§ 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 10d. 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. BRIGHTSir, 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 10s. 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 10s. a week. But when they come to 10s. 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 10s. or 12s. 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. BRIGHTThat 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.