes of the decline of the population in Ireland, and especially to the difference between the laws for the relief of the poor in Ireland, and the laws for the relief of the poor in England and Scotland, and to move a Resolution on the subject. He would remind the House that when Earl Russell brought forward his Irish Poor Law Bill in 1837 he estimated the population of Ireland at over 8,000,000. At that moment it was but a little over 5,000,000, showing a positive decline of 3,000,000, more than the whole population of Denmark and the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. In 1837 the population of Ireland was, or had been, increasing at a ratio which, if continued to the present time, would have brought the number up to little short of 12,000,000, so that the actual loss of people had been something like 6,000.000 or 7,000,000—a greater loss numerically than if the Queen were to lose the whole of her colonial empire. The subject, therefore, was one which ought to arrest the attention not only of all Irishmen, but of all persons interested in the welfare of the Empire. The first question one naturally asked was what explanations, if any, had been offered by the Government of the extraordinary phenomenon. The Government had offered explanations, and if he had believed the statements made by the Earl of Carlisle, by the Secretary for Ireland, by the Attorney General, and by the Prime Minister,
  1832
  he should not have ventured to trouble the House with any remarks; because, according to those responsible authorities, the decline of the population of Ireland was to be attributed to what they called natural causes, and causes over which the House had no control. But he called attention to the decline of the population, because he believed it was produced by causes with which the House could deal—namely, the misgovernment of the country and the operation of bad laws. The Irish Attorney General had closed an eloquent speech with these words:—"The state of Ireland is this—we have there just laws, justly administered to a contented people." That was not quite accurate. It would have been more correct to admit—whether the laws were just or unjust — that, at all events, they were not administered to a contented people. He was convinced that the Government possessed information which must show them that there prevailed in Ireland a general and profound feeling of discontent. He also had information derived from sources perhaps as good as those on which the Government relied, and from all these he learnt that the discontent in Ireland had not, in the memory of any man living there, been so great as it was at that moment. Nor when it was seen how millions had gone anrl were going from the shores of the country, and how, moreover, the Members of the Irish Government expressed themselves publicly on that great national calamity, it was hardly surprising that such a general feeling should exist. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at the Lord Mayor's banquet in Dublin, took occasion to refer to that subject, and, having quoted the well-known lines—
  "III fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
  Where wealth accumulates and men decay," —
  his Lordship went on to say that that sentiment was totally wrong, that he approved what the poet condemned, that the decay of the population was a good symptom, and that the future of Ireland was that human beings must leave the soil, and the country become the fruitful mother of flocks and herds. That was received with murmurs of discontent, whereupon his Excellency continued, "I hear cries of 'No, no!' but I beg to state distinctly that that is my opinion; the decay of the population is not to be regretted," and the Lord Lieutenant did what was a bold thing—he reiterated his opinion in spite of the disapprobation evinced by the Irish gentlemen

  1833
  assembled at that banquet. Perbaps his Excellency felt that the decline of the population, if it were an evil, was an evil for which the Government was responsible, and therefore denied that it was an evil at all. Now, he ventured to think that no hon. Member would rise in that House and defend the Lord Lieutenant for making that statement; and, although the Attorney General called the decline of the population a phase of transition, one of those natural things which they could take no cognizance of or check, yet when they considered the difference which existed between Ireland and England in all the laws, without exception, bearing on the poor, lie believed they would think that that decline proceeded from causes with which the House could deal. He thought it resulted from misgovernment; that it was attributable to various causes affecting the material prosperity and the political condition of the people. Every Irish Government, except the present, had come down to the House and declared that Parliament must do something about the land question. Lord Stanley many years ago brought in a Bill on that subject, which did not pass; and other measures of the same kind were subsequently introduced one after another, and all failed to pass. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Cardwell), indeed, brought in a Bill, which did pass; but this fatality had attended it—that not one solitary individual in Ireland had availed himself of its provisions; it was a dead letter. Committees, Commissions, and Governments had said that something should be done on the land question, but nothing had been done. Then take the subject of popular instruction. In England a system of popular education was in force, founded on distinct principles. They declared that the education supported by the Government must be given in those schools only which were connected with some religious denomination, or where the Bible was read. But in Ireland no school could get a grant which was connected with a religious denomination, or in which the Bible was daily read. He might mention a striking illustration of that. The late Mr. O'Connell subscribed to a Protestant school in his parish in Dublin, but the National Board deprived that school of the grant, because they detected that the Bible was read there. Of course, Mr. O'Connell continued his subscription after that decision. The people of Ireland were told by those whom they believed—by their
  1834
  bishops and clergy, that a different and a better system of education than the Irish one existed in England. They petitioned with one voice to have the English system extended to their country, but their petition was refused. The natural result was to give them a distrust of Parliament. Again, there were the Irish marriage laws, differing from the English, and rendering a priest liable to the penalties of felony in Ireland for celebrating a mixed marriage, which he might celebrate in England without being liable to any such penalty. That was a relic of the old penal laws. He proposed, however, to confine his remarks principally to the Poor Laws, which affected the poor most of all. They had the Irish people sending up petitions in shoals for the beneficial provisions of the English Poor Law. Yet their prayer was refused. He would endeavour to prove—first, that a substantial difference of law existed in the two countries; secondly, that to that difference of the law the decline of the population of Ireland was to be partly attributed; and thirdly, that if the English Poor Law were given to Ireland a large number of the poor of that country would obtain relief, and the rates at the same time be reduced. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 for England and Wales empowered the Board by such rules or orders as it thought fit to declare under what conditions, to what extent, and for what period, outdoor relief in money, food, or clothing, might be given to able-bodied persons or their families in any particular parish or union. Before contrasting that with the regulations existing in Ireland, let him point out the circumstances under which the Irish Poor Law passed. It was introduced in 1837 by Lord John Russell. The Government of that day sent a Royal Commission to Ireland to inquire into the state of the poor, and report to them the provisions of the proposed Poor Law. A leading member of that Commission was Dr. Whately, the late Archbishop of Dublin. The inquiry extended over a period of three years, and the Commissioners presented a most able Report. That Report recommended outdoor relief, but Lord John Russell having his own opinion on the matter sent Sir George Nichols to Ireland, who took nine months to inquire into what had occupied the Commission three years. He reported to the Government, and they set aside the Report of the Commissioners. Lord John Russell said he was sorry to differ from

  1835
  the Commissioners in their principal recommendation, and that no outdoor relief should be administered in Ireland. He brought in his Bill, which Mr. O'Connell and many other distinguished Members opposed, on the ground that a mere workhouse machinery would destroy the people and rob the ratepayers. The Bill passed, however, as there were many persons who were anxious to try the experiment. Mr. O'Connell's prediction had turned out correct. When the famine arose the machinery provided to meet the distress broke down. Various Poor Law Unions violated the law and gave outdoor relief, and Government were obliged to amend their own Poor Law Act. The Bill recently passed as regarded outdoor relief provided that certain classes in Ireland might in certain circumstances receive outdoor relief—
  "If at any time by reason of want of room in the workhouse of any union adequate relief cannot be afforded therein to destitute poor persons, not being persons permanently disabled or destitute—poor persons disabled by sickness or accident, or destitute widows, or if the workhouse or houses of any union, by reason of fevers or other infectious disease, be unfit for the reception of such poor therein, then it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to give relief out of the workhouse to such destitute poor persons for any time not exceeding two calendar months."
  The fundamental difference between the English and Irish Poor Laws was this:— That under the English Act an adult able-bodied pauper in perfect health thrown out of employment for a short time might, if the guardians thought proper, receive outdoor relief by being put to task-work or otherwise as the Commissioners might think proper, such outdoor relief to be given half in food and half in money; the Irish system was non-elastic; no amount of distress authorized the Commissioners to give relief to outdoor paupers, except to the sick or those suffering from severe accident. There were other smaller differences. In England the guardians could grant outdoor relief for the purpose of defraying wholly or partially the expense of the burial of any member of the family of a destitute poor person. A few nights ago a Bill was introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which would enable that small modicum of outdoor relief to be given—that is, a coffin might be provided by the guardians for the interment of one of a poor family without compelling the family to go into the workhouse; but the law in Ireland was still as he had described it, and several cases had oc-
  1836
  curred in which applications had been made for a coffin to bury one of the family of a destitute poor person, when the answer of the Board of Guardians invariably was, "Let the whole family come into the workhouse, and then only can we give a coffin to bury the dead person." Another difference was this—that while in England outdoor relief might be given to all widows during their first six months of widowhood, and to all widows having one child dependent on them, in Ireland there was no outdoor relief for widows unless with two or more children. There was also this difference—that while the families of soldiers and sailors in the Queen's service could receive outdoor relief in England when they became destitute, in Ireland they could not do so; their only resource was the workhouse. These points of difference were small, perhaps, but they were such as it might be felt desirable to remove with the view of assimilating the Irish to the English Poor Law. The main difference was that to which he had called the attention of the House with respect to the relief out of the workhouse of the adult able-bodied poor, and the question was, what effect did the two systems produce? In Ireland a labouring man went to the Board of Guardians and said, "I have a wife and three or four children; I have been thrown out of employment for three weeks, I want some relief." The Board of Guardians would reply, "It is illegal; we cannot give relief. The Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland have not the power; but we will give you relief if you, your wife and children, come into the workhouse." And now a few words as to the place into which the guardians would invite him to come. When the inquiry took place into the Irish Poor Laws in 1861, some questions were asked as to what was called classification in Irish workhouses. A question was asked of the Chief Commissioner for administering the law in Ireland by a Member of the Committee, who, adverting to the evidence of Colonel Latouche on the want of classification among the female inmates, asked if it was true that women of the town came into hospital with disease, and after cure were placed with the other inmates. The answer was, certainly; that in the South Dublin Union, where there were many women of the town, girls of fifteen years of age mixed with the adult females, and that procuresses were in the habit of sending women into the hospitals to bring out the young girls.

  1837
  The last Report of the Poor Law Board in Ireland referred to what had been done on the subject of classification, and gave an abstract of the replies from the various unions on the moral classification of workhouse inmates. The answer of the guardians of the North Dublin Union was, that there was no rule of moral classification in their workhouse, except that women suffering from illness were sent to the hospital. Similar answers were sent from the Kilkee, Mohill, and other unions. Upon the same point the Poor Law Commissioners themselves said that but few of the replies were favourable to the adoption of more extensive moral classification, or to any attempt to distinguish by different treatment between one class and another on account of their characters and habits. Such was the last statement of the Poor Law Commissioners. Then came the question, what was the adult labouring man to do when, in reply to his application for relief, the guardians told him that he and his family must enter the workhouse? The man might have daughters of the ages alluded to by Colonel Latouche, and when he was told that if he entered the workhouse he would be separated from his wife and she from her children, and that his daughters would be exposed to the evil influences which were proved to exist in the workhouses of Ireland, he might very reasonably object to accept the offer made to him. In some of the workhouses of Ireland, and especially in Dublin and Cork, attempts had been made by the female inmates to set fire to the buildings, and a general mutinous feeling appeared to prevail. When these women were brought up to be sentenced after trial, one Judge remarked that the workhouses seemed to change the very nature of people, and none of the offenders before him appeared to be at all sorry for what had been done. The Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) said the cases tried before him showed the great difference that existed between persons brought up in the unions and those who supported themselves independently by their industry. Addressing the prisoners, the Recorder asked whether they preferred transportation to the workhouse, and one of them replied, "Yes, they were anxious to exchange the workhouse for the prison." The Recorder, in passing sentence, noticed the system whereby the inmates of workhouses were left in all the disgrace of idleness, and were not taught to occupy their time by any useful employ-
  1838
  ment. The Poor Law Commissioners themselves, in their last Report, referred to the offences committed in workhouses by inmates who were desirous of being transferred to a prison, where they would be taught some trade, by means of which they might be able afterwards to rise above their present level in life. After that statement, the Commissioners went on to say that, as the outbreaks had never been connected with charges of ill-usage or personal discontent, it was difficult for them to apply or to suggest any remedy. That Report was signed by Mr. Power, the Chief Commissioner; Sir Robert Peel, Chief Secretary; Colonel Larcom, Under Secretary; and by two other Poor Law Commissioners. Although they declared they were unable to suggest any remedy for the existing evils, he really thought there was no great difficulty in finding a remedy, and he would venture to suggest one. Let the House remember that the workhouses in Ireland into which the labouring poor were driven were places in which not only were there the corrupting influences of no system of classification, but there was also a dietary scale far lower than was to be found in any English or Scotch workhouse. In the Dublin unions 10 per cent of the inmates died annually, and among the causes of death mentioned in the tables were many hundred cases of atrophy, which he took to be a polite name for starvation. Even the Commissioners had felt it to be necessary to call the attention of the guardians of one of the Dublin unions to the lowness of their dietary, because they gave but two meals a day — stirabout for breakfast, and for dinner also stirabout. It was possible that a change had since been made, but it wag to the credit of the Commission that they had occasionally called the attention of Boards of Guardians to the insufficiency of the dietaries, although he believed they had no power to make any order upon the subject. The condition of the adult labourer in England and Scotland when out. of employment was very different, and he would call attention to some illustration of that difference. At Birkenhead, where there was a large Irish population, the Poor Law Inspector, referring to the distress existing there, said it would have been most cruel to ask those poor people to break up their homes and destroy their feelings of independence by requiring them to come into the union, and therefore outdoor relief was given there to some 500

  1839
  men and women and 700 children. The Poor Law Inspectors, referring to Wolverhampton and other places in England, also spoke of the habits of self-reliance which were engendered by the system of outdoor relief. It had often been said that in Ireland outdoor relief could not be adopted, because it would ruin the ratepayers, being so expensive. Now, in the Barony parish of Glasgow, where there was a large number of Irish poor, 16,000 destitute persons were relieved at an expense of £21,700, while in the north and south Dublin unions, where there was no outdoor relief, the relief of the same number of persons cost £48,249. Thus, in Dublin, if the Scotch Poor Law were carried into effect, they would be able to relieve double the number, and reduce the rates more than 8 per cent. That was the object of his Motion—namely, to reduce the rates on the one hand, and increase the area of poor relief on the other; and both these objects could be attained if the system, which existed in Glasgow and the rest of Great Britain were adopted in Ireland. It was objected that, under that system, the Irish unions would be overwhelmed by the rush for relief. But at Birkenhead and Glasgow, where there were great numbers of Irish poor, that result did not follow. In spite of the statement that it was illegal to give outdoor relief in Ireland, some Boards of Guardians there had broken the law. Such was the case in Drogheda, where the average daily number of paupers relieved during the year amounted to 6,133 —3,900 in the workhouse and 2,200 outdoor. The cost of relief there was £6,897, while in the North Dublin Union, where 6,084 persons were relieved, and where there was not a single case of outdoor relief, the total cost was £20,997. Comparing the cost of relief, he found that in the province of Leinster the union lowest in the scale was Celbridge, where there was 21 per cent of outdoor relief. In Newry and Ballyshannon, which were very close together, the poundage was 7½d. and 11 ¼d. respectively, there being some outdoor relief administered in Newry, but none in Ballyshannon. The valuation of the unions of Enniscorthy and Wexford was identical, but in Wexford outdoor relief was given only in seventy-two cases, whilst in Enniscorthy it was given in 560 cases, and in the union where the larger proportion of outdoor relief was given the poundage was much less than where but little was given—a fact which was accounted for
  1840
  from the poor being less in number in the workhouse, and the relief given being necessary for a much shorter time. He found from official statements furnished by Mr. Power to the Irish Poor Relief Committee, that in the union of Coleraine by far the greater amount levied for the relief of the poor found its way into the pockets of officials, and he feared it was too generally the case in other unions. Of £2,324 collected in Coleraine for the relief of the destitute poor, £1,804 was expended in establishment charges; in Stranorlar Union the officials received double the sum expended on the poor; in Newtonlimavady £720 went to officials, and £360 to the poor; in Clifden Union £963 went to officials, and £632 to the poor; in Carrick-on Shannon £874 went to officials, and £587 to the poor; in Ballymoney there was a similar state of things; and the same also applied to the unions of Ballymena and Clonmel. That accounted for the scandalous waste of money in the Irish poor relief, which was not to be found in England or Scotland, and showed that by a judicious system double the amount of poor might be relieved in Ireland for considerably less than was now required, thereby benefiting the poor and materially lessening the burdens of the ratepayers. The question was not merely to be considered with reference to a comparison of the two systems of relief, but with regard to the proportion of destitute poor; and he was inclined to agree, as no doubt it would be urged by the Government, that in Ireland the proportionate number of poor, although it was a poor country, was not so great as it was in England and Scotland; but he inferred from it that if they were to apply the English system to Ireland they would not have the same number in proportion to relieve. He hoped they would at least try the experiment. He was aware of the argument used by some hon. Members to the effect, that if there was a system of outdoor relief in Ireland there would be a general rush for it, and the ratepayers would be done up. What took place during the famine years was referred to in support of that argument; but an experiment made at a time when the state of things was completely abnormal could not be taken as a criterion. The class for whom he was pleading had little influence in that House or elsewhere, but the poor of Ireland were the source of labour, and, being so, they were the source of the national wealth of that country, and in driving them from the

  1841
  country by unequal laws they not only lost the material assistance which they gave in the production of wealth, and in the defence of the country, but they also produced political effects which were well worthy of consideration. The people of Ireland were in a position such as they had not previously occupied. What was called "Parliamentary policy" had no value in their eyes. They had sent petitions to the House year after year asking for a change in the law, and it was a most dangerous thing for the Legislature to tell them that it would continue to make a distinction in the law as between Great Britain and Ireland, and that the distinction should be against the latter country. It was not only the millions who were leaving Ireland that the Government and the House ought to consider, but those who were remaining behind. They ought to consider the social conduct and the political aspect of those who were remaining in the country. Formerly, when the people assembled at fairs or "patterns" they had music and other amusements; there was fun among them; but things had changed. The people were brokenhearted. Many of the once cheerful little hamlets had diminished or entirely disappeared. To take the King's County. A few years ago there were in the hamlet of Cunaghmore thirty-five houses; there were now eight. A similar tale was to be told of several other hamlets. A population of 146,000 had been reduced to 90,000. They were told that the people were emigrating. They were going, and, to use a common phrase, with a vengeance; and at the other side of the Atlantic they did not entertain feelings of loyalty and attachment to this country. And, as to those who remained, would the difference in the laws as between the two countries make the Irish at home respect and obey those laws? Then, what were they to think when they heard the Lord Lieutenant's declaration that Ireland was best suited for pasturage; in other words, that God's image was to be driven off the soil to make room for beasts? He thought that the Earl of Carlisle did not command the confidence of any section of the Irish people when he made that statement. But the Prime Minister himself, a Session or two ago, referring to the depopulation of Ireland, used somewhat similar language. He trusted that the Government would imitate the conduct of the late Lord Eglinton, who lamented the depopulation of Ireland, and did something towards deve-
  1842
  loping the resources of that country. It was usual in England for the Poor Law Inspectors to offer suggestions for the improvement of the working of the law, as much in the interest of the poor as in that of the ratepayers; but in Ireland, if any of the Inspectors made a suggestion, he was reprimanded. His Motion was not one merely in the interests of the poor of Ireland, but in the interest of the stability of the Empire. It seemed a small thing to extend to Ireland the benefits of the English Poor Law; but it would be a most important change, not only in regard to the material interests of the people, but in its political results, for it would show the people of Ireland that they formed part of an United Kingdom, and could claim the benefits of equal laws and equal justice. In conclusion, he moved—
  "That this House is of opinion that it is just and expedient to extend to Ireland the beneficial provisions of the English Poor Law."
  MR. BLAKEseconded the Motion, and said he would confine himself to the main cause of the depopulation and misery of Ireland, which he thought the Member for the King's County could have dwelt upon with more effect—namely, the highly unjust and injurious land system which prevailed over the greater part of Ireland. No doubt there was a very strong case for more extensive outdoor relief, but the necessity for it should be treated as a consequence of the imperfect or bad land laws. If the landlords knew their own interest, or if that House passed a measure which in the end would be one not only valuable to owner and occupier, but of vital interest to the State, there would be but very little need of outdoor or indoor relief in Ireland — no, there would be ample employment for all the able-bodied, who would, to a great extent, maintain at home their aged and infirm kindred. There were in Ireland fourteen million acres of land, exclusive of waste, and not only was that portion of it under cultivation not made to produce what it might, but there were some millions of acres lying useless which might be made available. It was necessary to call the attention of the House to the difference of the land system that prevailed in England and Ireland. In the former, when a man took a farm, it was on the understanding that he either got it in a good state as regarded the permanent improvements, such as the homestead, main drainage, fences, dykes, gates, &c, or that the

  1843
  landlord put them into order, charging, according to the agreement, an increased rental, or 5 per cent on the outlay. Now, in Ireland, the tenant had to do all this. In the greater number of instances his small spare capital and the labour of himself and family were expended in making the permanent improvements, and for a long time he would, consequently, be working against a dead horse. But this was not the worst of it. He might recover himself if he were suffered to remain long enough at the same rent, or that he was protected by a long lease; but, as too often happened, when the land was made valuable by the sweat of the brow of the tenant, the unfortunate man was made to pay the penalty of his industry by having to pay an increased rent for his own improvements, or suffer eviction. A positive bonus was thus offered to tenants at will not to improve, owing to the tyranny and injustice of some landlords. Many people attributed, erroneously attributed, the greater prosperity of Ulster to Presbyterianism and flax growing, but the last census would show the Catholic element was larger, and Mr. Donnelly's Returns would prove that flax formed a very minor portion of the crops. The real cause should be looked for in the land custom which had existed in the province for over 100 years. A man was secured in fair compensation for his improvements; accordingly he increased the value of his land, the landlord received in the whole more for his ground than in the south, it was punctually paid him, and he was never shot. Fully three-fourths of the farmers of Ireland were tenants at will, and from the uncertain position in which they were placed, as a rule they tilled and manured the ground sufficiently only to meet their rent and maintain themselves. Thus labour was badly paid for, and many unemployed and consequent distress. There were many good landlords in Ireland, of which that House afforded several noble examples. On the Government benches, from the Premier to the Junior Lord of the Treasury, and the hon. Member for Liskeard. There were just as good at the other side of the House also. But it was with the exceptions he dealt. Lord Carlisle is reported to have said that Ireland was destined to become the mother of lowing herds. It was not very statesmanlike of his Excellency, even in an English point of view, to look with complacency on man giving way for the beast on the soil of
  1844
  Ireland. His Chief Secretary was not much wiser either when he considered that England ceased to have cause for apprehension, when those who felt dissatisfaction with the Government left their country for other shores. Towards the close of last Session, one of the hon. Members for Galway (Mr. Gregory), in alluding to the vast emigration from Ireland, said that every man who left its shores bore with him a feeling of hatred to the English Government. So much the better, said the hon. Baronet, that they should carry their disaffection elsewhere. So much the worse, however, was it for England, as they became the well trained and loyal soldiers of a State having no friendly feeling to England. In spite of the thousands of Irish who had perished in maintaining the Federal flag, the greater portion of the nearly million of soldiers who still fought for the preservation of the American Union were Irish, and so impressed was England with the hostile feeling of that army, that she was obliged to keep 25,000 soldiers in Canada, not knowing the hour when it might be invaded by those who, according to the belief of the Secretary, had carried their disaffection elsewhere. Now, let them take another purely English view of the result of the depopulation of Ireland. It was calculated that England, on an average, made a profit of £3 per head by the consumption of English manufactures by the people of Ireland. Laying aside the two millions who had perished by famine since that sad period, nearly as many had gone away, and thus six millions of gain per annum was lost to the English manufacturers. But now he came to the greatest loss of all that England sustained by the land system which she countenanced in Ireland. That country was formerly her best recruiting ground. Irish valour and the number of Irish soldiers in her armies once made England a first-class military Power, and enabled her to keep an independent tone towards Europe. What was she now? A third-rate power as regarded the army she could bring into the field. ["No, no!"] Well, he would give them figures. The whole British army of troops of the line consisted of 150,000 men. Of this they had to keep 80,000 in India to watch the Sepoys, and 25,000 in Canada to watch the Irish at the other side of the border. In the Mediterranean stations there were fully 10,000, and, at the least, 5,000 scattered through the colonies. Thus they had only 25,000

  1845
  available troops. This, no doubt, might be increased to 50,000 more, but even that force could hardly be considered available, as, with the discontent and disaffection that prevailed in Ireland, they should, in the event of a European war, leave an army of occupation there, so that that country would, in such a case, be a source of weakness and alarm instead of strength. It was a strange infatuation on the part of the Government, still more on that of the landlords, that they did not remedy this state of things which endangered the safety of the State, and the property and even the lives of the landlords; for, sad to say, as they too well knew, aggression on the one side had produced violence and bloodshed on the other. Heaven forbid he should in the slightest degree palliate murder, but the distracted peasant too often found that the terrorism which the fear of assassination inspired was the only safeguard they had from injustice; and, in a degree, that House was responsible for the terrible crimes which followed from the unjust land system which he attempted to describe. In conclusion he would implore the Legislature, as it valued the peace and prosperity of the Empire, and the preservation and loyalty of a gallant and faithful people, to extend to them, as a matter of sound policy as well as justice, that protection for their industry which had so often been sought in vain. Until they did so, it would be impossible to expect the country could ever become peaceful, prosperous, or happy.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it is just and expedient to extend to Ireland the beneficial provisions of the English Poor Law," — (Mr. Hennessy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the j Question."
  MR. VANCEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced the Motion in a speech of considerable ability, in which he took a wide range. He could, however, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in very few of the conclusions which he had drawn from rather elaborate premises. The hon. and learned Gentleman began by stating that he believed that the great emigration from Ireland arose from; three causes. Firstly, from the land ques-
  1846
  tion not having been satisfactorily settled; secondly, from the state of the Poor Laws; and thirdly, from the state of the marriage law. Now, he (Mr. Vance) was of opinion that the land question could only be well settled by good-will and harmony between the landlord and tenant, and not by any legislative enactment of that House. As to the Poor Law, he did not think it had anything to do with emigration; and as to the marriage law, it was perfectly futile to suppose that it had any influence upon it. The emigration from Ireland had arisen in a great measure from the repeal of the Corn Laws, which necessitated the introduction of a new system of agriculture in Ireland, which turned the country into green fields. Grazing, as every one knew, required a smaller population than tillage. He believed also that the Encumbered Estates Act had a good deal to do with the emigration. Very large estates were sold under that law, and they were taken by a very different class to the ancient proprietors, who were content to let their land at a low and a moderate rent, whilst the modern proprietors got the very utmost they could obtain. The consequence was, that the tenants had not the interest in the land they previously possessed. They could not maintain their families with the same degree of comfort as they did under the old proprietors. The end was, that the people emigrated, and would continue to emigrate so long as the wages offered them in America were so much higher than those they could obtain in this country. It should also be remembered that the facilities for emigration were much greater than they were formerly. The people could proceed by steam vessels direct from Cork or Galway to America in ten days, for small sums, instead of having to pay a passage to Liverpool and proceed thence by sailing vessels to their destination. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated specifically in his Motion what were the beneficial provisions of the English Poor Law which he wished to introduce into Ireland, but he supposed that the Motion would scarcely be adopted by the House unless the whole system were applied to the sister country. If that were done, the landlords would be much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, for they would be the persons mainly relieved, as instead of the landlords having to pay half the rates, the whole burden would fall on the occupiers. There was another provision as to the bas-tardy law that was different. At present,

  1847
  nothing could be done to put the law in force, unless the mother became chargeable on the rates. In this country she could affiliate a child at any time. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to extend this principle? Did he think it would encourage the morality of the people of Ireland? [Mr. HENNESST: It is not a "beneficial provision."] Then there was the law of settlement. Was that to be assimilated? The hon. and learned Gentleman should have made his Motion clearer, and said what these beneficial provisions were. He had not done so, and they must take the Motion as it stood. It was admitted on the introduction of the Irish Poor Law that it was a great experiment, and on no other grounds would the landowners have allowed it to pass. He would quote the opinions of some dead and some living men on the subject. Mr. O'Connell, in 1838, said, he could not agree in the principle of any Poor Law for Ireland that would go beyond the relief of the lame, the impotent, and the blind, and those who were utterly incapable of labouring for their own sustenance. Mr. James Grattan said, in Ireland a Poor Law should be confined to indoor relief. The hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon had formerly followed in the same strain, and the Earl of Carlisle, when Lord Morpeth, distinctly stated that the only principle on which the people of Ireland would consent to a Poor Law, was on the workhouse system. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the workhouses of Dublin. He (Mr. Vance) had a pretty intimate knowledge of how the poor-houses were conducted. The guardians, whilst using the justest economy, were actuated by feelings of extreme humanity to the inmates, but they felt that any system of outdoor relief in the large unions would be abused to an almost incredible extent. In Dublin the poor rate was very heavy, notwithstanding the alleged poorness of the diet. For his part he did not think it desirable to give too good a diet; the inmates ought to have a bare support to induce them to leave as soon as they had an opportunity. The outdoor relief referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been given where industrious bodies were located, who were only occasionally compelled to apply for relief, and would spurn the idea of constantly receiving it. In large unions, where it was impossible to examine into the circumstances of every individual, outdoor relief would be abused to an extent almost incredible. It might
  1848
  be economically administered in small rural districts, but that was because the condition of every man was known, and the rates could therefore be protected. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also alluded to the number of able-bodied women who were in the South Dublin Union, observing that their conduct in the workhouse had been very rebellious. He had not, however, stated the reason which led to that conduct, which was that a plan which had been formed for their emigration had been opposed, as it was about to be carried into effect, by a Roman Catholic clergyman, who was afraid that proselytism might he attempted among them. In dissatisfaction at being deprived of the opportunity for emigrating, their discontent originated. He might add on another point, that having gone over not only the Dublin workhouses, but also a great number of those in the country, he had arrived at the conclusion, that a considerable reduction in the official expenditure in these institutions might he made. He felt at the same time satisfied, that if the workhouse test were not retained, the consequence would be that there would be in every direction a rush on the rates, which must end in the general confiscation of property in Ireland.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, that he was not surprised at the first part of the notice of the hon. Member for Queen's County, nor that he should view with alarm and sorrow the departure from the shores of Ireland of so large a part of the population. Unfortunately statistics proved that of late years there had been a decline in the prosperity of the country. He, for one, regretted to see that population leave the country which should be its strength, and which should contribute to the greatness of the Empire. He could not forget that Ireland had contributed so largely to the roll of great men who had adorned this country. Wellington, Burke, Grattan, and, at the present day, the venerable Premier, with those heroes of India, Montgomery and the Lawrences. Her soldiers, too, had bled on many a bloody field for Britain's honour, and helped to raise to its present pitch the glory of the Empire. He would briefly allude to the various reasons given for the relapse in Ireland's progress, and to the nonsense—he could call it nothing less— that was often talked in this country. Why, Sir, at one time, they were told of Ireland that it was not the climate nor the soil

  1849
  that was to blame, but the idleness and folly of man; at another time, that it was so wet as to fit the land only for grazing; that they should confine themselves to cattle and sheep, and leave growing corn to countries more fitted by nature. So of flax; they were told to increase flax to any amount, forgetting that it could only be profitably grown on land suited to it, and in a proper state of cultivation. The truth was, that vast portions of Ireland would not lie down in grass for any length of time, but required breaking up, and much of the country was unsuitable to sheep—a proper rotation of crops being as necessary there as in England. At one time he was told that the misfortunes of Ireland arose from want of manufactures, and they were blamed for their neglect of these unrivalled water-powers. At another that it was presumption to fight against nature; that Ireland was intended by Providence to be an agricultural country, and that it was folly to vie with England, so rich in capital and skill; and for a country without coal to compete with one having such large supplies of that material. These were some of the causes given for Irish distress; but he would leave to the Committee just appointed the pursuit and discovery of a remedy. But there was one tiling clear to him, and that was, that the want of more general outdoor relief did not cause the decline. He did not believe the Poor Laws had anything to do with the matter. The labouring class was perhaps, in Ireland, the only one better off than formerly. Their wages were greater, their position much improved, as shown by their greater consumption of excise-able articles. And yet this very class seemed determined to emigrate; the attraction across the Atlantic being too strong; and well clothed, and with money in their pockets, by all accounts they leave Ireland in shoals for a distant land. Could it be believed that the temptation of outdoor relief would keep them at home? It was stated by the hon. Member that no country could be manufacturing with no system of outdoor relief; that, where trade was bad, without relief the operatives would fly, and when demand revived, hands could not be got. He thought the cases of Belfast and Derry disproved this. In Belfast trade has been often slack, but he never heard that the operatives of that energetic city either deserted it, or were supported by the rates. As to the small farmers, who pay so much of the poor
  1850
  rate, he thought the effect of outdoor relief, and consequent increase of the rate, would, in addition to the bad seasons and smallness of their farms, have caused them to emigrate in larger numbers. He observed that emigration had been less in Ulster than elsewhere in Ireland. Why was this the case? The Poor Law was the same there—the seasons had of late been as inclement, the crops as indifferent, and the shopkeepers of the small agricultural towns could best tell the pressure amongst the small farmers. The comparative increase of pauperism had been greater in Ulster, and the rise of wages less there than in other provinces—yet emigration was nothing there to what it was in other parts of Ireland. If emigration arose from want of outdoor relief, why was it not more serious in Ulster? If, however, a change in the law was required, he thought the cost of it should not stand in the way, and he felt certain that the landlords of Ireland would not grudge th extra cost if they were once convinced that the outdoor principle of relief was for the real advantage and interest of the people. In this matter, however, the House should remember the decided results and opinion of the Select Committee on this very subject two years ago. Irish Members were referred to the superior advantage of the Scotch law; but what was the fact? Why, the Scotchmen were copying the Irish system as fast as they could. From their former system of outdoor relief they were now imitating the example of Ireland. The report of Mr. Falconer, the Scotch Inspector, to the Board of Supervision, stated (1863)—
  "That there were now forty-eight workhouses in operation in Scotland, having accommodation for 12,369 inmates. When the workhouses which are in progress of erection are completed, the number of parishes having poorhouses will be 327, with an aggregate population of 1,886,787."
  In another place he says—
  "Where a poorhouse is in operation, we always observe more contentment and self-reliance amongst the poor."
  Again, before the Committee of 1862, Mr. Senior (Poor Law Commissioner for Ireland) expressed a strong opinion against an extension of outdoor relief, both on the ground of the difficulty of its management, the abuses to which it might give rise, and the damage it would do to the self-reliance of the people themselves. Mr. Briscoe (General Superintendent of the Scotch Poor Law) had given a most ludicrous, though painful, account of the abuses prac-

  1851
  tised in Scotland, under the system of outdoor relief. He (Sir Frederick Heygate) would quote a few of them. Mr. Briscoe stated that he found a man on the rates, whose son had a farm—rent £200 a year — a widow, whose son was piper to the Queen at Balmoral and Windsor—a man, whose brother had 2,000 sheep—a woman, sister to a late Provost, with £500 a year in land—a lunatic, whose brother had £3,000 at his banker's —lastly, a man whose brother-in-law was worth £20,000. With regard to chastity, he (Mr. Briscoe) had reported as follows:—
  "Outdoor relief has a serious effect upon female chastity, from the facility of getting relief for bastard children."
  Again, he stated—
  "With respect to morality, it is one of the great causes of unchastity in young women in Scotland, and he thought the feeling was gaining ground."
  He concluded—
  "That it had deteriorated, to a great extent, truth, industry, morality, self-respect, self-reliance, the natural affections and independence of character; it had changed (in the Highlands) the whole character of the people; there was no shame now in demanding relief, even amongst some of higher station."
  This was the system it was proposed to follow, although he did not himself believe Irish Boards of Guardians would ever allow such practices as these. But it was alleged that no outdoor relief was now given. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The last Return showed that 10,000 persons in Ireland were receiving outdoor relief, or one in six of the whole number of paupers on the rates. As the law stood, Boards of Guardians could relieve, with outdoor relief, orphans, foundlings, the aged, and widows with two or more children. Was this nothing? Again, was the Medical Charities Act to be ignored?—a medical outdoor relief of the best description. In England the parish doctor received a miserable stipend. He had to find his own medicines, his own abode or dispensary. How superior was the provision for the Irish peasant in sickness! A dispensary was fixed in every district, attended by a competent medical man, fairly paid, the medicines provided, and, in case of need, the sick person attended in his own cottage. So much for there being no outdoor relief in Ireland. But he (Sir Frederick Heygate) begged to remind the House of the vast difference in the position and habits of the English and Irish peasant. If the English labourer is out
  1852
  of work he has nothing to fall back on but his furniture and his credit. He has everything to buy, and the rent of his house to make up. But the Irishman, in almost every case, has his bit of land, often his cow, his small store of potatoes or meal, his rent (if he pays one in money) will wait, and he has, if at all provident, that necessary article, fuel, for the trouble of saving it. In addition to this, he has an almost inexhaustible resource in the charity and assistance of his neighbours, amongst, perhaps, the most kind-hearted people in the world. He thought it was only right that this distinction should be pointed out. The hon. Member had named the Union of Celbridge amongst others as one where outdoor relief was largely given, and yet where the rates were very low; but this was an unfair selection. Celbridge was a union where the valuation bore one of the highest proportions to the population of any in Ireland, the population there being only 19,580, while the valuation was £115,020. But what would the case be in unions where there was a large population and small valuation under a system of outdoor relief? Why, the property would be swamped. The following calculation could be relied on, and he would read it to the House. The effect of an increased rate upon a poor and rich county was shown in the contrast between Derry and Donegal—

  Population 1861.

  Valuation.

  Expenditure in relief.

  Poundage of Expenditure on Valuation.

  Expenditure per Head on Population.

  England &

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Wales

  20066224

  71823203

  6077922

  1

  8¼

  6

  0¾

  Ireland

  5798564

  12567495

  652202

  1

  0½

  2

  3

  Union Cos. of Londonderry

  193754

  377747

  12731

  0

  8

  1

  3

  Donegal

  224851

  227223

  13048

  1

  1¾

  1

  2½

  If the expenditure in Ireland, with outdoor relief, were at the same rate as the average for England and Wales—namely, 6s. 0¾d. per head on the population—the result would be—

  Cost of Relief.

  Poundage on Valuation.

  Ireland

  £1757690

  2s 9d.instead of Is 0½d

  Londonderry

  58732

  3s 1¼ instead of 0s 8d

  Donegal

  68158

  6s 0d. instead of 1s l¾d

  1853
  In conclusion, he (Sir Frederick Heygate) was convinced that no class in Ireland would gain by the change. It would demoralize the population, as it had done in Scotland; it would lead to difficulties in the administration of the law where none now existed; it would destroy the self-reliance of the people, and inflict a most oppressive burden upon the ratepayers, many of them hardly removed above the class who would receive relief. And, while it would be productive of these evils, he did not believe that an increased power of outdoor relief would, in the least degree, develop the trade of the country, or retain a single emigrant from leaving the shores of his native country. For these reasons, he must give his decided opposition to the Motion before the House.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing that the proprietors and occupiers in Scotland were endeavouring to put a stop to outdoor relief there. They were no doubt building workhouses in many parts of Scotland, because some test of destitution was wanted; and without some such test there were no means of guarding against imposture. The hon. Baronet had quoted Mr. Briscoe to prove that the same abuses which had arisen in Scotland would be repeated in Ireland; but at the time and in the instances quoted by Mr. Briscoe the Poor Law was administered in Scotland by parochial boards, and not by Union Boards of Guardians, by whom abuses were much less likely to be sanctioned. In almost all the cases, too, cited by Mr. Briscoe, there was no workhouse test of destitution. In Ireland, also, the landed proprietors were in the habit of attending the meetings of the Poor Law Guardians, which was not so much the case in Scotland. He spoke from practical experience of both countries when he said, that a greater amount of outdoor relief might be administered in Ireland without injustice or danger. A great deal had been said about Irish distress during the last four years. Previous to 1841–2 similar complaints of distress proceeded from the Highland districts of Scotland. The late Sir Robert Peel sent down Commissioners of inquiry, and upon their Report proposed a more liberal system of Poor Law relief than had up to that period been obtained in those districts. Since that time the House had been very little troubled with complaints of distress in the Highlands. It was quite true that the present Poor Law
  1854
  in Ireland admitted of a considerable amount of outdoor relief. In some cases the law was liberally administered, but in others quite the reverse. He did not know what power or influence the Secretary for Ireland might possess, but if, where complaints of distress were made, the right hon. Baronet could secure a more liberal administration of the law he would be doing great good, and the House would thenceforward hear no more of Irish distress than it had heard of Scotch distress since 1843. With respect to the question of land tenure, if Her Majesty's Government were able and willing to face it, they might do great good to Ireland. The Government in which the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) was Chief Secretary, had grappled with the question, but they had been obliged to quit office, and the Bill was dropped. The Earl of Aberdeen's Government had attempted to face it, but the outbreak of the Crimean war had put an end to their endeavours. He was convinced, if a Bill such as they had introduced were passed, it would put an end to a great deal of humbug and of agrarian agitation. That might be easily judged from the abuse which, when the Bill was under discussion, was heaped upon the Government and the Irish Members who were in favour of the measure by the agrarian agitators. In fact, the agrarian agitators dropped the Bill just as Mephistopheles was said to have dropped the Bible. Burns' Belgian Agriculture showed what an excellent system of cultivation might be carried on by small farmers when they had security. It was said that emigration from Ireland was inevitable, and at the time when the people were suddenly deprived of the potato no doubt emigration was the great resource. But now it was more an exodus than an emigration; and an exodus from any part of the United Kingdom denoted a screw loose somewhere, and ought not to be allowed to continue without an attempt on the part of the Government and the Legislature to provide a remedy.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he regretted that he could not accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for the King's County; it was too vague to command assent. For what was the Resolution? It was—
  "That the House is of opinion that it is just and expedient to extend to Ireland the beneficial provisions of the English Poor Law."
  But that was either a truism, or, if it

  1855
  meant that the English Poor Law in anything like its largest provisions and its whole scope was more beneficent than the Irish system, that was a proposition from which he must entirely dissent. The most striking feature in the English Poor Law was the law of settlement, which deprived a pauper of relief unless he had a settlement, and sent him to the parish in which he might have had one. But the Irish Poor Law gave the poor man relief wherever he happened to be where distress found him, and he held that in that respect the Irish system was far more beneficent. The next remarkable difference between the systems was this, that while in England the rates were paid by the occupiers, in Ireland half of the rates was paid by the owner; and he considered that a much sounder principle, because it combined all classes in a just union of interests to put a stop to excessive expenditure. There was a third point in the English system which he considered objectionable, but which he believed was now almost wholly given up, and that was giving relief in aid of wages. Many of the faults which the hon. Member for the King's County alleged against the Irish Poor Law were, in reality, faults of administration, not of the law itself, and might be remedied by the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman complained of want of classification, but that depended upon the guardians, and had been actually carried into effect by different boards in the way which the hon. Gentleman required. No doubt the South Dublin Union was remarkable for the turbulence of its inmates and the bad results of its management, though it had been defended by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance). In that union classification was not carried out. But in the union with which he (Mr. O'Reilly) was connected, the strictest separation between females of bad character and the virtuous inmates bad been carried into effect for the last fifteen years. And the same principle of classification had been adopted in many unions. Again, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the dietary. But that was precisely one of the points of administration which were within the competence of the Boards of Guardians. In some unions, no doubt, the diet was most inadequate; but then the guardians had it in their power to grant any scale of diet they pleased, subject to the approval of the Poor Law Commissioners, and in most cases it was adequate. The rule laid
  1856
  down in the union of which he had personal experience was, that the diet of the adult poor should be kept low, in order that it might not come into too favourable comparison with the diet of the working classes. But the diet of growing children and young people was not only adequate but generous. The hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the bad results of the training given in workhouses, had instanced the Cork Union and the South Dublin Union; but he (Mr. O'Reilly) believed they were the only examples which could be named in which paupers had been brought before the magistrates for insubordination. It was with much pleasure that he saw the high testimony that was borne by one of the emigration agents to the character of some of the paupers sent out from the Irish workhouses. To his own knowledge the children brought up in the workhouses had turned out well, not only at home but also as emigrants. But the real point in the Motion was the extension of the system of outdoor relief in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Reilly) should be glad to see widows for the first six months, or widows with one child, and not merely widows with two children, as at present, entitled to such relief. Then, as to granting coffins for persons who had died without obliging their families to enter the workhouse, he believed the law in that respect had been read rather laxly, and in favour of the poor. But, at all events, he never knew an instance in which a poor man was in want of a coffin that a collection was not immediately made by the neighbours to provide one. The law in that respect was about to be changed. With regard to the case of the wives of soldiers, he did not lay much stress on it; but as the husbands were engaged in the public service, he thought it would be very fair for the Boards of Guardians to exercise a discretion in their favour. But coining to the largest class of all, the adult able-bodied poor, he considered that in the case of a sudden, unexpected, and peculiar pressure, such as was experienced in the West of Ireland about two years ago, from an unprecedented failure of the crops, it might be desirable that the Boards of Guardians, with the sanction of the Commissioners, should sanction outdoor relief. Such distress like that in Lancashire was an exceptional case, to which the ordinary law did not apply. But what was the opinion of the guardians, more than half of whom were elected by the ratepayers,

  1857
  as to giving ordinarily outdoor relief to the able-bodied poor? Why, the truth was, that they did not give it at present to the fullest extent in their power. There were only three unions in Ireland where outdoor relief was afforded to the fullest extent contemplated by law. He, therefore, did not believe that there was on the part of the ratepaying occupiers that great demand which had been represented for increased power to grant outdoor relief. The question of expense had been alluded to, and he admitted that the pauper in receipt of outdoor relief generally cost less than the indoor pauper, but the question was whether the number of applications for relief would not be greatly increased if the law upon the point were to be too much relaxed. He maintained that there was no sufficient ground for the large extension of outdoor relief which had been suggested, because it was not generally called for throughout the country. He believed that a great majority of the Boards of Guardians, in answer to questions addressed to them, had declared against any large extension of outdoor relief, but not against outdoor relief to a limited extent. They were also against any sweeping extension of the area of taxation. He sympathized with the hon. Gentleman in his regret at the diminution of the population of Ireland, but he ventured to ask whether the application of the English Poor Law to Ireland, whether any increase of relief that could be claimed under it, and whether the English Law of Settlement, which would render it an object in various districts to get rid of the poor population, would have any tendency to keep the people in the country. The hon. Member alluded to a speech delivered by the Queen's representative in Ireland. For himself, he differed as much as any one from many opinions expressed by that noble Lord. He did not believe, like the noble Lord, that it was the future destiny of Ireland to be a country for feeding flocks; but he believed that it would be a country of tillage and agriculture. He felt, however, that he should not be acting honourably if he did not set the hon. Member right on a point with respect to which he had misapprehended the Earl of Carlisle. The noble Lord did not say, on the occasion referred to, at which he (Mr. O'Reilly) was present, that the decrease of the population of Ireland was a benefit, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, the noble Lord expressed his regret at the diminution of the population; but he
  1858
  did not concur in the sentiment expressed in the lines—
  "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey. Where wealth accumulates and men decay;"
  for the noble Lord questioned whether it would not be a greater evil for men to accumulate and wealth decay, because then there would be more mouths to feed and less to feed them with.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that he, for one, was anxious that the destitute poor of Ireland should at all times be treated with as much humanity as was consistent with the duty which the guardians owed to the ratepayers, many of whom were unable to obtain food for their families equal to that given in workhouses, and few able to obtain it equal to that given in our convict establishments. He had listened with attention to the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, but he could not admit that that hon. and learned Member's practical knowledge of the subject was equal to his theoretical, for practical knowledge was only to be acquired by watching the cases that came before the Boards of Guardians, and the pressure put on the guardians in order to induce them to give relief. The hon. and learned Member had not that experience, for when Parliament was sitting they were all aware of his constant attendance in that House, and when the holidays came the hon. and learned Member did not attend the meetings of Boards of Guardians, but the blandishments of those fair ladies who naturally paid court to him, on account of his defence in that House of the cause of their parents and brothers, allured him to other places. As to any legislative enactment for ameliorating the system of outdoor relief, he scarcely thought it necessary, as the guardians had sufficient power in their own hands. The hon. and learned Member talked of the dietaries, but a statement of the dietaries in the Irish workhouses which was moved for last year, but was not yet presented, would show that the hon. and learned Member was wrong in his assertions as to their very inferior state. He had taken a great deal of trouble last year to collect the dietary tables of English and Irish unions, and found that, generally speaking, those in Ireland were superior to the scales of diet given in England. It was, no doubt, sad that while a soldier was abroad fighting the battles of his country, his wife and children should be obliged to enter the walk of the workhouse. But there was another side

  1859
  to the picture. The soldier might be abroad spending his money in drink and debauchery, while unfortunate ratepayers at home were taxed for the support of that man's family. The hon, and learned Member for the King's County, in his enumeration of the charges under the Irish Poor Law, had forgotten some items. The poundage on the annual value of land in Ireland was the same a3 in England— 1s. 0¼d.; but, taking the income of England into account, he found that the amount expended on the Poor Law here was only 5½d. on the pound of income charged with income tax, whilst in Ireland it was 7¼d. in the pound. The hon. and learned Gentleman forgot also the expense incurred under the Medical Charities Act, amounting to one-sixth of the entire outlay. The establishment charges also were extremely heavy, the actual amount expended upon the relief of the poor being but £387,965 out of a total of £600,000. A large proportion of the balance was absorbed by payments to officers employed mainly in registration duties partaking of an Imperial character, and totally unconnected with the legitimate business of the relief of the poor. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) thanked the Government for having introduced the clause in the Vestry Bill with respect to interments, as the previous state of the law was a disgrace to the country, but he thought it eminently wrong that the charges for poor relief in Ireland should be encumbered with items for the registration of births and deaths, and other matters. On that subject he had placed an Amendment on the paper which he would be unable to move at that time, as lie could only move it if the lion. Member carried his Amendment, which he felt sure he could not do; but he would introduce it on some future occasion as a substantive Motion. The hon. Gentleman would hardly say that the weekly average cost of 2s. for maintaining paupers indoors, the rate in that part of the country with which he wa3 best acquainted, was excessive; and the highest weekly average in Ireland was only 2s. 7½d. It was difficult to obtain as clear an idea of average cost from the Returns furnished in England, but the expense, taking both indoor and outdoor relief, appeared to be 62 s. a year. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman could scarcely ask the House to go to a division upon so very vague a Motion as he had put before it.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to cor-
  1860
  rect a misapprehension under which the hon. and learned Member appeared to labour. According to the law of Scotland there was no legal title to relief on the part of able-bodied men, either in the workhouse or out of it, and he thought the system calculated to foster a noble spirit of independence. With regard to the cases of abuse cited from the evidence of Mr. Briscoe, it should be remembered that although individuals in reduced circumstances might have wealthy relations, they were not always under a legal liability to pay for their support. In any case, the pauper applicants must first be relieved from the rates before steps could be taken to make their relatives responsible. Moreover, it was not the object of a workhouse to shame the friends of poor people into giving them moneyed support. The object was to test the circumstances of the paupers themselves.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought that every one would admit that his hon. and learned Colleague had made a most able speech in introducing this question to the notice of the House. He thought, with reference to the latter part of the Resolution, that the hon. Member would have done better had he introduced a short Bill to remedy the evils pointed out, instead of proposing an abstract Resolution, the nature of which could not well be understood. The question of outdoor relief was as much an occupier's question as a landlord's question. If the hon. and learned Member should divide on the question, he should, after his able statement, be unwilling to vote against him; but he certainly should not feel justified in voting for an abstract Resolution which would throw upon the occupiers of land in Ireland the cost, not only of a system of outdoor relief, but also of a law of settlement. He trusted, however, that his hon. and learned Colleague would content himself with the statement he had made and not divide the House.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the able and temperate speech of the hon. and learned Member for King's County, and he wished to bring to his notice two points of some importance upon which he had not touched. The hon. and learned Member had discussed almost all the important differences between the Poor Law of Ireland and the Poor Law of England, but he had carefully avoided those parts of the Poor Law which no one in his senses would propose to con-

  1861
  tinue even in England if they were beginning to legislate on the subject, or would attempt to extend to Ireland. He alluded to the law of settlement as it existed in this country, and the other points referred to by the hon. Member for Longford. Divesting the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County of much that was eloquent and interesting, it came to this—that he lamented, as every one must lament, the emigration which was now going on from Ireland, and proposed to remedy it by the extension of the system of outdoor relief. For his own part, he believed that the Legislature could do nothing to stop that emigration. Any measures which they might adopt for the purpose would be entirely inoperative. As long as there was so great a difference between the rate of wages in America and in Ireland, it was idle to attempt to stop the tide which was now flowing. The strong tie which formerly bound the Irish peasant to the soil was lost, for not only had he seen hundreds of thousands of his countrymen departing on their journey across the Atlantic, but he was constantly receiving, or was daily in the company of others who received, the most glowing accounts of the prosperity which awaited them at the end of the voyage. Under such circumstances, it was but a poor estimate of the people of Ireland to suppose that a mere extension of outdoor relief j would prevent men and women, who were ready to work for their livelihood, from emigrating. But not only would such a measure be inoperative to prevent emigration, it would increase and encourage it in every possible way. What retained nineteen out of twenty of the peasants in the south and west of Ireland in the country was their attachment to their wives and children; but if it were made certain that the wife and children of any man who went to America would be allowed to remain in their cabin, and would receive unlimited outdoor relief, the greatest possible inducement would be held out to that class of persons to emigrate. The ratepayers would also be affected. When the hon. and learned Member talked of assimilating the Poor Law of Ireland to that of England, he forgot the difference in the station of those who paid the rates and those who administered the law. In the districts in which emigration was principally going on the greatest part of the rates was paid by a very poor class, and outdoor relief would increase the amount of the rates. Nothing
  1862
  could be more calculated than such an increase of the rates to drive the smaller ratepayers out of the country. The hon. Member for Longford, in his able and excellent speech, had put the case very fairly before the House. The hon. Member had put the case of a district so distressed as to render extensive outdoor relief necessary. But even in such a case it would be necessary to exercise the greatest wisdom and discretion, lest in endeavouring to remedy one state of things they produced a worse state. In the southern and western parts of Ireland the ratepayers were often more fit to receive relief than to pay a rate. Outdoor relief in such a district would drive the people away. There were instances of that in the famine year. Sir Charles Trevelyan said that all they had to do was to lay rate upon rate until the necessary funds were raised; but after a certain time it was found that each rate created more paupers than it relieved. The subject alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for King's County, and by the hon. Member for Longford, had been carefully considered by the Committee on the Poor Law three years ago. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the want of classification in the workhouses. A modified system of classification had been recommended, but they had rightly approached the subject with that extreme caution with which every one who administered the law should approach it. They ought to recollect what classification meant in the case of women; he could not allude to it more particularly, but would ask them to consider what the consequences would be of putting women in the wrong class. A system of classification might place in the hands of a relieving officer or a guardian who had improper motives a fearful power. He believed that the guardians of the poor were most anxious to act rightly, and while he admitted that careful classification was necessary, he hoped that there would be no expression of opinion from that House that it ought to go further than it did at that time.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I agree very much with what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) as to the ability and research which the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown in submitting this question to the House; but I think it is evident, from the tone of this debate, that the support which he is likely to receive either from hon. Gentlemen from Ireland or from the House generally is very

  1863
  small indeed. I am sorry that in the observations which the hon. and learned Member made he thought it necessary to review generally the conduct of the workhouse system, his remarks upon which were well answered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Longford. In only two instances have there been disturbances of the nature of those to which the hon. and learned Member has referred as being general throughout Ireland. The Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is very comprehensive, and takes in the whole social economy of the population of Ireland. In submitting it to the House the hon. and learned Member has alluded to certain causes which he says have led to the recent emigration, and he has urged the assimilation of the Irish Poor Law to that of England. He has also touched upon the state of feeling in Ireland as one of general dissatisfaction. I shall presently deal with that point, but in the meantime I should like to treat of other matters to which reference has been made. The hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), cannot, of course, move his Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, but I may be permitted to remark that he appears to have entirely misunderstood the question at issue. In England a very large sum is levied yearly which is not directly devoted to the relief of the poor, and when the hon. Member complained of the expenses of the registration of births, deaths, and marriages being placed on the poor rate in Ireland, he surely must have been aware that exactly the same thing is done both in England and Scotland. During the ten years ending 1859–60, the enormous sum of £77,906,000 was raised in England under the head of poor rate, and of that sum no less than upwards of £18,000,000 was disbursed for purposes wholly beside the relief of the poor. With regard to the Motion before the House, I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for the King's County that the system of outdoor relief in England and Scotland is vastly different from that which exists in Ireland. In 1860 no fewer than 19–20ths of the cases of relief in Scotland occurred out of the workhouse; in England, in the same year, 6–7ths of the cases occurred out of the workhouse; whereas in Ireland only one in thirty was an outdoor case. Since that period the system in Scotland has undergone a great alteration. AB many as seventy or eighty work-
  1864
  houses have been built in that country since 1860, in consequence, I believe, of a general conviction among the Scotch people of the evils arising from a too extended system of outdoor relief; in fact, the rapid increase in the pauperism in Scotland is clearly due to the insufficient workhouse test in that country. In 1860 there were only about 3,000 persons in the receipt of outdoor relief in Ireland; whereas it appears from a Report of the Poor Law Commissioners which I hold in my hand, that last month there were more than 10,000 persons in the receipt of outdoor relief. In fact, on the 27th February, 1864, there were 10,465 persons in the receipt of outdoor relief in the four provinces of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County has argued as if there were no system of outdoor relief in Ireland at all, and as if every pauper were obliged to go into the workhouse as a condition of getting relief. I think the fact I have stated on the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners, will show that the conclusion at which the hon. and learned Member has arrived is very different from the fact. But let us suppose that the Resolution before us has been carried. Has the hon. and learned Member considered what the effect would be in his own county? There is no county in Ireland where there is less outdoor relief than in King's County. In three unions there —Parsonstovvn, Edenderry, and Tullamore, —outdoor relief is at the minimum. The hon. and learned Member shakes his head, but from the official statement it appears that in one of the unions—Parsonstown— the system of outdoor relief is entirely unknown. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Member succeeded in carrying his Motion, the ratepayers of King's County would be subjected to an enormous additional amount of taxation; for if the entire proposition could by any possibility be carried out, King's County would find itself in the predicament of having its moderate but sufficient poundage of 11¼d. (very nearly the average poundage of Ireland) converted into an average poundage on the county of 3s. 1¾d., and its annual relief expenditure of £13,148 to £43,918, a result, one may suppose, not wholly satisfactory to the constituents of the hon. Member. I admit that the question before us, one involving an expenditure of £7,000,000 yearly in public charity for the relief of over a million of paupers in the richest and most favoured lands, deserves the

  1865
  attention of the House; but I do think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member to introduce into Ireland the system of outdoor relief as it exists in England and Scotland would meet neither the wishes nor the requirements of the Irish people. The hon. and learned Member must admit that the sum drawn from the country, in the shape of poor rate, should be kept within certain bounds, and that in an agricultural country like Ireland, we must be careful not to elevate the condition of the persons relieved above that of the honest and independent labourer. That would be a grave social error. At the close of his remarks, the hon. and learned Member remarked that he stood forward as the champion of the destitute poor in Ireland. I stand here rather as the advocate of the honest and independent labourer, who has to gain his livelihood by the work of his hands, by the strength and health of his body, and by the sweat of his brow. The fact is, that one great principle should govern the operation of the Poor Laws—namely, that of keeping the stream of public charity within safe bounds; and, in the administration of relief, the public is warranted in imposing conditions on the individual relieved; and every halfpenny that goes to the relief of outdoor paupers, over and above what is absolutely necessary, tends to render the condition of the pauper more eligible than that of the independent labourer, and is a premium to vice and indolence; and I firmly believe that, unless the utmost caution were used, a great calamity would ensue from the introduction into Ireland of the system which the hon. and learned Member had advocated to-night. In England we have a system which has been in operation for more than 200 years; since 1845 the Scotch system has boon assimilated, more or less, to that of England—that is, an organized plan of relief comparable with the English system; while in Ireland, the system which exists was first introduced in 1838, and was subsequently amended in 1847, as well as in several subsequent Acts up to the Act of 1862. The Irish system was commenced with the sanction of the late lamented Sir Cornewall Lewis; it was considered peculiarly applicable to Ireland, and both the measures of 1838 and of 1847 were brought into Parliament by the present Earl Russell. When we find that the minds of such men as Earl Russell and Sir Cornewall Lewis were specially directed
  1866
  to the formation of the Irish Poor Law, I think we are entitled to conclude that the system which they thought good for Ireland is not one that ought to be altered upon light grounds. A great deal has been said to-night with respect to the system of outdoor relief in Scotland, but any person who reads the evidence taken before a Committee which sat, I think, in 1861, will see, in the case of Scotland, how much of prostration and destitution among the labourers may flow from an unlimited amount of outdoor relief. When the Bill of 1847 was passing through Parliament, the Earl of Derby described the effect upon the people of encouraging pauperism, in terms which I would commend to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County. Lord Stanley, in the House of Lords in 1847, in his speech upon the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, said, "The more you encourage pauperism (that is, by an indiscriminate system of outdoor relief), the more you discourage the occupiers of land from giving employment to the labourer for the purpose of keeping him off the poor rate." I believe that the result of the present proposal would be a vast increase of pauperism in Ireland, and as the hon. and learned Member has referred to the Recorder of Dublin—a very distinguished man, one to whom I know the highest offices of the State were offered in 1835—I may mention that Mr. Recorder Shaw looks with the utmost apprehension upon the proposal to introduce into Ireland a system founded upon the pamphlet of Professor Ingram, which, I may add, forms the groundwork of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member. If those who had considered the question conceived that such a system, were it introduced into Ireland, would lead to inevitable abuse, the hon. and learned Member should, I think, have paused before recommending it to the adoption of the House. The testimony of Mr. Briscoe has already been referred to as to the effect of the unlimited system of outdoor relief in Scotland; but the matter is so important that I would again invite attention to it. Mr. Briscoe was officially conuected with the Scottish Board as their general superintendent, and had an opportunity of seeing the operation of outdoor relief in Scotland, and the abuses that resulted from it, from the fact that, in those days, there was in that country no workhouse test. In 1861 he was asked this question by the Committee—

  1867
  "Has not the effect of this outdoor relief been very demoralizing, and has it not broken down the spirit of independence?"
  His answer is this, and it is very remarkable—
  "There is not the least doubt of it. It has deteriorated to a considerable extent truth, industry, morality, self-respect, self-reliance, natural affection, and independence of character; and it appears as if the whole of the humbler classes had completely changed their character. There is no shame now in demanding relief, even among some of higher station."
  MR. CAIRD: That applies only to the Highlands.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes; but Mr. Briscoe remarks, that the state of things there generally is deplorable, and everybody laments it. Therefore it is that we should hesitate to adopt a system which the evidence of practical and very experienced men warned them would be productive of very mischievous results. The hon. and learned Gentleman adverted to the differences between the Poor Laws of England and Ireland. No doubt there is a great difference between them—for instance, as regards relief to women whose husbands are in foreign lands. The English local authorities have also powers for giving outdoor relief to the aged and infirm, which do not exist at all in Ireland; and although unquestionably the Irish Act of 1847 was a very great improvement upon the previous measure of 1838, yet there is not in Ireland a right in the individual to receive outdoor relief. And here let me give, for the information of the House, a comparative state of the English and Irish Poor Law as regards indoor and outdoor relief.

  IRISH.
  Under the provisions of the Irish Poor Relief Acts outdoor relief may be given to the following classes:—

  1. Destitute poor persons permanently disabled from labour by reason of old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect. [10 Vict. c. 31, sec. 1.]

  2. Destitute poor persons disabled from labour by reason of severe sickness or serious accident, and thereby deprived of the means of earning a subsistence for themselves and families. [10 Vict. c. 31, sec. 1.]

  3. Destitute poor widows having two or more legitimate children dependent upon them. [10 Vict. c. 31, sec. 1.]

  4. In the event of there being want of room in the workhouse or offices, or infectious diseases therein rendering it unfit for the reception of destitute poor, the commissioners may authorize the guardians to give outdoor relief in food only, and for a limited time, to any other class. [10 Vict. c. 31, sec. 2.]

  5. In cases of sudden and urgent necessity, immediate and temporary relief may be given by the relieving officers out of the workhouse [10 Vict. c. 31, sec. 7] to any person whatever.

  1868

  6. In cases of eviction relief may be given temporarily out of the workhouse to any class by the relieving officer. [11 & 12 Vict. c. 47, sec. 4.]

  7. Orphans and deserted children may be relieved out of the workhouse, by being put out to nurse up to the age of five years, or, with the consent of the commissioners, of eight years.

  8. Medical relief may be afforded to all classes without restriction [14 &c, 15 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9], on a ticket signed by one of the persons authorized to grant medical relief, of whom there are from fifteen to thirty in each dispensary district.

  9. Section 3 of 25 & 20 Vict. e. 83 authorizes the admission of sick persons into the infirmary or fever hospital of "the workhouse, without requiring any other member of the family to accompany them.

  ENGLISH.
  Under the English Poor Relief Acts outdoor relief may be given to all classes of destitute poor not able-bodied, and in regard to the able-bodied the following appears to be the law:—
  4 & 5 Wm. IV. c. 76, sec. 52, after referring to the then existing practice of giving outdoor relief to the able-bodied, authorizes the commissioners to declare to what extent and for what period the relief given to able-bodied persons and to their families may be administered out of the workhouse.
  The existing regulations of the Poor Law under their authority require that every able-bodied person, male or female, requiring relief shall be relieved wholly in the workhouse, together with such of his family as may be resident with him or her, and may not be in employment, subject to the following exceptions:—

  1. Where such person shall require relief on account of sudden or urgent necessity.

  2. Where such person shall require relief on account of any sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity, affecting such person or any of his or her family.

  3. Where such person shall require relief for defraying the expenses of the burial of any of his or her family.

  4. Where such person being a widow shall be in the first six months of her widowhood.

  5. Where such person being a widow shall have a legitimate child or children dependent upon her, and incapable of earning his or their livelihood, and no illegitimate child born after widowhood.

  6. Where such person shall be confined in any gaol or place of safe custody. (This of course refers to the relief to the family.)

  7. Where such person shall be the wife or child of any able-bodied man in the service of Her Majesty as sailor, soldier, or marine.

  8. Where any able-bodied person does not reside in the union, but the wife or children do so reside, outdoor relief may be given to such wife or children.

  The House will recollect that when I brought in a Bill in 1862, I proposed that persons holding a quarter of an acre of laud should be entitled to relief from the guardians of the poor; but in the other House an Amendment was introduced, I believe at the instance of Lord Donoughmore, which enacted that, under any circumstances, the

  1869
  occupier of more than a quarter of an acre could not receive outdoor relief. There has been a good deal of difference of opinion as to the precise power under the English Poor Law of affording outdoor relief. Some such difference has been expressed even to-night; and I know of no better authorities on that point than Mr. Farnall and my right hon. Friend the President of the English Poor Law Board. When a deputation waited upon my right hon. Friend from the North of England respecting the distress in Lancashire, and asked him what powers there were of giving relief under the English Poor Law, he informed them that the guardians were allowed absolute discretion in relieving all classes of persons except able-bodied men. In the case of these the order required that one-half of the relief should be given in food relief, weekly or oftener, and not while the applicant was employed for wages, and that he should be set to work as long as he received relief. Even this restriction, he said, the guardians were permitted to depart from if they found it expedient. Mr. Farnall says that the relief to be given in England, whether indoor or outdoor, is not limited; that the guardians may give any amount of either, the only check being that if they grant outdoor relief to able-bodied men, it shall be partly in money and partly in kind, but that the amount is not limited at all. That, Mr. Farnall adds, is the direction of an order of the Poor Law Board. In Ireland we have comparatively no system at all like that. In England, in fact, there is an absolute right to relief j but in Ireland it was understood, when the original Poor Law of 1838 was introduced, that the Act did not give a right to relief to all classes of persons, because it was thought by high authorities, like Sir Cornewall Lewis and Earl Russell, that, looking to the different circumstances of the two countries, it would be inexpedient, if not impossible, to introduce a precisely similar system of relief in Ireland as existed in England. The Irish Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 was more liberal; but, nevertheless, it did not give a complete right of relief; and even in the case of the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and widows, it is made to depend upon the guardians whether they are "to be deemed destitute." There is, therefore, an evident difference between the systems in force in the two countries. No doubt when Irishmen come to England they experience a vast difference in this matter. And why? Because
  1870
  the English Poor Law system is under an order of 1844 and another order of 1852. The order of 1844 was issued to a certain number of unions, not to all unions; whilst the order of 1852 was issued to those unions to which the order of 1844 was not issued. The order of 1852 does not state that relief shall be given only in the workhouse to able-bodied poor, and in this respect is more liberal than the order of 1844; and as the order of 1852 includes those parts of England, and applies particularly to those places where the Irish chiefly frequent, there they can receive outdoor relief with extreme facility. When they return to their own country and contrast what they find there with what they have seen here, under the circumstances I have mentioned, they naturally say it is very hard that in the sister island they should be subject to restrictions which do not operate in England. But consider for a moment what would be the expense to the ratepayers if the hon. Gentleman's proposal were adopted and the English system introduced into Ireland. It would enormously add to their burdens. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, I think, that he would afford a greater amount of relief with a less weight of taxation. I am afraid that that could not be the case, because at the present moment the expenditure for poor relief in England and Wales amounts to 6s. 0¾d. per head on the population, whereas in Ireland it is now only 2s. 3d. per head. If, however, the expenditure in Ireland were at the same average rate as it is in England and Wales, instead of paying £652,000 a year, as Ireland now does for the relief of her poor, she would have to pay £1,757,690; that is to say, the poundage in Ireland, which is at present only 1s. 0½d., would amount to 2s. 9d. And I have already shown, what would be the effect of the charge on the county which my hon. and learned Friend represents—King's County—where the expenditure for poor relief is now 11¼d. in the pound, whereas, by the plan he advocates, it would be brought up to 3s. 1¾d. The hon. and learned Member thinks the Irish Poor Law is not adequate for the requirements of the people; but in 1849, when the country underwent a great crisis, that Poor Law was thought equal to the emergency, for the present system, with the exception of the improvements introduced in 1862, was then in force. In 1849 we actually relieved 2,143,766 persons in Ireland, and

  1871
  there was an expenditure in that country amounting to £2,177,000. Therefore, supposing Ireland were to require it, we have now in our possession a law which would place ample and powerful means at our command for giving relief, both outdoor and indoor, in case of emergency, and that without their being supplemented by the provisions in force in England.
  The hon. and learned Member referred to the emigration now going on from Ireland. No doubt that emigration has attained very vast proportions; but I think it cannot in any way be attributed to the operation of the Irish Poor Law. In fact, I have never heard that any practical observer who has watched that emigration for the last ten, twelve, or fourteen years, has traced it to the working of our Poor Law system. It may be interesting to the House to know the exact position of the emigration now taking place from Ireland. Some mis-statements respecting it were made the other night, accidentally, no doubt, by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University. I have in my hand accurate statistics on the subject. The emigration last year undoubtedly assumed extreme proportions. The total emigration from Ireland in 1863 amounted to 119,788 persons, but of that number, it is a very curious fact, 62,988 were males, and 56,800 were females, so that the numbers were almost equally divided. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin spoke of 100,000 fighting men having left the shores of Ireland for America during the last twelve months, but the real truth was that although the total number was 119,788, yet of these there were only 62,988 males, while there were 56,800 females. Besides, a large proportion also were under ten years of age. Of the number who emigrated during last year there were actually 14,842 children under the age of ten years. This emigration, which I believe to be the result of natural causes, has also been going on at an increasing rate during the two months of the present year. We have an increase in the emigration in January and February over the corresponding months of 1863. In January, 1863, there emigrated from Ireland 4,690; and in January, 1864, 5,365. In February, also, there has been an increase of 1,200 over the emigration of February, 1863; the numbers being in February, 1863, 6,262, whereas in February, 1864, the numbers were 7,624. No doubt, therefore, the
  1872
  emigration still continues on a very vast scale; and I quite agree with a right hon. Gentleman who stated that it is not to be attributable to any fault of our laws, certainly not to any defect in our Poor Law. I believe it is the result of natural laws, and that it will continue; for, although one must feel regret at seeing so many thousands leaving their homes, it is better that they should emigrate, than remain in Ireland without the opportunity of reaping an adequate reward of their labour, which they will receive in America, in England, and in Scotland, No doubt the scale of wages in England and Scotland is quite sufficient to induce Irishmen to come over to England or Scotland, considering the facilities they have in the low rate of passage money — the fare on deck from Ireland to Liverpool or Glasgow being only 4s. and 5s. But what inducement has not the Irishman to go to New York? He receives letters from his friends there, painting in glorious colours the enormous wages they receive. I hold in my hand a statement of labourers' wages in New Orleans at the end of February last. It appears that first-class mechanics are paid 3¼ dollars a day, locomotive engineers the same, labourers without rations 1½ dollar a day, waggon-masters 50 dollars a month, blacksmiths 45 dollars a month, ordinary hands on river boats, 35 dollars. When these wages are offered, it is natural that the Irishman should emigrate in order to obtain that remuneration for his labour which he cannot find in Ireland. Then think of the convincing proofs we have of the prosperity of the Irishman when he goes abroad! It is an ascertained fact that in 1853 Irishmen who had emigrated, remitted £1,500,000 to their families in Ireland. Well, then, you should not blame the emigration which is going on. The Government has nothing to do with it. Politics and religion have nothing to do with it. These people are quite right, they are going where they will earn an adequate remuneration for their labour—a reward which circumstances forbid their obtaining at home. A very able pamphlet was published the other day by Mr. M. Joseph Barry, barrister-at-law, of Cork, on the subject of Irish emigration, in which he treats of this subject. He eays—
  "Population merely is not necessarily an element of strength. An unemployed population—and that is the case of Ireland—without the means of employing it, plainly cannot be an element of wealth; and, as such population must necessarily be discontented, it is equally clear that it is an element

  1873
  of weakness rather than strength. The real question is, can remunerative employment be had for the existing population of Ireland at home? If not, it is better that those who cannot get it at home, should go whithersoever it can be had."
  I quite agree with these sentiments. I do not at all believe that we have seen the end of this emigration in Ireland. I am quite satisfied that before Ireland recovers her proper status, another half million of souls must leave that country. Though it is not for me to express an opinion of regret at their leaving, I still believe that if they can better themselves elsewhere, and receive remunerative employment, their departure will also improve the condition of those they leave behind, because it will have the effect of raising the wages which the latter will receive, whereas at present the market is glutted, so that it is impossible for a family to live on the 10 d. or 1s. a day they now receive.
  There is another consideration which should not be overlooked in connection with the emigration from Ireland. That is the very natural result of getting rid of the system of small holdings which has done so much mischief in that country. If you take the census for the last twelve years you will observe a very remarkable revolution going on in that particular. I hold in my hand the Census Returns of 1841, 1851, and 1861, as regards small holdings during the three decennial periods, showing what has been the consolidation of small farms.
  The Census of 1841 showed 310,436 small holdings of 1 to 5 acres.
  The Census of 1851 showed 88,083 small holdings of 1 to 5 acres.
  The Census of 1861 showed 85,469 small holdings of 1 to 5 acres.
  The Census of 1841 showed 252,799 holdings of 5 to 15 acres.
  The Census of 1851 showed 191,854 holdings of 5 to 15 acres.
  The Census of 1861 showed 183,931 holdings of 5 to 15 acres.

  There appears, therefore, a decrease in the number of small holdings. of 1 to 5 acres, from 1841 to 1851

  222,353

  There appears, therefore, a decrease in the number of small holdings. of 1 to 5 acres, from 1851 to 1861 a decrease of

  3,620

  There appears, therefore, a decrease in the number of small holdings. of 1 to 5 acres, from 1841 to 1851 a decrease in the number of holdings of 5 to 16 acres

  60,965

  There appears, therefore, a decrease in the number of small holdings. of 1 to 5 acres, from 1851 to 1861 a decrease of

  8,823

  There appears also an increase of the number of holdings of 15 to 30 acres, from 1841 to 1851

  61,969

  There appears also an increase of the number of holdings of 15 to 30 acres, from 1851 to 1861 a decrease of

  93

  There appears also an increase of the number of holdings of 15 to 30 acres, from 1841 to 1851 an increase of holdings of above 30 acres

  100,415

  There appears also an increase of the number of holdings of 15 to 30 acres, from 1851 to 1861 a decrease of

  8,867

  The holdings, therefore, up to five acres, and from five to fifteen and thirty, have increasingly diminished, whereas the holdings of thirty and upwards have consider-
  1874
  ably increased. It is quite evident that a change of this kind must tend to increase the prosperity of the country. I was reading the other day the account which Arthur Young gives of the small holding system in Ireland. He says—
  "Go to districts where the properties are minutely divided, and you will find—at least, I have done it—universally great distress, and even misery, and probably very bad agriculture,"
  I think that is the case; and if this system is passing away, and these small holders become agricultural labourers, their position will be infinitely improved, while the labour market will be better supplied than it has ever been before. But, when we talk of the immense emigration going on from Ireland, the House should not forget that there has been a very remarkable movement all through Western Europe of late years as regards emigration. A very interesting work has recently been written on this subject by M. Duval. It is entitled Histoire de l' Emigration, from which it appears that almost all the countries of Western Europe have increasingly participated in the movement. For instance, he says, the number of emigrants from Germany in the period between the years 1819 and 1826 did not exceed 2,000 to 4,000 a year, whereas in 1851 the number had risen to 112,547 emigrants, in 1853 to 162,568, and in 1854 to 251,931. These numbers had not been fully maintained Bince, but in 1855 there were 81,698 emigrants, in 1856 98,573, and now the average is 50,000 to 60,000 a year; also in England and Scotland this movement of emigration is progressing, as well as in Ireland. From 1851 to 1861, in the ten years, there emigrated from the United Kingdom 640,316 English, and 102,954 Scotch, or an annual average of more than 74,000 for Great Britain during that period. I think this emigration, which, after all, is no phenomenon peculiar to Ireland, will go on till the supply of labour required elsewhere is more adequate to the demand; and I maintain that, great as the emigration has been, and great as is the change which has taken place in the feelings of the people of Ireland, those who are strangers to the country should not too hastily judge from what they read of Ireland in the newspapers. We have, no doubt, had demonstrations in Dublin. We have heard of scenes enacted in the Municipal Council of Dublin, and of meetings in the Rotunda, called Demonstrations of Brotherhood, but no one ought to attribute to

  1875
  them a representation of the general feeling of Ireland. I do not agree that those meetings are evidence of general disconcontent. I admit that we have had these demonstrations, hut recollect how different is our position in Ireland to what it would be here. We have not the authority, as I wish we had, to grasp with all the evils that exist. There is there what is not to be found in this country, a rebel press, whose object it is to vilify progress and to retard the improvement of the country. I have seen articles in the rebel press lauding cases of assassination, and others endeavouring to excite discontent between landlord and tenant, and hatred among various classes. When you find such poison disseminated through the country, is it to be wondered at that uneducated men should be anxious to emancipate themselves from the atmosphere which gathers round such a press, and that they should prefer to live in a free country, such as America was before this unhappy dispute broke out, rather than remain under the influence of agitators who certainly work a vast amount of mischief, and whom I am sorry to say, with our laws, we cannot reach? The lion, and learned Gentleman has alluded to the Fenians, a brotherhood which is supposed to exist in Ireland to a very considerable extent. Now I dare say there are few persons here who know what the word "Fenians" means. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain it. In Ireland we abound in potatoes and romance, one being food for the body and the other for the mind. Well, now, I do not suppose there are more than five or six Gentlemen in this House who know what the Fenians were. I can tell the House that, according to the legend, the Fenians are a very ancient body. Appended to one of Moore's Melodies, beginning "The wine-cup is circling," there is a note which states that the Fenians or Finii were the ancient national militia of Ireland. Naturally, when I saw that, I began to inquire what this national militia meant. I found that very long ago, beyond the third century, there lived a king called Cormac, who had ten daughters. One of those daughters married Fiomo, the son of Fin Mac Couhal. He, although a man of independent means, took an immense liking to his father-in-law, and determined to establish a national militia, of which be himself would have the command. He accordingly did establish the Fiana Eirioun, which means the national militia of Ireland. The Fenians of that day were
  1876
  very much like their namesakes of to-day; they were always bawling out against other people. The ancient Fiana, however, were men of might and valour; they gained all their battles, but the time came at last when they squabbled among themselves, and then they divided into two septs. One of those septs attacked a town, and at last a sovereign of that time, whose name I forget, said he could not tolerate the dissensions of the Fiana, and, with a national army, he annihilated every man. One man was left, who lived until the time of St. Patrick, and told to all the world the glory of the ancient Fiana. I believe the name which is given to a certain brotherhood takes its origin from this legend. But, perhaps, it will be interesting to the House that I should relate what were the habits of the ancient Fenians, and I can only hope that their representatives in the present day may be required to do the same. Their duties were to defend the country, but during the winter they were billeted upon the inhabitants. They must have been rather noisy customers, if they were like their representatives of the present day. During the summer they had to hunt and fish for themselves, and what they caught they boiled in big pots. But when they had got any food, before eating it they stripped themselves to their shirts—they only wore ceintures, which they hung to a tree while they bathed themselves, and then being quite clean proceeded to dispose of the fish they had caught and cooked. They all slept in trees like the gorillas of the present day. Their laws required that when a Fenian was disposed to marry— before enrolment—he was obliged to promise that he would not follow the mercenary custom of insisting upon a portion with his wife, but would choose her for her virtue, chastity, and good manners. The Fenians of that day were bound not to insult women, not to turn the back, nor refuse to fight with nine men of any other nation. But here is a remarkable feature. The Fenian of that day was obliged, before he enlisted, to show extreme skill in running. Those heroes wore their hair longer than my hon. Friend near me does, and therefore they plaited their hair round their head. An intending Fenian was compelled to run through a wood, and all the corps ran after him. At the end of a certain distance he was to mount a tree, but if he was overtaken by any of the corps he was not enlisted. That is an authentic account

  1877
  of the ancient Fenians, of whom in the present day we have a brotherhood—at least called by the same name. I hope they will confine themselves to such amusements as I have described, and will not enter into disputes which, as with their predecessors, will lead to their destruction.
  Passing, however, from this subject I will make a few remarks upon the state of Ireland, apart from this brotherhood and the rebel press. It is a remarkable fact, that in the report of offences committed in 1863 there is a striking decrease as compared with 1862, amounting to no less than 1,200. The return of outrages reported during the month of January, 1864, shows a fewer number by 92 than in the corresponding month of 1863; and I am happy to say that in the past month we have had a state of things unexampled in the annals of Irish crime; there has not within the month of February been a single homicide committed throughout the whole of Ireland. Now, although some persons may find fault with the relations between the magistrates and the police, yet when we find an improvement of this kind I think the House will agree that it is very satisfactory. Then, as to the trade of Ireland, concerning which the hon. and learned Gentleman complains and says we are retrograding, and generally takes a gloomy view of things. I witnessed very lately the opening of a new cattle market in Dublin, and a more remarkable effort on the part of the merchants, salesmen, and graziers of Ireland can hardly be conceived. When we hear of a country going to ruin, of a total absence of energy and public spirit, it was well to know that Dublin was able to make a new market, at a cost of £20,000, which sum was raised for the purpose within three months. The market covers eleven acres of ground, and the second day after the opening there were at least 4,000 head of cattle shown, while in the old Dublin market of Smithfield not more than 2,000 head were ever seen. Mr. Alderman Reynolds described it as a complete victory, which would do very much to advance the great grazing and agricultural interests of the country. There is one other point also to which for a moment I wish to refer, and that is the cultivation of flax, which, I think, is likely to give considerable employment to agricultural labourers and others who cannot now find work. [An hon. MEMBER: Flax is too exhaustive a crop.] It may be exhaustive, but in the province of Ulster the
  1878
  cultivation has gone on for two generations, and it is known there that by proper care, and by a proper rotation of crops, and by due attention to the varieties of soil, that soil does not deteriorate; and I believe that if these points are borne in mind, flax may be cultivated with as much success in other parts of Ireland as it now is in the province of Ulster.
  As to the Motion before the House, I oppose it, because I believe, in the interests of the ratepayers and of the honest agricultural labourers of Ireland, its adoption would do considerable mischief, and would immensely increase the rates. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, will give me credit for an anxious and earnest solicitude for the welfare of the class in whose favour he has spoken to-night. I, like him, am truly anxious to see that class well taken care of by the authority and the bounty of the State; but I feel that we must resist a Motion of this kind, because it would not work satisfactorily in Ireland. In England, the Poor Law is administered by those who have experience of its working, and the operation of the Irish Poor Law under the Acts of 1838 and 1847 has answered the most sanguine expectations which were formed of it by the late Sir Cornewall Lewis and by Earl Russell. During the time I have held office I have had an opportunity of seeing a good deal of Ireland. I have held my present office for a longer period than it has of late years fallen to the lot of my predecessors to occupy it. During that time I have learnt to admire not only the character, but the intelligence and industry of the Irish people. In addition to this, I have learnt to observe differences, which are not sufficiently appreciated by strangers, resulting from and effected by locality, by race, and by religion —differences which carry the mind back to times of oppression, of animosity to the British Government, of uncertainty and insecurity. We have now a larger degree of social intercourse between the two countries, and a more liberal policy in Ireland; and this being so, I think good must be the result to the people. Everybody who has studied Ireland must be struck with the growing disposition to discuss subjects connected with the country, irrespective of party feeling, and to dispel the atmosphere of prejudice which has so long hung over them. I want to see that spirit diffuse itself still further among all parties, and I am certain that if this is done, the difficulties and uncertainties of the past

  1879
  will gradually yield to influences which at the present moment are visibly tending to develop the national resources and the enterprize of Ireland, and which, if, as I trust they will be, they are accompanied by spirit and determination, will unquestionably result in the substantial improvement and permanent benefit of the country.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, with the exception of one portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—which I think was very much below the dignity of this House, and which, I think, will not add to the good feeling which ought to exist in the minds of the people of Ireland towards this House—the speech which we have just heard has been one very well worth listening to, and has been marked by great moderation. It struck me as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, that his argument, if it be held just by those to whom it is addressed, would lead to a great alteration in the Poor Law in England and Scotland, because I think there is not a single argument he has used that would not be equally applicable in favour of abolishing outdoor relief in England. What I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to propose is mainly this— that the same mode of relief ought to exist by law and practice in Ireland, that now exists by law and practice in England. The facts have been stated two or three times in the course of this debate, and I shall not go into them at any length; but on reading one of the numerous pamphlets, which I am glad to see are published in Ireland on social questions, I was very much struck with figures which put the matter in a very strong light. Let us bear in mind that in England relief is given to all classes who are in poverty, to the able-bodied even in the workhouse and out of the workhouse, and that in Scotland relief is given in the workhouse and out of the workhouse, but not in any case by law to the able-bodied. There is a difference, therefore, between England and Scotland; but in Ireland relief is only given (because I do not reckon that the 10,000 persons, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, and who really do not interfere with the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman) to those who accept it in the workhouse. The 10,000 form so small a proportion of those who receive relief and so very small a proportion of the population that we know to be in the extreme of poverty, that it really does not interfere with the argument. In England in the
  1880
  year 1863 — I take these facts from a pamphlet which I read two or three nights ago — there were 1,142,000 persons, or more than 5 per cent of the population of England and Wales, who received relief; but in Ireland there were only 66,000 who received relief, not more than about 1 per cent of the population. In England, of those who were relieved, 13 per cent were in the workhouse, and 87 per cent were out of it. In Ireland 91 per cent were in the workhouse, and 9 per cent out of it. We must therefore admit—making whatever we can of the exception which the right hon. Chief Secretary has mentioned —that still the fact remains, that of the relief given in England 87 per cent is given out of the workhouse, and in Ireland only 9 per cent. It may be that the Poor Law is a law that promotes pauperism. I presume that, to a certain extent, that must be the case with every Poor Law in every country; but is that enough, as an economic argument, to overthrow the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman? We have a Poor Paw of a liberal character in this country, one of a somewhat less liberal character in Scotland, and one infinitely less liberal in Ireland. Now, I should like to ask upon what grounds anybody will say that an Irishman in his own country has no claim for relief from the land, buildings, and properties of his country unless he will go inside the workhouse; and that if he crosses the Channel and comes to the county in which I live, and in which, as everybody knows, we have a large Irish population, that same man, whether he be able-bodied or not, if he be in distress, and if he have lived among us for the period of three years, has a right to relief from the rates levied upon the lands and houses and factories of that county. Now, let some one tell me why this difference should exist. The right hon. Gentleman says, because a late Member of this House whom we hoped to have seen much longer on that bench, and because Earl Russell some years ago, in the year 1847, approved of the Irish Poor Law as it now exists, therefore that we are to take it for granted that it was and is absolutely perfect. In 1847 the pauperism of Ireland was enormous; it became necessary to pass a Bill in a practical shape for the first time; it was necessary to pass it through a House composed mainly of the owners of land; the representatives from Ireland were for the most part owners of land in that coun-

  1881
  try, and it was a difficult thing to pass an Irish Poor Law; and if it had not been for the great emergency that had arisen, I do not know that any Minister or any Government could have passed such a law through this House. At that time the pauperism was so great that an Irish landlord might really fear that his estate might be swept away. I recollect that as late as the year 1849 I was on an estate in Ireland in the county of Limerick looking into the books of the estate, and the manager of it told us that out of the whole rent of £14,000 that had been received in that year, £11,000 had gone in the payment of poor rates. That was a serious state of things, and Irish landowners might well be afraid of giving a legal right of relief to a mass of pauperism which threatened to be overwhelming. But the state of things is now very different. Notwithstanding the distress which at present exists in Ireland, the population is very much less than it was then, and whatever be the system of Poor Law relief, it would be much more easily administered, and the burden, whatever it may be, upon land will be much less now than it would have been at that time. We are coining—taking the speech, the facts, and the hopes of the right lion. Gentleman —to a future of Ireland, when it is to be presumed labour will be more scarce, and wages will be higher, and the burden of the pauper population upon property will diminish year by year. If that be so, is the time not coming—has the time not now arrived—when, without unduly burdening the land of Ireland, of which the great amount of its property consists, and without giving too much stimulus to pauperism, Parliament might consent to equalize the law, and make it exactly the same in Ireland as it is in England. I can find but two arguments against that course, and they are arguments that are not very creditable to Irishmen. One is, that the people of Ireland—that is, those who are above the poorer classes—have very little disinclination to accept relief. The other reason is—and I think the right hon. Baronet admitted this in his speech when he spoke of the good administration of the Poor Law in England—that there is a fear the class above the poorest could not be trusted with the administration of poor relief in Ireland as safely as the corresponding class in this country. Well, that is to your taste. It may be so; but I do not think Englishmen need be influenced by that argument. I take it that if Ireland
  1882
  were 1,000 miles further out in the Atlantic the probability is that she would be left to settle this matter herself, and that between the pauperism on the one side, and the proprietors of land on the other, there would be found a mode of making the law satisfactory to the poor, and having it fairly administered by the rich. I do not believe that there is any case for maintaining a difference between the law of Ireland and England. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said many things that I entirely agree with on the subject of emigration, and indeed it is quite evident, from some of his observations, that he has been a diligent reader of some of my speeches. I quite agree with him that it is in the natural course of things—whether the pauperism of Ireland has arisen from bad laws or from bad administration—there being that pauperism—that the population in very large numbers should leave their own country and should go to a country where labour is in greater demand, and where wages are so much higher. But it does not follow that you should maintain any system of law with regard to land, with regard to religion, with regard to this question of the Poor Law that should allow any man in Ireland justly to tell his countrymen that he had no justice from the Imperial Parliament—that the only country where he would be respected as a man is a country 3,000 miles off, and to which, when he goes there, we generally find him carrying that bitter hostility against this country which has been created and has grown in the land of his birth, and which induces Irishmen to form a considerable portion of whatever party in the country of their adoption may be hostile to England. Now, the Irish landowners, in my opinion, have not been a very far-seeing class with regard to their own present or future interests. I believe that the time is coming when they will find very considerable difficulties on the score of labour, and possibly, too, they may find through the difficulty of obtaining labour, and the consequent great increase of wages, that the rate of rent may fall. But there is more than that to be considered, for there is a question of infinitely greater importance than the question of 5s. an acre, and that is, that those who are so happily placed with great properties, and in eminent positions, should live amongst a population by whom they are still considered as aliens, and to whom they have never yet been able to bind themselves by

  1883
  any of those ties which, to a greater or less extent, fortunately exist in this country. Lord Carlisle the other day in his speech —I forget now on what occasion—said he approved of emigration, and he hoped it would go on until the Irish labourer attained—I do not quote his exact words— to that luxurious state of income which is indicated by 10 s. a week. Well, Lord Carlisle is one of the most just and benevolent men living. There is no human being to whom he would do a harsh action, or say an unkind word. Yet such is the condition of that country, such its deplorable and unparalleled condition among the Christian nations of Europe, that this benevolent and just Governor of Ireland hopes that emigration will go on until the wages of its labourers come to the rate of 10 s. a week. But when they come to 10 s. a week they will not stop there, for there will be in the United States an Irish nation even greater than the Irish nation itself, and the temptation and the power of—what shall I call it?—of attraction to the other side of the Atlantic will even be greater than it is now. If I were an Irish landowner, I would remember what the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland said— namely, that there had been 200 Acts of Parliament passed on behalf of the landlord, and never one, to his knowledge, on behalf of the tenant; and if there be, with regard to land, industry, Poor Laws, or any other question, a just principle adopted in England, I would endeavour to adopt it in Ireland. And if there be any just principle rejected in England, which I could still discover to be just, I would ask the Imperial Parliament to adopt it in Ireland. I think there is no humiliation attaches to any Government in Europe—to Austria, speaking of Italy, or certainly to Poland speaking of Russia—I believe there is no humiliation attaches to any Government of Europe at this hour so great as that which attaches to the successive Governments of this country, from the fact that we have ruled Ireland, without dispute, by a united Parliament for more than two generations, and yet we find it now, by consent of every man, whether Catholic or Protestant, pauperised to a great extent, and, I believe, disloyal and disaffected to this House and to the English Government probably more than it has been at any preceding period in its history. ["Oh!"] Well, I only know that I have heard a gentleman — a Protestant gentleman, a great landowner in the south of Ireland,
  1884
  and at one time holding a position in this House—say, in the presence of a dozen persons, when answering a question put by one of our leading statesmen, as to what would be the result if there landed a French- force in Bantry Bay, that he believed such a landing would be received with universal acclamation throughout the whole south of Ireland. I am not responsible for this. I have always spoken in favour of the most equal justice to that people. To the landowners of Ireland that inequality, of which the Irish complain, is a sore calamity, and if it did not exist their properties would be of more value, their homes in the country more happy, their families more safe, and they would have also the consciousness that they were fulfilling the duties which devolve upon the high station which they occupy amongst that poor people. Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, with regard only to one enactment, that you should make that law between Ireland and England equal. The very fact of your doing that, even if it had no practical result, would still be a balm to the feelings of the people of Ireland, and I believe if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could make up his mind to concede this—I call it small—concession, he would be amply compensated in the goodwill and gratitude of the people of Ireland.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, that this debate on an Irish question had been carried on with the most perfect moderation and good temper by every hon. Member from Ireland who had taken part in it. The first who had departed from that tone —the first who had uttered a speech calculated to excite the bitterest feelings— the first who had endeavoured to sow disunion when, as it appeared, every Irish Member was desirous of drawing the two countries more closely together, was, he regretted to say, an English Member. The debate had been opened with ability and moderation by the hon. and learned Member for King's County; but the hon. Member for Birmingham had thought fit to close it with a speech the most inflammatory, the most characterized by democratic sentiment of any he had ever heard come from the lips of any Member in that House, and his experience there was not a short one. He had heard many speeches —many eloquent speeches—from an hon. Member, of whom those who had listened to him must retain a vivid recollection—he meant the late Mr. O'Connell—but never

  1885
  had he heard any speech more likely to sunder the feelings of amity that should exist between the two countries than the speech which had just fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman begged the whole question from beginning to end. He started with the assumption that the English Poor Law was of the most perfect character and founded on the principles of the purest wisdom, and that it was an injustice to withhold it from the Irish people. If he could for one moment indulge in fairness and candour ["Oh, oh!"]—were those words out of order or inapplicable to the speech they had just heard?—he ought to recollect that we started from two different points. Twenty-five years ago there was no Poor Law either in Ireland or Scotland. A Poor Law existed in this country, but it was pregnant with such disastrous results that it was absolutely necessary to enter upon the arduous task of reforming it. The present Poor Law did not start ab initio as something perfect, but it was a remedy for growing evils, which had threatened the confiscation of property in many parishes, and which was sapping the foundations of society. Statesman after statesman had endeavoured to grapple with it, and political economist after political economist had denounced it as founded on the falsest principles. After numberless attempts, the English Poor Law was devised as a means of dealing with a gigantic evil, and then a modified Poor Law was introduced into Scotland and Ireland, which, to a certain degree, had fulfilled the intentions of its proposers. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt on the distress of 1847, but had never mentioned the potato famine, which, not the Poor Law, was the cause of that distress. No doubt great suffering was sustained then, for the whole food of a people could not be destroyed without suffering, but it was dealt with by the munificence and charity of this country, and after that stage had passed, the Poor Law, to a certain degree, had relieved the distress of the country. He did not say that it was incapable of improvement, but at that late hour ho should not enter into the subject. He had only risen to express his deep regret that the hon. Member, who with certain classes of the population enjoyed great influence, and whose words would find an echo throughout Ireland, should have abused his great powers of eloquence, which were unquestionably great, to widen the breach between the two countries, and
  1886
  should have endeavoured to aim a blow at the good feeling which ought to exist between England and Ireland.
  MR. MAGUIREdid not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham needed any defence from him, but he totally dissented from the hon. Baronet's estimation of the speech and of the intentions of the speaker. There were times when it behoved those who were able to give impartial opinions to speak the truth, and their accents would sound no doubt harsh to those who wished to have the truth veiled. He knew as much of the feelings of Ireland as most men, and he was sorry to say that there existed in that country a feeling of deep dissatisfaction and even of intense exasperation. He had no wish to exaggerate; on the contrary, he desired to put the greatest restraint both on his feelings and language; but there was the strongest possible feeling of discontent in that country. The Government might wish to hide the truth from the House, but they could not disguise the existence of the general sentiment, that things were getting worse and worse there every day, and that the sooner the mass of the people, or a large I portion of them, left the country, the better it would be for them. That was not a state of things which reflected great credit on this country, or on the Government of the day. It ought to induce them to consider whether there was anything radically wrong in Ireland, and whether some remedy could not be provided. The Government were most anxious to show that emigration was no injury to Ireland, and, at the same time, to represent that there was really little or no emigration. The right hon. Baronet had talked of emigration from Germany, from Western Europe, and from Great Britain, but he never reminded the House that while thousands were emigrating from countries which contained many millions, 120,000 a year were emigrating from a country which had suffered a greater diminution of its population within the last ten years than any other country in the world. What was the 60,000 from the 20,000,000 of England compared with the 120,000 from the 5½millions of Ireland? There was no check to this stream of emigration—on the contrary, it flowed on with a deeper, stronger, and more impetuous current. It was carrying with it, not the idle and dissolute, but the strong, energetic, and adventurous, and it left behind it many who with a feeling of despair regretted that they could not follow

  1887
  their brethren across the ocean. There must be something wrong in such a state of things; and if there was something wrong, it was but common sense—to say nothing of the honour of England—to inquire into it in order to discover its real nature, and energetically to endeavour to apply a remedy. His hon. Friend who had made this Motion did not impute the misery of Ireland to the Poor Law. His somewhat vague resolution, however, might be open to comment and misrepresentation, and he would advise him to withdraw it, and to introduce a Bill to amend the existing law, which, in some of its provisions, pressed hardly on the misery and poverty of the country. He for one should be sorry to see the English Law of Settlement and Removal introduced into Ireland. He knew that there were many parishes in this country where it was working great cruelty, and where it has destroyed property and industry. English Members would ere long regard the Law of Settlement and Removal as a foolish and wicked law, which fettered the freedom of the working man, and prevented him from carrying his skill or his labour to the market in which there was most demand for it. Although the Irish Poor Law was open to great improvement, it would derive no advantage from the introduction of a system which had worked such evil and such misery to the working classes of England. The existence or nature of the Irish Poor Law was not of itself the cause of Irish distress, or of the feeling of dissatisfaction which prevailed in that country; it may have aggravated distress, but it did not cause it. He concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham and the Member for Waterford in pointing out one of the principal, if not the chief, causes of the misery of Ireland, and one of the greatest incentives to emigration—the state of the Irish Land Question. The great cause of evil was the absence in Leinster, Munster, and Con-naught of the tenant right of Ulster, or of some system embodying the same principle. He wished to see introduced into the three other provinces of Ireland the same system which existed in the north of Ireland. The tenant right system of Ulster was the salvation of the farmers of that province, and it was as beneficial for the landlord as for the tenant. No such law existed in Munster; the whole population was at the mercy of the landlord. If the landlord was a good, a wise,
  1888
  and a humane landlord, all went right, and there was no necessity for a law to bind him; but if he was bad, foolish, capricious, or tyrannical, then the tenant was helpless in his hands. In saying this he did not wish to hurt the susceptibilities of any man or of any class; nor particularly did he desire to hurt the susceptibilities of the hon. Baronet below him (Sir John Walsh), who was a prosperous Irish landlord, of the class known as absentees. But such, literally, was the condition of the great mass of the tenants of three provinces of Ireland, and the relation in which they stood to the owners of the soil. If the tenant had security for his outlay, whatever capital he possessed, either in strength or savings, would be expended on the land; he would be able to give employment at a high rate of wages, and it would be then immaterial what the nature of the Poor Law might be, or whether relief were indoor or outdoor, as it would no longer be needed. The land of Ireland was badly cultivated now, because the tenant had no security that he would reap the reward of his labour. As a rule, he had no lease, and could be turned out at any time, his landlord pocketing his savings, which were represented by the improvements in the farm. The state of things was different in England from what it was in Ireland. In Ireland the tenant created everything, and the landlord comparatively nothing. In England the landlord made improvements, supplied out-buildings, fences, and drains, and the tenant was only expected to keep them in order, and work his farm properly. The consequence was that in Ireland the farmers were discontented, they could not employ labour, the rate of wages was low, and whenever pressure came there was great misery and distress. This was the patent cause of the distress in Ireland, and the sooner the Government dealt with it the better. He denied that it was good for the country that the people should leave it. In country towns the misery of the small shopkeepers from losing their customers was astonishing. Every day they were getting worse and worse, shops were closing, houses were becoming tenant-less, and a feeling of despair was rising in every man's breast. It was a state of things which the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary, who knew so much of the country, so much of its history, so much of its traditions, and so much even of its poetry, ought to investigate, that he might

  1889
  learn the stern reality which stared in the face every man who loved the country, and who wished to see a radical change in the circumstances of its people. As to the existing poor law, it was capable of amendment, and it had been much improved from time to time. Some years ago it might have been considered a perfect institution, and yet it had been materially altered since then. He could give the House an instance in point. Not very long since, a landlord might turn any member of his tenantry out on the road side, or into the next ditch, and take no further notice of them—and many hundreds and thousands of unhappy people had been so dealt with, their dwellings first unroofed by an infernal machine, and the walls levelled by the "crow-bar brigade." But the Poor Law was altered —and now the landlord who is about to evict his tenantry must serve notice on the relieving officer, so that the shelter of the workhouse should be afforded to the victims of the bad land code of Ireland. To the strong farmer as to the landowner outdoor relief assumed a frightful aspect; their ready memory jumped back to the famine years, when the hunger of a famishing people eat up so much of the property of the country. But no such state of things could again occur, with a population so diminished. A wise system of outdoor relief was one thing—a reckless system of outdoor relief was another. From his own knowledge he could assure the House that in the Cork union outdoor relief was attended with the most beneficial result, and he would like to see an extension of the power given to the guardians. A family of five or six could be supported out of the house for as many shillings per week; while in the house the cost would be 10 s. or 12 s. in addition to the almost irredeemable degradation consequent upon eating poorhouse fare, wearing the poorhouse garb, and being governed by poorhouse laws. A wise and judicious, not a reckless, system of outdoor relief had a tendency, he believed, to elevate the mind of the destitute man instead of degrading it; and, as in past times, they had found the law capable of amendment, so might it now be further amended in this respect. It was idle to point to the small number in the workhouses of Ireland as a proof that there was no distress, or to assert that the existing system of relief was adequate to its relief; for he knew there were numbers of people who would rather die in a garret or a ditch than enter the walls of a workhouse. It might sound like exaggeration, but he
  1890
  could quote the words of the Poor Law Commissioners to prove it. It was, however, only fair to say, that the law was being administered of late in a wiser and more liberal manner, and that efforts were being made to counteract the evil of workhouse training and association by internal influences and external aids, so as to fit those born or educated in a workhouse to fill the position of domestic servants, or otherwise earn their bread in independence. But there could be much done to amend the law, and render it more suited to the present condition of the country and the necessities of the destitute. It was, at any rate, full time for the Government to do something for Ireland, so as, if possible, to arrest the fatal flow of emigration, and keep the people at home who were rushing in despair from their native shores, to live in a new country, under another constitution and another flag. For a period of sixty-four years England had the unrestricted control and management of Ireland and her affairs—and see to what a condition she had brought the country and the people! England should remember that she destroyed the legislative independence of Ireland, and that she did so by the foulest and most iniquitous means. Having done so—having deprived Ireland of the right of governing herself—England assumed the responsibility of governing it wisely and well, and she was bound by every obligation and honour to do so. If for the last sixty-four years the promises of the Union had been redeemed, there would be little heard of such associations as had been made the subject of ridicule, but which were significant, inasmuch as they embodied the discontent and represented the dissatisfaction of the country with the Government of England. But no effort had been made by the Government to render the people contented; and thus the finger of hope seemed to point to a home across the ocean, as the right receptacle for the remainder of the Irish race. Government and Parliament were, in his mind, pursuing an unjust if not a fatal policy, which could lead to nothing but misery and mischief. For his own part, he would prefer seeing Ireland restored to the power of managing her own affairs, for he felt convinced that those affairs could be more wisely and beneficially managed by Irishmen in an Irish Parliament than by Englishmen in an English Parliament; but as that seemed not attainable under present circumstances,

  1891
  he was anxious to make the best of the state of things as they existed. But nothing was done to conciliate, whereas much was done to exasperate. The press of this country, when it dealt with Irish affairs, indulged in jeers, taunts, and jibes at the expense of Ireland and her people, and he well knew how those jeers and taunts and jibes of the press, especially of some of the leading London journals, rankled in the blood of the young men of Ireland. Would to God that a different spirit could be infused into the hearts of those writers, and that in press, as in senate, a different tone might be adopted towards Ireland; for he, for one, heartily desired that the two countries should live in amity; and he would ask, in the name of justice and humanity, if not in the name of the honour of England, that if Ireland could not be governed by an Irish Government and legislated for by an Irish Parliament, English statesmen would learn to deal with her interests in a wise, just, and generous spirit.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to the offensive and intemperate speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had stated that if a French fleet were to land in Bantry Bay the population of Ireland would all rise with acclamation against this country.
  MR. BRIGHT: That was not my statement. I quoted the words of an Irish Protestant gentleman of large property.
  MAJOR KNOXsaid, he was happy to find that the hon. Gentleman did not adopt the statement as his own; but from whatever source it came he could assure him that if a French army were to land at Bantry, or if a rebel army were to be raised under the hon. Gentleman's auspices, the men of Ulster would in either case be ready to come forward as one man to protect their liberties, and to uphold their connection with this country.
  LORD NAASsaid, he regretted to find that a discussion which had been opened with so much ability, and which had for the greater part been conducted with so much moderation, should have assumed so unsatisfactory an aspect towards its close. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had thought proper to go far back into the history of Ireland to rake up old grievances, and had represented that country as being in the worst possible position, the feelings of the people being alienated from England and their natural leaders; but, having done so, he had suggested no remedy for the evils of which he com-
  1892
  plained. It was indeed true that he had pointed out the expediency of assimilating the Irish Poor Law to that of England, but in making that suggestion he had not the support of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), whose opinion was, that the English Poor Law was unjust and cruel, and that it would be a great curse that its operation should be extended across the Channel. But the fact was, that the feelings of the English nation, as well as of the House of Commons, towards Ireland had been most grossly misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman, who, great though his talents were, and long though he had had a seat in Parliament, had never proposed a single measure for the benefit of that country. Neither had the hon. Member for Dungarvan suggested any practical remedy for the evils of which he complained. He had alluded to the emigration which was taking place, and no one regretted that emigration more than himself, or had been more grieved at the scenes which he had witnessed at the railway stations or the quays, in the case of poor people who were about to quit their country. For that state of things, however, the hon. Gentleman had pointed out no cure. It was true, indeed, that he asked to have an alteration made in the land system, and for the general adoption throughout Ireland of the tenant-right of the north; but would a compliance with that request check the tide of emigration? Why, the fact was, that from Donegal and Monaghan, where that tenant-right was most recognized, the emigration was as great as from the south or west. The truth was, the extent of the emigration in Ireland depended upon other causes, which were far beyond the reach of Parliament, or of laws. Those causes were various, but among them was one which, he had no doubt, operated extensively, and that was, that at the other side of the Atlantic wages were higher, and the reward of industry more rapid than at home. Another cause, in which laws could have no effect, was the very great alteration which had taken place in the system of agriculture in Ireland, which prevented the man of small capital from competing successfully with those who could afford a large outlay. Agricultural improvement, he might add, had not the effect of producing a large population where it existed, as was exemplified in many parts of Lincolnshire, where the highest cultivation prevailed, as well as in the Lothians of Scotland, where the

  1893
  population had remained almost at a standstill for a period of fifty or sixty years. It was therefore, he contended, nothing short of wickedness that Gentlemen of position and popular leaders, who were well educated, and who knew those facts, should rise in their places in the House of Commons, and assert before the face of the people, many of whom were ignorant and ill-informed, that the true cause of the distress in Ireland was to be found in the apathy of the British Parliament. The hon. Member for Birmingham had, therefore, in his opinion, incurred a very heavy responsibility in making the speech which they had heard from him that evening. He might add that although it was matter of notoriety that a great amount of disaffection existed in Ireland, yet that disaffection did not, in his opinion, arise from any action on the part of that House, but was to be attributed rather to the exertions of paid American emissaries, who endeavoured to delude the Irish people into the notion that they might successfully resist the power and might of England. Now, when it was borne in mind that those poor people seldom had the truth told to them, and that they read but one class of newspapers, which did not hesitate to falsify history and to give them incorrect accounts of what was taking place all over the world, they were hardly to be blamed for the notions which they might entertain. Those, however, were to be blamed very much who ascribed to erroneous causes the state of things which prevailed in that country. In conclusion, he had simply to say that he was very glad the present discussion had taken place, inasmuch as it showed that the feeling of the House of Commons was in favour of the maintenance of the Irish Poor Law system, which, though it might be susceptible of improvement, was still in its leading principles the best suited to the country, and after the deliberate inquiry which had taken place two years before must be continued. His belief, he might add, was, that if the English system of outdoor relief were extended to Ireland the result would be, that thousands upon thousands in that country would, for their own security and the interests of their children, get rid of the poor upon their properties, and as far as possible keep the land in their own hands; while it was worthy of remark that those who were most opposed to that system were not the ex-officio guardians, but those
  1894
  guardians of the poor who were elected by an extended suffrage. He firmly believed that if any practical measure were brought forward for the good of Ireland it would receive the calm and anxious consideration of the House. He had been a Member for a period of fifteen years, and he had never seen a practical measure, no matter what the political opinions of the hon. Gentleman might be from whom it emanated, which did not receive a fair and generous consideration. And he did say that when it was represented that the misfortunes and miseries of Ireland were caused by bad institutions, that such representation was devoid of truth, and totally unworthy of the individual who had made such statement.
  MR. HENNESSYthen said, that adopting the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, who was so high an authority on every subject relating to Ireland, that he should embody his views in a Bill, he should withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD ROUND ST. JAMES'S PARK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the state of the Road round St. James's Park at present and for many years past. During the last three days the road had been mended, and it was then just passable. When Her Majesty gave the public a road across the park, it was no doubt her wish that it should be placed in proper repair. But the road had, in fact, never been properly formed, although, considering the thousands of persons by whom it was used, some little trouble ought to betaken to put it into a proper state. He had received several letters since he had placed his notice on the paper, and although it was said that country Members were averse to the country at large paying for metropolitan improvements, yet considering that this was an appanage of the Crown, and that the road had been conceded by the Sovereign to the public, it certainly ought to be kept in decent repair. The first thing was that the road should be regularly made as a macadamized road ought to be. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would hold out some hope that the road should no longer be kept in the disgraceful state in which it at present was.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he believed that considerable care had been taken to make

  1895
  the road a good one. A large quantity of granite had just been put on it, and in the course of two or three days, when the rollers had been properly used, the road would be very passable for carriages. The road was not worse than others in the metropolis, and if it had been out of order it was owing to the great traffic upon it and the wet weather.
  Main Question put, and agreed to

  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  LAND SECURITIES COMPANY (STAMP DUTY ON MORTGAGE DEBENTURES). CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONmoved,
  "That the Stamp Duty payable on the Mortgage Debentures transferable by delivery issued by the Land Securities Company Limited shall be the ad valorem duty which, by the Act of the Session of the 16th and 17th years of Her present Majesty, chapter 59, section 14, is prescribed in the case of Mortgages given by public Companies, as therein expressed."
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock, till Monday next.