[BILL 1.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 19 February 1880 vol 250 cc923-1019

[Progress 16th February.]

Billconsideredin Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Extension of power to grant out-door relief in food and fuel).

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause, the object of which was to extend the period named therein of two calendar months for administering out-door relief. The clause provided that no order of the Local Government Board should be binding on the Guardians for a period exceeding two calendar months from the date of such order. He did not think it right to limit the power to be exercised by the Local Government Board to this period of two calendar months, as it appeared to him that the matter should be left to their discretion; and, further, that there was no reason whatever for selecting this term. They were in the middle of February; and those who knew anything of the condition of Ireland would be aware that the two calendar months named in this section would not include the worst period, for that when it had expired the distress would most probably be at its height, and would be felt for a much longer period than two calendar months. Of course, there would be places where the distress was not likely to last as long, or, indeed, anything like two calendar months; but whether it did so or not, and whatever might be the action of the Local Government Board, it was almost certain that the distress, on the whole, would last for a much longer period than two months. They were bound to suppose that the distress in many places would render it necessary that the period of two calendar months would begin very soon, and there were many places in Ireland where this 3rd section ought to be in operation already, and they were, indeed, bound to consider that the two calendar months had begun, or ought to begin, at that very moment. Why should the action of the Local Government Board be confined to two calendar months? The effect of this limitation would be, that the Board of Guardians would infallibly make their provision in accordance with the order. They would elect their officers and arrange their depots for the two months; and it was certain, at the end of that time, any order given by the Local Government Board with respect to any really distressed district would have to be renewed, and in all probability the Board of Guardians would find itself at the end of its organization, and would be obliged to re-organize. He could not see any danger in allowing the Local Government Board a larger discretion than the clause gave it; and he thought that the Government were not treating the Board with sufficient confidence. They seemed to have forgotten that they had in that Board a very powerful organ- ization—or, perhaps, they did not wish to cast too much work upon it. At any rate, they were certainly not availing themselves sufficiently of its powers. As there was no reason whatever why the Local Government Board should not have power of extending the period of two calendar months, he begged to move, from line 24, page 1, the omission of the words, "not exceeding two calendar months."

Amendmentmoved,in page 1, line 24, to leave out "not exceeding two calendar months."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that the provisions of the clause had been framed with great care in order to allow ample discretion to the Local Government Board, who were themselves thoroughly satisfied with the clause as it stood. It would, of course, be their duty, when this period of two months had expired, to look into the machinery in operation under the Poor Law Guardians, and then consider and decide whether it was right that the term should be renewed. There was nothing to prevent the Local Government Board from doing this, inasmuch as the words of the section were— The Local Government Board may, from time to time, if and so far as they think fit, authorize by order," &c. And, further, they might, by the terms of the section, before the 31st of December, 1880, make an order which would be available for two months of the following year. That was as wide a power as the Local Government Board were desirous to have, and he did not think it well to extend it.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that if the Amendment were accepted, the Local Government Board would be able to make their own terms; and the effect would be that they might order the distribution of relief for, say, four months, if necessary.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, the clause appeared to him to be badly drawn; and pointed out that if the wording remained the same, instead of the period being fixed for the 1st of March, 1881, the period of giving outdoor relief would be limited to the 31st of December. He did not think the term of two months was a wise one.

MR. SYNAN

said, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had fallen into a great mistake with regard to the two months to which he had referred—namely, the period between the 31st of December, 1880, and the 1st of March, 1881. This had nothing whatever to do with the present Amendment, but had been introduced into the clause for the purpose of enabling Parliament to deal with the question in March. The object of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was to give a certain amount of discretion to the Guardians, and he said nothing whatever about the discretion of the Local Government Board. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had asked the hon. Member, and those who supported him, what reason there was for the proposed alteration. He (Mr. Synan) would ask him the reason why he had fixed upon this period of two months? The reasons of his hon. Friends were perfectly clear. It was well known that the destitution must continue until the next harvest was got in. Under these circumstances, he could understand the reason for inserting six, but not two, months in the Bill. Again, what was the object of putting in two months and allowing the Local Government Board to renew its order over and over again? The machinery of the Guardians would go on for this period of two months, and would then have to be disturbed until the Local Government Board gave its new order. Was it proper that the local machinery of the Guardians should be interfered with or disturbed by introducing too narrow a period? If his hon. Friend succeeded in striking out the words "not exceeding two calendar months," he should himself move that a period of six months be substituted in their place, in order to enable the harvest of the present year to be got in. The Attorney General for Ireland had given no reason against the Amendment, which he hoped would be accepted by the Government.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the reason why the period of two months had been fixed upon was that in the course of that time it was hoped that the distress would have very much abated. He would remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Synan) that large sums of money had been applied for by way of loans to the Board of Works—something like £400,000 or £500,000—but that only a limited portion of this money had up to the present been used. The period of two months was, in the opinion of the Government, ample for the Local Government Board to renew their order if they found that no improvement took place.

THE O'DONOGHUE

did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given any reason why the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) should not adhere to his Amendment; neither had he given the Committee any reason which would enable them to understand why he was so very sanguine as to the abatement of the distress in Ireland. The clause was drawn evidently on the assumption that the depression would not last; but the Amendment of his hon. Friend was drawn upon the assumption that the distress would last—a view which he was sorry to say was entertained by all the Irish Members. He believed that the necessity for applying to the Local Government Board for a fresh order would cause delay, which would lead to great suffering and loss of life among the people.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

asked if power existed in the Bill under which the Local Government Board could renew their order? He thought that the period named should be extended to six months.

MR. LAW

presumed that the part of the section now under discussion had been copied from the 2nd clause of the Act of 1847. He thought that an absolute discretionary power might well be entrusted to the Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was President.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he did not think that there was anything to be gained by inserting the words of the Amendment, and that the point was hardly worth discussing.

THE O'DONOGHUE

thought that the proper way to deal with the matter would be to extend the time to six months, and to leave it to the discretion of the Guardians.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that the view which he took with respect to this Amendment was, that his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) did not like to see so many restrictions upon the action of those who were charged with the admi- nistration of relief. If they knew anything of the Irish Boards, it was that they were too slow in action in matters of this kind; indeed, the Board of Works was in Ireland the subject of a standing joke, and had been described as a Board for promoting idleness. The tendency in all those Boards was to delay and obstruct matters as much as possible. This period of two months was in itself obstructive; and in order to get rid of this obstruction the Amendment of his hon. Friend had been moved. What could be said in favour of this limit of two months, beyond that it looked well on the grounds of symmetry and antiquity? He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) that the matter was not very important; nevertheless he was opposed to this restriction of two months, because it seemed to be an encouragement to delay'—the very thing which ought to be opposed in legislation of this kind.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

feared he should be obliged to press his Amendment. The only reason advanced by the President of the Irish Local Government Board was simply that from his point of view, and from information which he had received, the distress was likely to vary during the next two months. That, however, was altogether contrary to their experience of former famines in Ireland. It was contrary to their experience of the Famine of 1847, and to their experience of the minor distresses which had been felt since that time. He pointed out that within two months from the present date the distress would probably be greater than at present, and that it would thenceforward increase. The object of the Amendment was that the Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman was President, might be enabled, at their discretion, at once to make an order under which relief might be given for a period exceeding two months. The hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) wished to give greater power to the Guardians than would be vested in them under this clause. Under the construction of the clause, however, he feared it would be impossible to enlarge their powers; but he desired to effect the next best thing to this—namely, to extend the power of the Local Government Board, and not to impose limitations which they knew by experience would only have the effect of narrowing their action during the course of this distress. He feared that the money available under the provisions of the Bill would not be forthcoming in time to meet the distress. He would lay before the Committee some evidence upon this point to show that at present it had not come in time, and that it was upon this 3rd section of the Bill that they would have to rely for the prevention of deaths from starvation. A letter had been read from Dr. Ryan before the Board of Guardians for Tipperary, which stated that whole families were actually in a state of starvation; that fever had crept into his district, and that he was then attending two cases; one young man, 21 years of age, had fallen sick of fever, that he was suffering from extreme exhaustion, and that all hope of recovery was gone; and, further, that he had no clothes upon him. Again, it was stated that months had passed since this Board had applied for money to carry out sewage works in the town. To this one of the Guardians replied—and he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) asked the right hon. Gentleman to take it to heart— If the Government do not give us this money before another week we should not have it at all. Could anyone suppose that two calendar months would be sufficient for the Local Government Board to give its order? The effect of giving an order for compulsory relief would be that the Local Government Board must confine their operations to that period, and that when it had expired they would be obliged, at the greatest expense and trouble, to revise their organization during the period in which it might be further necessary. He was perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan), and to substitute the term of six months for the term fixed by the clause. The proposed change would have a very limited effect; it was clear that a longer period would be necessary; and if the suggestion were adopted it would be in the power of the Local Government Board to extend their order, and so prevent the necessity of re-organizing, and the danger of disorganization of the arrangements of the Boards of Guardians, which would necessarily re- sult in great trouble and expense as a consequence of their being limited to a period of two months.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

suggested that it would be well that the Local Government Board should be empowered to continue, as well as to revoke, their orders, as provided in page 2, line 1, of the Bill; and he thought the case would be met, to a certain extent, by inserting the word "continue" after the word "purpose" in that line.

MR. BIGGAR

pointed out that in the event of the first order of the Local Government Board not being complied with from negligence or any other cause, even supposing they had power of granting a fresh order, the Board of Guardians would have no power to grant outdoor relief, and that a bad state of things would in consequence follow. On the other hand, if the limit of two months was removed, the order would continue in force until it was revoked by the Local Government Board, or until the Guardians thought it desirable that they should cease to give out-door relief. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) were not accepted, fresh machinery would be required at the expiration of each succeeding two months for a renewal of powers which would involve a loss of time. He remembered, many years ago, when pressure had been brought to bear upon a public Department in Ireland under similar circumstances, that a great loss of time resulted. He would remind the Committee that the real pressure would not be felt in the two months, but in all probability during the months of June and July, when the present supply of the small farmers had been entirely consumed. If an arrangement were made, limited as to time, a renewal would clearly be required. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the Local Government Board could easily get instructions for renewal of powers to the Guardians; but, in the present distress, he (Mr. Biggar) considered such a mode most unadvisable, and likely to lead to the distress becoming more general. In short, the time ought to be extended. The best plan would be to strike out the time given to the Guardians, and to leave a discretionary power with the Local Government Board when to stop the order for relief.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that although the time mentioned in the clause was a period of two months, yet, at the expiration of that time, there would be no difficulty about a fresh order. He thought that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick's (Mr. O'Shaughnessy's) Amendment was not supported by a good argument, when he said "that there might be a delay between the expiration of one order and the issuing of the next." Everyone who knew anything of these matters knew that the new order would be made before the time when the old one had run out. Arrangements could easily be made for the orders to run consecutively; and he, therefore, saw no reason why the clause should be amended as proposed.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down how many Inspectors were employed under the Local Government Board? He thought it was quite obvious that there would be considerable delay with reference to the orders unless a discretionary power were given to the Guardians.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that six Inspectors had been appointed temporarily.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that he disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He failed to see how the Board could continue the orders under the terms of the clause. He thought the Committee would see that there was no such power given. He was afraid that red tapeism would be carried out to the letter. He should ask that the words "continued on" be added after the word "months" in page 1, line 20.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that he thought the terms were correct as they stood.

MR. SHAW

said, that the power to be granted to the Local Government Board of issuing fresh orders might give rise to a good deal of correspondence. They were all aware that that Board had a taste for letter-writing and roundabout performance. He hoped that nothing of that kind in the administration of the relief would occur. He did not think it would be necessary for the Committee to divide on the subject.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that as it was promised that arrangements should be provided for making the orders consecutive he would not press his Amendment. The limit given by the clause was too narrow; but he thought the case would be met if time were taken on each occasion before two months elapsed to make arrangements for the renewal of the order.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not feel disposed to act in opposition to the hon. Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw); but it seemed to him that it was a question that should not be abandoned. Her Majesty's Government simply said that no harm could accrue from the clause being left as it stood; but they had produced no sufficient argument against the Amendment. In the next place, the most that could be said was that this order might be renewed if it was considered desirable to do so. He could not see why the order could not be made to continue in force until revoked. He concurred with the hon. Member for County Cork in thinking that a good deal of mischief would arise if there was much correspondence between the Local Government Board in Ireland and the Boards of Guardians. He thought that the clause should be amended as proposed, or the effect would, he felt sure, be disastrous.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of authorizing the Boards of Guardians to give out-door relief; but there was no compulsion on the Boards of Guardians to grant it. It was at their discretion, and they might decline to do so until this Bill became law. He confessed that he objected to the Amendment. The omission of the words was not desired by the Local Government Board. The question now under discussion was one of an important character, and he trusted that the Amendment would not be acceded to by the Committee. He begged to remind the Committee that no order could be issued until the Bill passed. For the sake of those persons, therefore, who were likely to suffer from the passing of the Bill being delayed, he appealed to hon. Members to consider the clauses of the Bill with as little delay as possible.

MR. SHAW

quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in desiring that the Bill should be speedily passed. There were two or three questions which would re- quire a considerable amount of discussion; and, therefore, he did not think it advisable that the Committee should dwell at any considerable length upon the Amendment before them. The Government might rest assured that everything that could be done by Irish Members to facilitate the passing of the measure would be done.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, the imputation conveyed in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty against the Irish Members as a body was most unfair and ill-timed. There had not been any delay by frivolous or unfair criticism on their part. In fact, the Government knew that fault was their own, and sought to throw the blame on the Irish Members. There ought to have been a special Session, or Parliament should have been convened at an earlier date. It could not be denied that the Government had been warned, so far back as last June, as to the state of affairs in Ireland. They had been warned, both by Memorials and by statements in the public Press. A Memorial was sent by Irish Members,—signed by the majority of them—to the authorities. The answer to that was a bare acknowledgment, couched in the curtest possible terms. After all the notices that the Government had received on the subject, it was for them to justify their conduct in seeking thus hurriedly to pass through the House a Bill which it was plain had been drafted without much care or consideration for the interests of Ireland. The measure was one of such importance to the people of Ireland that it both invited and demanded criticism on the part of their Representatives.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that he was willing to show his desire that the measure should be rapidly proceeded with by withdrawing his Amendment. He contended that it was not accurate to say that the Local Government Board had been authorized to give orders for the distribution of out-door relief with all possible speed. He thought that the words proposed to be left out might be omitted very well, as the powers granted to the Boards of Guardians could be suspended with ease.

MR. FINIGAN

said, that he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Bill before the Committee was in the nature of an Indemnity Bill; and he would remind the Committee that in the present state of things they should do everything in their power to put down in Ireland that system of red-tapeism which was its curse. It appeared to him that the greatest possible number of officials were kept in Ireland. Those Irish officials appeared to think that the Irish people were there for their especial benefit. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would not withdraw his Amendment, but that he would take the opinion of the Committee on that important matter. He felt convinced that the order given to the Boards of Guardians should be a continuing one.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that he did not think that the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty wished to proceed speedily with the Bill should pass unnoticed. The Local Government Board in Ireland had already received instructions, and this measure merely ratified them.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taunted Irish Members with delaying the Bill, and so increasing the chance of death taking place among the people. If the right hon. Gentleman would listen to what he would say, he would see that this delay would appear to have arisen entirely from the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government. The Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick was certainly a most reasonable one, and the Government had never raised the slightest argument against it. He could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in thinking that the clause was correct as it stood, and that the arrangement with the Local Government Board would prove satisfactory. He thought that the Amendment should be agreed to without a discussion. He thought a great deal of time would be saved if the Government would give a fair hearing to the Amendments, which were of a reasonable nature.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "months," to insert the words "continued on."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that he had already pointed out that there would be no difficulty about fresh orders being issued at the expiration of the two months; and he thought that that would be quite sufficient without the words proposed being inserted.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. LAWmoved, in line 8, to insert the words "proviso at the latter end," in place of the words "provisions in the latter part." He begged to point out that the portion of the Act intended to be dealt with was not the whole of the enactments forming the latter part of the section referred to, but merely the concluding Proviso.

Amendmentagreed to; wordsinsertedaccordingly.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

remarked, that on the last night of Committee on the Bill they had discussed the question whether in Clause 3 they should not add the word "money" to the words "food and fuel," in which forms relief was to be given. There had been a good deal of discussion, and they had failed to obtain the insertion of the word "money." During the Famine of 1847 a system of giving relief in the form of food and fuel had been carried on with success; but there had been a very careful organization in the distribution of those kinds of relief. The object of his Amendment was that there should be an organization provided for the distribution. Such organization he felt to be absolutely necessary; and he therefore begged to move the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, after "Act," insert "the Local Government Board shall appoint in every such order, or in a subsequent order or orders to be issued as soon as possible after such order, the place or places where depots for food or fuel are to he established for the distribution of the same, and the number of additional relieving officers and other officials, if any, whom it shall be imperative on the guardians to appoint to aid in the distribution of such food or fuel."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, they had heard a good deal that evening about centralization and the arbitrary action of the Government with regard to the local authorities; but he would venture to point out that the duties which the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed directly to impose upon the Local Government Board would require intimate acquaintance with local circumstances under practical knowledge, which it was impossible for the Local Government Board to exhibit as well as the Board of Guardians. The Local Government Board had not been remiss in urging on the Boards of Guardians the duties which they would have to perform; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer to the Correspondence lately published, he would see, under the date of November 14th, that in a Circular issued by the Local Government Board they had insisted on the importance of making every provision for the proper relief of the people in the various districts. Since that time the Local Government Board had taken further steps with a view to urge this point on the Boards of Guardians; and he thought, in that respect, they had done all that it was possible for them to do, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to undertake to perform local details which could be much better left to the local bodies.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

asked whether any unwillingness had been shown by Boards of Guardians in carrying out their duties, to make the Circular to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded necessary?

MR. J. LOWTHER

explained, that the Circular was issued before the Board had any power in the matter. The present Bill now in Committee gave that power.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

observed, that the Guardians had power to appoint any number of relieving officers that they might require. In order, however, that they should carry out successfully the difficult task imposed upon them, it would be necessary to have depots both for food and fuel. People could not be expected to come distances of 10 or 20 miles to obtain relief, and therefore depots must be established in each district.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, a very difficult task, and an almost impossible one, was imposed on the Board of Guardians when they were required to maintain these districts in the West of Ireland. There were no places where these depots could be constructed, and as the Government had insisted that relief could only be given in food and fuel a great many appliances would be required where the destitution was thickest. Even then the people would have to travel miles and miles over the mountains to get relief in kind. That seemed to him an additional reason why the determination of the Government to insist on that point should be reviewed.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. BIGGARmoved an Amendment in page 2, line 14, after the word "charged" to insert the words "upon the Union at large, but otherwise." His object in this Amendment was to make it certain that the expenses of this relief were charged not upon what was called the divisional area, but upon the Union at large. He desired that the wealthy parts of the Union should not get off in comparative freedom, from the cost of these rates, while the heaviest tax was cast upon the comparatively poor parts of the Union. His Amendment was not at all of the sweeping character which it appeared to be at first sight. According to the present system of Poor Law in force in Ireland, a very large proportion of the charges in connection with the working of the system were charged on what was called the Union at large. All the house charges—the expenses for staff and officers, and other things of that kind—were charged to the Union at large, and if a pauper went into the house with no particular settlement in a particular district the expenses connected with his maintenance were also so charged; and in practice a great many cases of that kind did occur. All the in-door relief was also charged in a similar manner; but out-door relief was charged upon the electoral division. The result was that where landlords had got rid of their poor tenants by turning them out the district was comparatively free from expense for pauperism; while other parts to which the poor people where driven were subjected to a very heavy tax. As a consequence, populations verging on pauperism from one year's end to the other were made to bear a very heavy tax, while rich landlords would be put to no particular trouble and expense in connection with relief. The Bill at present proposed to charge the expenses of the relief, like the present out-door relief, on the electoral division. His Amendment proposed to give the rates a wider extent, and to charge them on the Union at large.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after "charged" to insert the words "upon the union at large but otherwise."—(Mr Biggar.)

MR. O'SULLIVAN

trusted that his hon. Friend would not withdraw this Amendment, as so many other Amendments had been. In a national calamity like the present, the rate ought to be national also; but if they could not get it made national, it ought, at any rate, to be chargeable on the Unions. It was very unfair to make such a rate as this a divisional charge. In the Board of Guardians of which he was Vice Chairman, he inquired as to the district of which he was Guardian, and he found that there were 42 inmates charged to that division. On investigating the facts, he found that of those, six persons never belonged to that division at all, but had come to live there quite recently, and after living there two years, becoming paupers, were consequently chargeable. Three or four of them had come from England, where they had spent the best days of their life, and after exhausting the few pounds they brought with them, had become chargeable to a division to which they had never contributed one penny of rates. Seventeen more of these people belonged to country districts, where the houses had been levelled by the landlords, and the tenants had consequently been driven into the little towns to take lodgings; so that, in reality, out of 42 persons charged to his division there were only 19 who actually belonged to it. There was a great deal more in this question of Union rating than the Government seemed to think. He wished they would bear in mind the amount of crime which was caused by parties being huddled together in low lodging-houses—a practice which the enforcement of Union rating would do more than anything else to discourage. Nothing, indeed, had done so much harm as these divisional charges. If they had Union rating they would not have houses thrown down by the landlords, and the occupants turned into poorer divisions. In fact, if the present clause were allowed to pass unamended, the poorer the division the worse the distress in it would be. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

also hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, because he could say from personal knowledge of his own county that if this rate was charged on the divisional area there would be several districts which would almost entirely escape from the rate, while some others would have to pay a very heavy one indeed. In some electoral divisions, for instance, the rate would be about 1s.10d.while in others it would be 3s.10d.,or 5s.,or more. The only proper way was to divide the cost in the Unions.

MR. J. LOWTHER

observed, that the Government were not now proposing to assimilate the Poor Law, or to alter it in any way, but simply to pass a temporary Act in order to meet an extraordinary emergency. Everyone who had studied this question at all knew that the subject of Union rating was one which gave rise to very considerable difference of opinion, and he did not think it was one which they ought to enter on in regard to this Bill. He hoped the Committee would avoid being led into a discussion on extraneous topics. All the Government proposed to do was simply to maintain the existing state of things with regard to out-door relief as it stood. Out-door relief, whether rightly or wrongly, was now charged in a certain manner; and whatever the views of hon. Gentlemen might be as to the propriety of an alteration in the law at a future time, he hoped they would not introduce that vexed topic then.

MR. LAW

observed, that he was disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the undesirability of entering, on this occasion, upon the vexed question of Union rating; but, at the same time, he wished the Committee to know what was the exact effect of the Bill as it stood, and of the Amendment now proposed. In preparing the Bill, the Government might have taken as their method of charging the expenses to be incurred, either the system of charging in-door relief, or the system of charging out-door relief. Well, they had—for reasons which he was sure they thought right—taken the system of out-door relief. Now, out-door relief, as he understood it, was charged only on the divisional areas; whilst, as the result of a compromise arrived at after the Report of the Union Eating Committee of 1876, when the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary for Ireland, in-door relief was, in the first instance, charged, as before, on the electoral division, until it reached a certain sum; but when that limit was passed, then it was charged upon the Union at large. If he might anticipate the discussion of a subsequent Amendment, it did appear to him that there was another proposal which met the requirements of the case, and that was the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), which sought to strike out the word "out-door," and substitute the word "in-door;" the effect of which would be to give heavily-taxed electoral divisions the benefit of a general Union rate whenever their charge exceeded a certain amount. It must be expected that in some electoral divisions where the distress was severe the charge imposed on those who paid the rate would be so heavy that they would, in fact, not be much better off than those who received relief. It would be, therefore, in his opinion, desirable to take as the standard of charge not the out-door relief, but the in-door relief system.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

remarked, that they had just been told that this was a temporary measure in which they ought not to introduce the question of Union rating; but he would venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that baronial sessions were also a new and temporary expedient, and yet he had not introduced the divisional rating there. There he had introduced a system by which half was paid by the occupier and half by the landlord. That was a new proposal. Why did not he put the whole charge upon the landlords as before? If they charged these rates on the electoral divisions they would have to be paid by the poorest classes and the poorest divisions, while those who exterminated their tenantry would have no charge at all.

MR. SHAW

observed, that he did not mind how the question was raised—whether on his Amendment, or on the proposal now before the Committee. It must be discussed in some way or another, for it was a very important question, and one on which he hoped the Govern- ment would be able to give way. If they did not, the result would be absolutely ruinous to some of the poorer districts. He believed every practical man who had considered this question agreed that the charge should be thrown upon the Unions; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, everyone acquainted with the condition of things in Ireland must be aware that the electoral system would certainly break down. If those districts were compelled to provide relief out of their own rates, they would, practically, be reduced to a state of perpetual starvation. The question then was how that difficulty could be met, and Union rating was suggested by one Amendment as a solution. It must be borne in mind that the system of Union rating had never been applied to out-door relief. There were certain disadvantages in so applying it. For instance, they might have a Union in which there was a large town in which a great deal of out-door relief would be required and a great deal of money expended. During the next few months that charge would be very largely increased. The people who flowed into the town would not come merely from the districts immediately around it, but also from the neighbouring Unions. Now, why should the' rural districts immediately around the town be made to bear all the extra burden of that relief, while the districts in other Unions that had contributed a large number of the persons applying for relief should get off scot free? That would be most unfair, for it would throw the heaviest burden on the districts immediately surrounding the town. The real remedy, in his opinion, was something in the nature of a national rate. He had consequently suggested an Amendment by which out-door relief given under this clause should be raised by a national rate falling equally on all parts of Ireland, and on all property in Ireland. The effect would be, the districts which had not suffered, and would not suffer from distress, would have to contribute towards the assistance of districts who would have to expend a great deal of money for the relief of the poor under this section. There was no reason in the world why persons remote from a town or district which was suffering from distress should not bear a proportion of the cost just as much as people near it. The Amendments of which his hon. Friends had given Notice all endeavoured to shift the burden under this section from the electoral division, and he supposed would all meet the fate of other Amendments, and be rejected. He was perfectly prepared for that; but when the accounts of this distress came to be made up it would be found absolutely necessary to abandon the principle of electoral rating, and to spread some portion of the money expended in the relief of distress elsewhere. When that time came the present principle would have to be abandoned, and they would have to make choice of some other modes of distributing the fund. Then he believed it would be found that the principle of a national rate was the only one by which they could fairly meet this extraordinary burden.

MR. SYNAN

hoped the Government would consider the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw); but he hardly thought that was the time in which to raise a question of such magnitude as that of national rates. If the Government, however, would charge these rates on the in-door relief system instead of the out-door relief system, they would do much to facilitate the carrying out of this clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Government were willing to adopt the suggestion, and would take that course.

MR. BIGGAR

said, as the Government practically agreed to what he said, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. SHAW,

remarking that he had not the least wish to make a speech, formally moved, at page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "out-door," in order to insert the word "in-door."

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

observed, that he should not divide the Committee on his Amendment; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that the only fair way to meet this exceptional necessity was by a rate charged upon all property rateable to the relief of the poor in Ireland. If that principle were not recognized now, he was certain it would have to be recognized by the time the famine and the distress were over. The only effect of the course now pursued by the Government would be that it would presently become absolutely necessary to meet the distress in the impoverished rural districts by a grant from the Imperial Exchequer. The Government had now made it impossible for them to recede from the position they had taken up, and the result would be to force them hereafter to make these grants.

Amendmentagreed to.

MR. SHAW,

who had given Notice to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 15, at end, add— Any board of guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, shall have power to execute by means of any loan under this Act any of the following works:— To acquire, drain, lay out, or otherwise improve, any waste land in their district; To widen, deepen, embank, or straighten, any river or stream, and also to enter into any agreement respecting the execution of any such work, or the apportionment of the cost thereof with any person or authority interested in such land, river, or stream, or any property adjoining thereto, or likely to be benefited thereby; To agree with the owner or occupier of any land in their district, or other parties interested, to make or repair any road, earthwork, or bridge for railway or tramway, or to execute any work of drainage or private improvement in or on such lands at the expense of the owner, occupier, or parties interested, and may allow time for the repayment of the amount expended, and to receive the same by annual instalments extending over a period not exceeding thirty-five years, at such rate of interest as may he agreed on, all such works to be executed under an engineer appointed by the Board of Works; said, he looked upon the Amendment which he had to propose as one of very great importance, meaning, as it did in effect, that the Guardians, when spending money in the administration of relief, should get something like value for the money which they expended, and should lay the foundations of future prosperity for the country instead of distress. A proposition was made in the year 1863, with a view to the relief of the distress then existing in Lancashire, and he saw no reason why a somewhat similar course should not be followed in the present instance. At that time a Commission was sent down to Lancashire to make inquiries as the requirements of the district, and to ascertain whether any reproductive works could be undertaken by means of which the unemployed artizans could be engaged in work that would enable them to maintain themselves, and, at the same time, do good to the community at large. It was found that works of that kind were possible in several of the Lancashire towns, and in this way much of the distress was relieved. The words of his Amendment were copied almost verbatim from the Lancashire Act passed in the year of which he had spoken. It was well known that, as matters of fact, the Boards of Guardians undertook very large works at the present time. In the county which he represented, one or two presentment sessions had been held, and the works which those sessions had suggested should be at once undertaken, for although they would be of no ultimate utility, they would give present employment to the people. The object of his Amendment was to give powers to Boards of Guardians to employ destitute poor in doing work which would prove really useful. The existing Boards of Guardians were composed of gentlemen of experience, one half of them being landlords, and the other half elected members, principally tenant farmers; and he might say that, in his opinion, no Boards could possibly attend better to their duties, or look more carefully after the expenditure of the money, which it was their duty to collect from the ratepayers and disburse in the relief of the poor. It would follow, of course, that the Local Government Board would have a veto, in the event of his Amendment forming part of the Act, upon anything the Boards proposed to do. In many districts the rivers might be usefully deepened; and if this were done, not only would the rivers be cleansed and improved, but the drainage of the adjoining lands would be facilitated. Earthworks for railways and tramways might also be very usefully undertaken. In the South and West of Ireland fish was of nominal value, because there existed no means of conveying it into the interior of the country where it would find a profitable market, and railways that would serve to establish the much-needed means of communication could be made at a cost of about £4,000 per mile. Why, therefore, he asked, should not Boards of Guardians be empowered to agree with Railway Companies to make earthworks for the necessary extensions, leaving the Companies to lay down the rails and complete the lines, the Guardians accepting, as a means of re-imbursing them for their outlay, a first charge on the completed lines? In this way the first elements of prosperity and civilization could be introduced into many parts of Ireland. All that he asked was simply that they should be enabled to use their own money. At all events, let the matter be looked into and tested as a matter of business, and if the Government did not find that on these lines the proposal was safe and sound let them refuse to sanction it; but if it was found to be sound and safe let the application of the money be sanctioned. He also thought the Boards of Guardians ought, to have conferred upon them powers to contract with private persons to drain lands, where those persons were owners or occupiers. This would be one of the best possible ways of occupying the destitute poor, because the owners and occupiers would find that the money spent on their own land would bring a tenfold return. Any proprietor would, of course, have the option of deciding that he would not have his land improved in the way he suggested, and if he assented the money could be laid out on the security of the land itself. As matters now stood, he was afraid that the execution of useless works would help to produce future famines by decreasing instead of increasing the cultivation of land; whereas, if such works as he proposed could be undertaken, the employment of the people on their own land would largely contribute to their future prosperity. He wished to make some alterations in the Amendment as it stood on the Paper; and he would, therefore, at present only move the first part of it, which was in the following words:—In page 2, line 15, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— Any board of guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, shall have power to execute, by means of any loan under this Act, any of the following works. If the principle of the Amendment was adopted, he should then propose other Amendment or Amendments specifying in detail the works which he proposed should be undertaken.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 15, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Any board of guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, shall have power to execute, by moans of any loan under this Act, any of the following works."—(Mr. Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. LAW

hoped Her Majesty's Government would substantially accept the Amendment, even though they might not be able to adopt, in its present form, the proposition which the hon. Member for Cork had placed upon the Paper. Parliament had, by its legislation within the last two years, given power to Boards of Guardians in Ireland to undertake very extensive works. They had been empowered, for example, to supply a district with water; and he believed that the expenditure they might thus incur was practically unlimited. The Lancashire Act, too, to which reference had been made, enabled the local authorities there to employ labour on a variety of substantial works; and he would add that in Ireland no works could, in his opinion, be more desirable than those which were contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not refuse to accept the Amendment which had been proposed. Although workhouses in Ireland were styled "work" houses, it would be much more correct to call them "idle" houses. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork were adopted it would put into the hands of the Guardians a power, by means of which Irish paupers in workhouses might be made self-supporting. The consent of the Local Government Board would be a sufficient safeguard against abuse of the powers which would be given in the Act under the Amendment which had been proposed.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought it would be extremely dangerous to give to Boards of Guardians powers such as would be included in the Amendment of the hon. Member. He would like, for instance, to ask whether, in regard to the proposal referring to the acquisition of waste lands, such acquisition was to be with or without the consent of the owners?

MR. SHAW

said, he did not intend to ask the assent of the Committee to that part of his Amendment.

MR. MACARTNEY,

resuming, said, that Railway and Tramway Companies were themselves compelled to repair roads and bridges situate on, or forming part of, their respective undertakings; and he therefore failed to see what good could arise from such part of the hon. Member's proposal as had referred to that question. If the Boards of Guardians were to be empowered to do any works at all in which the labour of the paupers was to be employed, such works ought to be of a kind which could be quickly finished, so that no permanent charge would be thrown on the ratepayers.

MR. HIBBERT,

in supporting the Amendment, urged that the Boards of Guardians should not be allowed to undertake works until full and proper inquiries had been made. In the time of the Lancashire distress, plans of the works proposed to be done had to be made; in addition to which an estimate of the cost had to be prepared, and an inquiry conducted by Mr. Rawlinson, who was appointed for that purpose. In 1863, which was the second year of the distress, an Act was passed enabling local boards, municipal authorities, and Guardians of the poor, to carry out many kinds of works, and there was no more satisfactory feature in connection with the relief in Lancashire than the way in which those works were executed—a fact to which not only Mr. Rawlinson, but other inquirers testified. He therefore asked the Committee and the House, why they would not put the same confidence in the Boards of Guardians in Ireland that in 1863 was reposed in the Boards of Guardians and other local authorities in the county of Lancaster? There were on the Boards bothex-officioand elected Guardians, and theex-officiomembers of the Boards would be able to give their opinions in respect to any proposals which might be brought before them. He did not see that the landowners need have any fears as to the works, and, after all, the proposal was a permissive one. As time went on it would be found better to have more than one mode of affording relief. By allowing occupiers to carry on works only with consent of the owners every reasonable objection was removed.

MR. KAVANAGH

said, it might be useful to give the Boards of Guardians the power proposed; but he feared that the object was one of so much importance it could not be properly discussed in less than a fortnight. He would therefore suggest that the proposals contained in the full text of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork should be embodied in another Bill. As far as the spirit of the Amendment was concerned, he agreed with it, for the reason that it would confer useful powers on Boards of Guardians.

MAJOR NOLAN

remarked, that the arguments against the Amendment had been urged as though it was now for the first time proposed to make grants to public bodies, whereas the Amendment only proposed an alternative way of lending money, which he, for one, decidedly preferred. The Poor Law Unions were in every way the bodies most competent to administer the money. They were much more likely to be inspired with the wish to devote the money to the relief of the poor than the baronial sessions, which consisted solely of landed proprietors acting in their capacity of landed proprietors. The money which was to be advanced at 1 per cent for the relief of the distress ought to be disposed of in the best possible way. The money which would be granted to landlords for improving their properties would do a greal deal of good, and no doubt a large amount of works would be executed. But the proprietors who would undertake the works would, in all probability, be those who made the best landlords, and on whose estates the distress was least. Under those circumstances, it was clear that the maximum amount of good would not be done with the money, and, in all probability, the works would not be established in the places where they were most required. On the other hand, if the Poor Law Guardians were permitted to undertake drainage or relief works, they would be much more likely to pick out parts of the country where the maximum benefit might be derived from the employment of labour. If money were to be lent at 1 per cent for the relief of the poor, it would be much the better course to allow it to be used by the Poor Law Guardians in the employment of labour. He did not wish to be understood as in any way objecting to money being lent to the landlords at 1 per cent; but he thought that they wereà fortioribound also to lend to the Poor Law Unions. It was proposed by the Bill to lend money to another body—the baronial sessions. In common with many people, he considered Poor Law Unions much better bodies to administer these funds than the baronial sessions. If the composition of the baronial sessions were looked at, it would be seen that they could hardly have a worse system than the present of appointing to the associated sessions. Half of the sessions was composed of the magistrates, and the other half was appointed by the Grand Jury; but the members so appointed really interfered with the action of the magistrates. On the other hand, the Guardians were elected by the ratepayers under a tolerably fair system. Half were elected, and half were representatives of property, and the magistrates and the Guardians were accustomed to work well together. A worse body to administer this matter than the sessions he did not know; though if it were proposed to leave the whole power to the magistrates—which, he thought, would be an unfair thing—then, probably, the best way would be to leave it to the sessions. Moreover, the Guardians were accustomed to sit once a-week, while the sessions only came together once in three months. Then, with respect to the class of work which could be undertaken, he believed that the baronial sessions had no power to execute any road which would cost more than £200. It was almost impossible to make a road with £200, if the roads made were to be of any use. The roads which would be made would not be an investment of capital; they would simply be made as a means of employing labour. The only thing that could be said in favour of the roads that might be executed under the powers of the Bill, therefore, would be that they would do no harm, and might possibly do some good. On the contrary, if they lent money to the Poor Law Guardians, they might make roads which would be of use, and also construct other useful works. The Poor Law Boards could do many things which the baronial sessions could not. Drainage works could be executed, and earthworks for railways might also be constructed by them. Not only were the Poor Law Unions better constituted bodies, but, as he had shown, they would be able to undertake a class of work of a much superior and more useful character than the magistrates sitting in baronial sessions could do. He should like to point out to the Government the advantage which would accrue by means of the construction of earthworks for railways by the Poor Law Unions. Recently a railway had been devised, partly in his own county and partly in Mayo With hardly an exception, the landowners consented to the scheme, and the Guardians of the Poor Law Union of Tuam and Claremorris passed resolutions expressing their willingness to guarantee the Government any money that might be advanced for the construction of the line at 1 per cent interest. Thus they had two Poor Law Boards in Ireland in advance of the deliberations of that House, proposing to guarantee out of their own funds the money lent for works such as those sketched out in the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried the Guardians would not be able to make whole railways; but they could make earthworks for them, and thus lead to the construction of the line. A most practical way would be opened by the adoption of the Amendment to develop railways in Ireland. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he thought that the Committee should pass the Amendment, and permit the Guardians to undertake the works in question.

MR. J. LOWTHER

wished to point out, with respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), that the cases of Lancashire and Ireland were not precisely similar. In Lancashire, during the distress, the only means of obtaining money for improvements had been by application to the Boards of Guardians or to the Local Government Board. But in Ireland the Land Improvement Act afforded the means for landowners to obtain money at 1 per cent for the improvement of their property. In the case of Lancashire, no such power existed, and the owners of property could only borrow money in the manner he had stated. The great bulk of the works which were provided for by the Lancashire Act could be done by Boards of Guardians in Ireland under the Land Improvement Act, and without any Amendment such as was now proposed. Boards of Guardians in Ireland in the capacity of the local sanitary authority could construct reservoirs and do many other works which in Lancashire had to be executed under a special Act of Parliament. Some hon. Members had suggested that Boards of Guardians should be authorized to execute such works as making railways involving the expenditure of a considerable amount of capital. Having fully considered the question, rightly or wrongly, Her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the baronial presentment sessions were the proper local authority to be charged with works upon roads. The baronial sessions being, at the present moment, by Act of Parlialiament the road authority, the Government had thought that they were the proper persons to undertake all works upon roads. The hon. Member had proposed that Boards of Guardians should, in certain circumstances, make or repair "any road, earthwork, or bridge for railway or tramway." He was thus introducing a rival road authority—whether rightly or wrongly, he would not express an opinion. But he must point out that, at the present moment, the Government—subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament—stood committed to advance money to the baronial sessions. As this Bill had not been taken up by the House as a matter of extreme urgency, as the Government had hoped it would have been, the Government had been obliged to go outside the law, and, in the anticipation of the extreme distress, had taken the initiatory steps to commit themselves to the possible expenditure of considerable sums of money through the medium of the baronial sessions. Of course, the specific amount had not been determined upon, nor was the Government committed to the schemes of the sessions until the same were approved; but they had constituted the baronial sessions as the proper authority to carry out works in cases where the landowners, after application by the sanitary authority, had failed to supply an adequate amount of labour. A good deal had been said with regard to relief works, and some hon. Members had expressed opinions as to out-door relief quite opposed to those of other hon. Members; but it should be remembered that the Government had committed itself to an expenditure of £750,000, or something like £600,000, for advances to landowners and sanitary authorities; and, failing them, in exceptional cases to baronial sessions; and they were now asked to sanction another scheme for relief works under the authority of the Boards of Guardians. The Boards of Guardians in Ireland had already their hands perfectly full. The Local Government Board had never ceased to urge upon them the duty of carrying out the Poor Law. To ask them to embark in what might be a reckless competition with the baronial sessions in carrying out public works, and with private landowners in the improvement of land, would not conduce to the efficient discharge of their duties, and would be productive of positive harm.

MR. SYNAN,

while admitting that the Amendment itself required some slight amendment, did not think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an answer to the proposition before the Committee, or to the arguments which had been advanced in its support. What were the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had given for not adopting the Amendment? He had neither made easy the complicated character of the Amendment, or the complicated character of the works. He had stated that Lancashire was not an analogous case, because in Lancashire the proprietors could only make drainage works through the medium of the Boards of Guardians. He did not know that that statement was quite correct, for he believed that even in England the proprietors had power to execute arterial drainage works with the aid of public money. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Government had committed themselves to the baronial presentment sessions, and that they could not, therefore, at that stage of the Bill, change the system they had adopted, and sanction the scheme proposed in the Amendment, and which hon. Members from Ireland believed to be a proper, good, and reproductive scheme. The Government had adopted a system which, up to the present time, had been admitted to be the most mischievous and most demoralizing that had ever been known. And because they had adopted that system, they refused to allow the allow the alternative proposition by which Boards of Guardians would be enabled to undertake reproductive public works. He should also like to know what authority the right hon. Gentleman had for stating to the Committee that the baronial presentment sessions could execute roads or earthworks for railways or tramways? For his part, he knew of no such authority. He was aware that the baronial sessions could make useless roads, and could refuse to do works which were required. In some parts of the country the baronial sessions had done some of the most useless and mischievous works. He should like to know to what portion of the Amendment the Government principally objected? If the Government would consent to the money of the ratepayers being expended in useful works by the Guardians, and not the wasteful outlay by the presentment sessions, the Amendment could be modified to meet their views. He did not wish to occupy the attention of the Committee at any great length; but he must remind them of the works that might be undertaken by the sanitary authorities in Ireland under the Amendment of his hon. Friend. With the consent of the proprietors—and nothing could be done without that—the Amendment would permit useful systems of arterial drainage to undertaken by the rural sanitary authorities. No better body than the Board of Guardians could be selected to carry out such works. If the Amendment was not passed, the works to be executed would be confined to such as the baronial sessions had power to make, and thus a permanent charge would be laid upon the people for utterly useless works. He felt sure that the principle of the Amendment was sound; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would specify his objection to its form it could be altered, and they would be certain that works could be executed under the Bill which would be of permanent benefit to the country.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

protested against this intention of the Government to encourage baronial presentment sessions. The effect of them was only to demoralize the people, because they knew perfectly well how to sham labour. This Amendment was a very good one, because it put it in the power of Guardians to carry out works of no great expense and of considerable variety—works, in fact, which might include almost anything. He should heartily support the Amendment.

MR. BRUEN

fully concurred in the Amendment, for its object was rather to encourage the relief of the people by reproductive works than by giving them relief in the form either of money or food. If that were the spirit of the Amendment he heartily concurred in it; but when he came to look into the practical details of the working he must say he was sorry not to be able to fully concur in the way in which it was put. The Boards of Guardians, by the Amend- ment, were to have power to do certain works; but when they came to analyze the different works proposed the result seemed to him unsatisfactory. The Guardians would have the power first to acquire, drain, lay out, or otherwise improve waste land. That proposal, as he understood, was abandoned; and, therefore, he would say nothing more about it. The second gave them power to deepen and straighten rivers; the third to apply labour to the repair or the construction of railways or tramways, and purposes connected therewith; and the fourth to enable them to execute any works of drainage or further improvement at the expense of the owners. As far as he could see, the only practical part of the Amendment was that contained in the 4th and last section. There were already powers under existing Acts of Parliament which enabled persons to deepen or straighten rivers and streams; but the necessary protection of the interests of those who had property in the banks and the certain notices and formalities which had to be gone through would render it impossible to execute any of these works immediately; and without such notices and formalities great injustice might be done to existing interests. He did not think they could much shorten or simplify the machinery for carrying out this work beyond the powers given by the present law; and, therefore, he imagined that the giving of this power to Boards of Guardians would be simply to give them a power which already existed. The next clause enabling Boards of Guardians to carry out works in connection with railways and tramways certainly had a very plausible aspect; but he should like to hoar whether the persons interested in the construction of such works would care or be likely to intrust the Board of Guardians with the carrying out of such work, which required great care and special skill, and needed also the application of a very stringent law or contract? He know that there was a great difficulty in obtaining contractors for this work; and he did not quite see how the Boards of Guardians could expect to take the place of men who were accustomed to the work and had machinery and persons skilled in it ready to their hand. Tramways were very useful, and were less expensive and complicated than railways; but still he imagined that tramway authorities would not be likely to intrust the making of their roads to Boards of Guardians. The 4th clause proposed to intrust to Guardians works of drainage and private improvements on the property of owners. He must say that such works as those came quite within the compass of Boards of Guardians, and might be usefully undertaken by them with the consent of owners and other parties concerned. Whether it would conduce to the object in view to give them power to borrow money he could not say; but as owners of property had already power to borrow money, it seemed to him doubtful whether the owners would be willing to leave the execution of the works to Boards of Guardians. Thus, when they came to contest by practical analysis the working of this Amendment, it did seem to him not to offer any very wide field for useful exercise. He was inclined to agree with his hon. Colleague (Mr. Kavanagh), that the Amendment would scarcely do as it stood, and to amend it thoroughly would take a very long time. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member that he should withdraw the Amendment and bring it up as a new clause, in such a working shape as would be acceptable to all. He wished to know, further, whether this power was to be conferred on Boards of Guardians for all time? He thought it ought to be merely an exceptional power; but as it now stood there was no limit of time to it. He could not allow the opportunity to pass without saying a word as to the very severe language applied to the presentment sessions. The system, no doubt, had been subject to abuse, but it had stood the test of a number of years; it had covered Ireland with useful works, and he believed experience and investigation would show that it was a very useful system. When the same men who composed it were sitting as another tribunal they were held up as the best possible body that could be obtained; and he could not understand, therefore, how, when sitting as presentment sessions, they could be so bad.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into discussing the merits of presentment sessions, because he had always understood that all parties were agreed that nothing more anomalous and unsatisfactory than those sessions could possibly be. It was ad- mitted, he thought, on all hands, that they were one of the first institutions in Ireland requiring reform; and therefore the speech of the hon. Member might be regarded as the last dying speech in support of those bodies. He would rather go back to the question immediately before them—which was, whether there should be temporary provitions during the present distress for the employment of the people at wages, as well for money or food grants. The proposal was that the Boards of Guardians should have power to employ persons to improve the estates of private owners, they being liable to repay the money so expended. There was a very good precedent for that proposal in the working of the Lancashire Famine Fund. It was said that this proposal, if carried, would necessitate the re-modelling of the whole Bill; but he did not think that was at all the case, and he undertook to say that the Irish Attorney General by the next day could easily draw the four or five clauses necessary. It was quite true that they had the Lands Improvement Act; but then these were works for which that Act, dealing as it did with large estates, was not suitable. In Ireland, a very large proportion of the people were peasants, holding very small farms; and the works proposed in this Amendment were just the kind of works which were best carried out under the administration of a local body. He thought it was very fair and reasonable that this proposition should be tried, especially as the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was a most moderate one.

MR. ERRINGTON

regretted that the Chief Secretary could not hold out a hope that he would accept this Amendment in some shape, as he was quite sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) would have been willing, if his principle had been accepted, even to have left its exact form to be carried out in another short Bill. The Chief Secretary was, no doubt, right in saying that the point at issue was between the Boards of Guardians and the baronial presentment sessions. He also observed that the Government, having considered that subject very fully, could not agree at that moment to reverse their determination. They did not ask the Government to entirely alter their determination. His own feeling was exceedingly strong against the introduction of presentment sessions; and his belief was that the argument used against the Board of Guardians applied with a great deal more force against the presentment sessions, for they were exceedingly cumbrous bodies, and very inconvenient to set in motion. They would certainly not work in every case harmoniously with the ordinary road sessions. But what he proposed was, not to enable the Boards of Guardians to give relief without labour, but to enable them to obtain some value for the labour at their disposal; and, so far from increasing their responsible powers, it seemed to him merely to give them an opportunity of acting in a much more useful way. In many cases, in fact, the Boards of Guardians were exactly the same as the sanitary boards, to which certain powers had already been intrusted; such, for instance, as sewerage. In reality, therefore, so far from increasing the amount of money to be expended in relief, be believed the result of the Amendment would be to effect a great saving. While the work to be done by the presentment sessions would not have any perceptible effect on the amount of relief to be given, he believed that any employment given by the Unions themselves in reproductive works would go a long way towards diminishing the necessity for relief. He therefore hoped that the Government would not force them to a division, but would accept the principle laid down in the Amendment, and presently move a new clause to carry it into effect.

MR. O'CLERY

supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork. He would much prefer that the Local Government Board should have power to give work to every man for fair wages in Ireland rather than that indiscriminate relief should be given, because that would tend more to the preservation of self-respect among the people. He thought that it was manifest that if the Local Government Board had enjoyed this power now proposed to be given to them, such as for the drainage of lands in their respective Unions, there would not have been heard such a cry of distress as now sounded throughout the land. He was obliged to say, with regard to the question generally of outdoor relief under the proposed system, that the more the people saw of it the less they liked it; and he trusted that if the Bill was to do any good, the Com- mittee would endeavour, by the adoption of some such an Amendment as was then before them, to devise some plan whereby the people might be employed and their self-respect maintained. It had been remarked from time to time in course of the discussion upon the measure, that hon. Members on his side of the House who proposed Amendments were thereby delaying the progress of the Bill, and in some way or other delaying the granting of relief to distressed people in some parts of Ireland. But that was not the case, inasmuch as the Bill was merely one of indemnity for powers said to have been given to local bodies within the last three months; and, therefore, any action which hon. Members from Ireland thought it right to take for the purpose of shaping the measure could not be said in any way to be keeping back relief, which, as a matter of fact, would seem to have been given by Her Majesty's Government for some months past. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, therefore, see his way to adopt the principle of the Amendment which was then before the Committee. The first part of this Amendment had been dropped by the hon. Member for Cork because it was embodied in a Bill already before the House for the reclamation of waste lands; but the gist of the speeches which had been delivered ought, in his opinion, to be sufficient to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Representatives of Ireland of all shades of opinion generally approved of the Amendment. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not drop the remainder of his Amendment, but that he would endeavour to force it upon the Government, because he thought that hardly any portion of the Bill, when passed, would be of greater advantage.

MR. D. DAVIES

thought it would be taken for granted that the present distress in Ireland had fallen upon the people who cultivated and lived upon the land. He believed that they had every ground for supposing that the Local Government Board would do nothing indiscreetly; but he desired to point out that the promotion of public works would have the effect of taking away men from the cultivation of the land, which would further increase the existing distress. Again, it must be borne in mind, that owing to the wet season and the scarcity of labour, the lands had become wild. It was a fact that in England they stood in need of extra labour for the purposes of cultivation, and that also was, no doubt, the case in Ireland. In England they could certainly make room for more labour than they had. Now, his experience was that if you gave 15s.a-day as wages on public works the men would not work for the same sum for the farmers, whose farms would consequently be neglected. He trusted that Providence had in store for the country a better harvest; but this could not be realized unless the land were properly cultivated, and it would certainly be the case that the farms would be neglected if the men were taken away to labour on public works. Such had been their experience in former times, when even the small farmers had neglected their farms for the wages to be earned on public works. He thought that as much as possible the labour should be kept on the spot and employed in the improvement of the land. He desired to impress his experience upon the Government, lest the point to which he referred should be forgotten—for it was clear that if the land were neglected the distress in Ireland would be greater next year than it had hitherto been.

MR. O'DONNELL

was surprised at the opposition of the Members of the Government, who had cheered the sentiments of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies), for the hon. Member who had just spoken had precisely expressed the principle which the supporters of the Amendment were ready to carry out. If there was one object more than another aimed at by the hon. Member for Cork, it was to keep labour employed on the land by not diverting it to those useless works which were the especial darlings of the presentment sessions. He and his hon. Friends were endeavouring to limit, as far as possible, the area of the operations of the presentment sessions, to employ labour on the land, and so prevent the consequences which had been so interestingly pointed out by the hon. Member for Cardigan. But the point which would be hold to both by the English and the Irish people was that by rejecting the Amendment the Government were refusing to grant to Ireland the same facilities which had been granted in Lancashire under similar circumstances, and that there was no reason based upon anything like sound economy which could be advanced in support of their refusal to treat Ireland as a part of England was treated formerly. If they could consider that this scheme was artificially constructed so as to force all relief through the hands of the landlords, and to leave a large amount sticking to the hands of the distributors of this relief, then he could understand the object of the Government to allow no sharers in the great work which was intended to be given to the landlords alone. Except upon that ground, there was no defence of the Government policy; the character of which policy was certainly not raised by such defence, either in the view of the English or of the Irish people. As they proceeded, the Government would have to declare itself more and more expressly upon the object it had in view; but he confessed that, down to the present time, they had too much reason to think that the suspicions which were expressed at the commencement of the debate had been fully justified—that the Government policy was to force relief through the hands of one class only, who were their staunch and strong supporters. There was no real objection to this Amendment in Ireland. The members of the presentment sessions were practically the same as the members of the Boards of Guardians; and, therefore, upon the argument stated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), no personal objections to the Boards of Guardians could exist; while from every point of view he thought their action would be more beneficial, their responsibility direct, and their outlay judicious—in short, the Boards of Guardians were more reliable as bodies than the Board of Works. The debate which had been held in "another place" had brought out already that the relief works supported by the presentment sessions were the cause of jobbery, corruption, and waste to a frightful extent. They were perfectly certain that no real objection existed on the part of the Board of Guardians to keep the action of the presentment sessions within something like duo bounds; and he was perfectly convinced that the result of the relief works would be attended with a fearful waste of public money, and the very minimum of relief to the destitute poor. Such had been the experience of relief works in England, Ireland, and in India. The hon. Member for Cork had brought forward an Amendment which could not even be sneered at as an Irish Amendment, because it had been taken textually from the measures of relief which had been adopted in Lancashire; and yet, although these provisions were considered admirable in England, and would also succeed in Ireland, the Government refused to grant this most moderate concession, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could only see in that course the one-sided desire to tie up the distribution of relief in Ireland within the limits of the proprietorial class, only too notorious already for the neglect of their duties.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, there was one point which he did not think had been noticed in the discussion. The Government ought to accept the Amendment, because it was one which was very flattering to them. The Amendment placed the roads in counties under the Poor Law Unions—a provision which was copied from the Government County Bill. It must be within the recollection of the Committee that two years ago the Government introduced a County Boards Bill, by which the management of roads was placed in the hands of a Committee of the Poor Law Unions. The organization of the counties in England by Poor Law Unions suggested the Amendment to the hon. Member for Cork. The Government very strongly advocated the plan that English county administration should be placed on the basis of the Poor Law Union; and, for that reason, they ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. Member for Cork only suggested that the organization into Poor Law Unions should be instituted in Ireland for a few months, whereas the Government sought to introduce that arrangement into England for an indefinite period of time.

THE O'DONOGHUE

observed, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork were carried there would be nothing for the baronial sessions to do. It was true that the proposal of the hon. Member was only an alternative proposition; but, for his part, he preferred the plan of making the Boards of Guardians the authority in this matter for several reasons. In the first place, they would be almost a permanent body, and would be much more independent, and more representative, and more likely to suggest works which would be useful to the community in general. He need hardly point out to anyone acquainted with baronial sessions that the Guardians would be much better able to plan and to carry out roads than the sessions. It was certainly a significant fact that nearly all the Irish Members concurred in recommending the Boards of Guardians as the only bodies capable of properly carrying out the work. He had only heard objections to the plan from two hon. Members from Ireland.

MR. LAW

said, it had been urged that many powers, which might be of great service at present in the hands of Boards of Guardians, were already given to them by the Public Health Act. It must, however, be recollected that those powers which the local authorities in Lancashire enjoyed by the Act of 1863 were not merely those to which this argument applied, and which were conferred by the 14th section of that Act. The Amendment sought none of the powers mentioned in the clause, those being already vested in the Guardians under the Irish Public Health Act. But he ventured to think it was somewhat inconclusive reasoning to say that because three sets of works were authorized in Lancashire, and one of those sets of works was at present within the competency of Guardians in Ireland, therefore no authority need be given them to execute any of the others. It seemed to him that it would be much more desirable that the Boards of Guardians should be the authorities for carrying out works than the baronial sessions; and he would state his reasons. It would be remembered that, under the Labour Bate Act of 1847, the baronial sessions were appointed for purposes similar to these now contemplated by the Government in this Bill; but the works failed owing to their having no practical moans of superintending their execution. They had no one except the county surveyor and his few assistants to see to the execution of the works. The result was that all this baronial machinery broke down in 1847. A great deal, indeed, might be said against works of that kind being undertaken at all; but it seemed to him that the Boards of Guardians, who would have to obtain the necessary funds on the security of their rates, were much more likely to be interested in the expenditure of the money, and much more likely to see that it was properly applied, than the baronial sessions. Another reason he had for preferring Boards of Guardians was that there was a different liability to assessment in the case of the two bodies. If the works were undertaken by Boards of Guardians the expense would be levied under the Poor Law system, by which occupiers at or under the value of £4 would not be subject to the Labour Act of 1847, although it placed the works in the hands of the baronial sessions, yet directed the assessment to be levied, not by way of baronial cess, but in the same manner as the poor rate; but the Government, though taking the Act of 1847 as their precedent for the present Bill, had declined to follow it in this important particular. As at present proposed, if the baronial sessions had charge of the works, the rate would be levied as baronial cess, to which all occupiers, of no matter what value, would be liable to contribute. No doubt it was provided that the rate should be divided equally between the landlord and tenant; but this, of course, subjected to half the rate all those poor occupiers who would be wholly exempt under the Poor Law system. It seemed to him of very great importance that occupiers under £4 should be exempted from liability, because they were a class of persons who were probably little better off than those who required relief. For the reasons he had stated, he certainly preferred the Poor Law system of relief works to those under the authority of baronial sessions. But if the Government insisted on retaining the latter machinery, he would, at the proper time, move Amendments exempting from liability to cess all occupiers of tenements not valued at £4 or upwards.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that the hon. Member for Cork had rested his argument almost entirely upon the supposed analogy between the Lancashire distress and the present famine in Ireland. But there was a substantial difference between the two cases, both as to the cost of the distress and as to the class of persons affected. In Lancashire the suffering fell upon the operatives who were deprived of their work by the stopping of mills. They were largely inhabitants of towns, and under the provisions of the Lancashire Relief Act the majority of the works authorized and executed were sanitary works for towns. Out of the sum of £1,500,000 in Lan- cashire, eleven-twelfths, or eight ninths, were expended for the execution of sanitary works in towns. The fact that the distress in Lancashire was principally in towns operated in no slight degree to modify the circumstances and destroy the analogy between the present famine and that in Lancashire, upon which the whole argument of the hon. Member for Cork rested. To adopt the same measures now as were adopted in Lancashire would involve the danger of taking people away from their farms and leave those lands either badly cultivated or to fall out of cultivation altogether. Sir Charles Trevelyan, whose authority had been appealed to in this matter, said that the first symptoms of neglected cultivation appeared in 1846, and were worse in the districts where relief works were carried on at the greatest expenditure. At the present, Boards of Guardians were throughout Ireland the rural sanitary authorities, and possessed, under the existing machinery, powers to supply whatever sanitary works were required. No doubt such sanitary works as the exigency of the distress required would be carried out, and would give substantial public employment of a most valuable description. That was a subject not to be lost sight of. If the people should require exceptional employment, and that employment could not be found for them on their own farms, or was not supplied by the landowners in the district, then the extraordinary presentment sessions would come in and supply work upon some undertaking of public utility. The execution of sanitary works depended solely on the Boards of Guardians, and they could direct them if they thought it necessary. But was it necessary to call into existence a perfectly novel system of relief works by the present Bill, like those proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork? It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Cork had not fully considered the enormous difficulties that surrounded the topics with which the Amendment dealt. The hon. Gentleman had given up the 1st clause of the Amendment, and had admitted, with a candour he had always exhibited in discussion in the House, that it would be necessary to modify the remainder of the Amendment. The hon. Member proposed that any Board of Guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, should have power to— Widen, deepen, embank, or straighten, any river or stream, and also enter into any agreement respecting the execution of any such work, or the apportionment of the cost thereof, with any person or authority interested in such land, river, or stream, or any property adjoining thereto or likely to be benefited thereby; to agree with the owner or occupier of any land in their district, or other parties interested, to make or repair any road, earthwork, or bridge for railway or tramway, or to execute any work of drainage or private improvement in or on such lands at the expense of the owner, occupier, or parties interested, and may allow time for the repayment of the amount expended, and to receive the sum by annual instalments extending over a period not exceeding thirty-five years, at such rate of interest as may be agreed upon, all such works to be executed under an engineer appointed by the Board of Works. Thus it would be seen that the hon. Gentleman proposed that the Guardians should execute improvements, not upon public land, but upon private ground, and that they should enter into contracts with the landowners and occupiers for the execution of such works. He would ask what machinery had the Guardians at present for laying out those works, or for superintending their execution? If they were to enter upon such a scheme as that, they would require an entirely new staff of persons who would have to be most substantially paid. It was admitted by his hon. Friend that the Amendment would require substantial alteration before it was passed. But all those matters would cause considerable delay, for important changes would be necessitated in the Bill. It would be quite impossible to make the necessary alterations by tomorrow. Every day was of importance. It was a mistake to suppose that this was merely a Bill of Indemnity to the Government. Until the Bill was passed the Boards of Guardians were deprived of very substantial powers of borrowing; and, moreover, the Government was deprived of the power of compelling the Boards of Guardians to act as the exigencies of the case might require. It had been urged that the Government should show more confidence in the Guardians, and should not require to obtain powers to compel them to act; but the powers must be obtained, as the matters could not be left to chance. If the powers existed, doubtless the Guardians would not require that they should be put into active exercise, but would be content with knowing that they could be compelled to act. It was very necessary that the Bill should be allowed to pass as rapidly as possible. It contained very large and useful remedial measures, which would be held entirely in abeyance by delay. The clause had been very fully discussed, and had been presented in every variety of view to the House. The clause had been fully considered by the Government; and he hoped that after the discussion that had taken place the Amendment would be withdrawn, and that they should be allowed to proceed with the remainder of the Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that a very great point had been made of the injury which would result if the Bill were not passed immediately. But he wished to point out that, for the next few months, the tenants would require to be engaged upon their own farms if they were to have a crop next year, and relief works would be of no use during that period. If they wanted to stop the work on the farms of the tenants from the 10th of March to the 15th of April, and to recommence from the 15th of April to the 15th of July, what body could do it so well as the Boards of Guardians? It should be remembered that the baronial sessions could not give out-door relief; and the result of placing out-door relief in the hands of one body, and the execution of relief works under the authority of another, would not be beneficial. Moreover, the landed proprietors would not stop their works while relief was being given. On the other hand, if the Poor Law Guardians had the control of the relief works, they would be able to alternate the different kinds of relief and control the two systems. No public body could act so well in the matter as the Poor Law Guardians. He should recommend, however, that no relief works should be undertaken until the tenants had had time to cultivate their farms. It had been said that no sanitary works would be possible, because the population amongst whom the distress existed was entirely a rural population. But there were some sanitary measures required oven in the rural districts, such as the supply of water and kindred matters. He believed that the baronial sessions were the worst authority they could use, because they could not give employment to rough labour in making the drains or other improvements. The Board of Works, on the contrary, could make roads and drains on which rough labour might be employed; and it was well known that such works as those would be most useful at the present time. The hon. Member for Cork desired to see such works executed, and that was the whole object of his Amendment. With regard to the argument against delaying the Bill, he was certainly not anxious to delay it; but this matter was the very kernel and gist of the Bill. There were other points which might be got through quickly, and there would be no difficulty in proceeding with the rest of the measure. The Bill could be taken to-morrow—for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would, no doubt, give way to the Government on the matter.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway called this clause the kernel of the Bill, and so, no doubt, it was; and, therefore, it behoved the Committee to give it the most careful consideration. The hon. and gallant Member called it the kernel of the Bill, because, under its provisions, money would be handed over to the Boards of Guardians. He believed that Boards of Guardians in Ireland had never had the power of giving out-door relief before. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Yes, they have.] Well, it had been only under very peculiar circumstances that it had been allowed to be given; and if the door were opened now for giving money in that kind of way it would be very difficult to close it. Whenever distress recurred this case would be quoted as a precedent, and the Boards of Guardians would be looked to as the bodies to have authority. Much had been said about the Lancashire distress; but he thought the two cases were not analogous. The Lancashire distress was local; it was confined to certain centres of population, and was caused by the non-receipt of raw material for manufacture. The coal, iron, and other trades were good; agriculture was not at a standstill, but men engaged in cotton manufacture were out of employment in those districts. They were engaged on roads and other works on the outskirts of towns that benefited largely and brought in large tracts of land which were made available for building purposes, and every one of those works was recuperative. As soon as cotton could be got again the whole thing was past; and the money was paid, and properly paid. The hon. Member for Cork proposed to borrow money, the re-payment of which should extend over 35 years. In Lancashire money was borrowed at 3½ per cent; but this money was sought to be borrowed at a far lower rate—["No, no!"] Well, then, at 3½ per cent for 35 years; and who would say that the burden thus created would not press very heavily upon localities? They knew very well that the distress was local, and that it was confined to a particular class, and it was always recurring to that particular class. They had lost their potatoes, and were in a most distressed state; and the best way of meeting that distress in the future was by raising the condition of that particular class. He was anxious to get at the best way, and to do all he could towards relieving the distress. But they must raise the people in some way other than by giving them relief work, because, in that way, they would be taken from the cultivation of their farms. He would go a step further; and he knew that what he was about to say was, in many instances, true. He ventured to say that the Boards of Guardians, in many cases, would not administer the relief well. They were very little—some of them—removed from the class who were seeking relief. If re-payment of the loans was extended over 35 years they would give away the money in the most open-handed way; and he thought it would be a most mischievous thing to hand over to men of that kind powers which were sure to be indiscriminately exercised. Those were some of the reasons that made him think it would be very unwise to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Cork admitted at once that it would not hold water, and that great alterations would have to be made in it before it could be passed. His hon. Friend knew perfectly well what happened in 1846 and 1847. He knew that the money which was voted by this country was absolutely and entirely wasted; and what guarantee was there that that would not occur again? If they could propose some plan and show that the money would be fairly and properly invested, that it would be a great benefit to Ireland, and that they were all prepared to bear their portions, that would be a different matter. But all they said was—"Hand over the money to us; that is what we want; it is not giving food and fuel to those who are starving; we want to have the power of expending the money." That, he said, would be most mischievous for the future of Ireland. It would recoil upon the country, as the expenditure of 1846 and 1847 had done. There had been a very instructive debate in "another place," from which they learnt what noble Lords and others thought of the way in which the money was expended. He was not very sweet upon the baronial presentment sessions having such power as they now had, and he should like to see it curtailed to the utmost extent. He should like to see that they had no power to inaugurate any work, except such as could be done by contract. What the House should do was to meet an emergency, which they must meet, by all means; but they must not go beyond that which was absolutely necessary, or they would do an immense amount of harm to Ireland. He knew his hon. Friend had brought the Amendment forward with the best possible intentions. There had been some meetings in his hon. Friend's own county under the baronial presentment sessions, at which the success of the Government had been acknowledged in giving landlords power to borrow at so low a rate; and in one barony they rejected 67 presentments that were made to them, on the ground that certain noble Lords in that district had borrowed an amount of money that would be of the greatest advantage and benefit to that district. His belief was that the Government had taken a right course. He hoped the clauses would be so worded as to prevent reckless expenditure on the part of the baronial sessions; and as to the Amendment, it was very well to discuss it, but it would not be for the general interest of Ireland to adopt it.

MR. BIGGAR,

said, what was really wanted was a reform of the Land Laws, by which the people of Ireland would, have an opportunity of improving the land for the benefit of the whole community. The improvements should be made for the benefit of the persons who made them. Unfortunately, in Ireland, all improvements were made for the benefit of one particular class—the landlord class—who, in most instances, made none of them, but reaped all the benefits. That was the real difficulty of this question, and it was a matter that must be decided at no distant date. They heard great complaints of an absent Member (the hon. Member for Meath); but when that hon. Member came back he thought some of those who had attacked him behind his back would be rather slow to fight him when he was present. As to the Amendment before the Committee, one leading principle in it was that preference ought to be given to the Poor Law Guardians over the presentment sessions. The arguments of its opponents were mainly based on the principle of allowing existing things to continue simply because they existed. He contended that the presentment sessions would be more likely than Boards of Guardians to take a view of matters that would be favourable to the landlords; the sessions would be more or loss under landlord influence, and would not be impartial. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had alluded to a barony in which the landlords had borrowed money of the Government; but if they had not done so probably public works would have been required to be undertaken, and, therefore, the argument on that point did not amount to much. No substantial argument had been advanced against relief works, and the only question remaining was as to who should carry them out. The Amendment only proposed that power should be given to Boards of Guardians, subject to the approval of their undertakings by the Local Government Board; and, therefore, they would not have the power of spending money in a reckless manner. A strong argument in favour of the Guardians was their local knowledge, and the fact that they met weekly, and had a continuous existence; whilst the presentment sessions would only meet when they were specially called together by the Local Government Board. The making of new roads would be a very desirable thing in counties where there was a large traffic; but in the great majority of places in Ireland the traffic was so small that the existing roads wore quite sufficient for all that was likely to occur, and money expended in making new ones would be entirely thrown away. He thought that part of the Amendment which proposed to give Boards of Guardians power to widen and deepen rivers was of great importance. According to the provisions of the Bill, a landlord might borrow money to improve his own property; but there was no provision by which two or more proprietors could borrow money for the purpose of making a joint improvement. As an illustration of a kind of improvement which would be very valuable, he instanced the fact that near the top of the Shannon, immediately adjoining Lough Allen, the stream was narrow and rapid, and the adjacent lands were periodically flooded, and much damage was done. If the Guardians had authority to lower the bed of the river for about a mile they would lower the level of the lake, and prevent a recurrence of the floods. That improvement would benefit a great many people, and would be more reasonable than talking of large sanitary works amongst a rural and scattered population. He thought the Government had framed their proposals in a haphazard way, and he urged them to accept the Amendment. The Attorney General for Ireland had told them they were delaying a very important measure; but as the Guardians had been authorized to give out-door relief, which was the only pressing matter, there was really no hurry. Although he had not much admiration for the franchise by which the Guardians were elected, they were a more populalar and representative body than the presentment sessions system, which was condemned on all sides.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

did not know whether it was possible in a matter of this kind to convince the Irish Government what was the most desirable course to take. If such an impression could, under any circumstances, be conveyed to their minds, it ought to be conveyed in this particular instance; because the principle of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had been supported not only by Members who represented Ireland on that side of the House, but by hon. Members who sat for Irish constituencies on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Carlow recommended the hon. Member for Cork to withdraw his Amendment, and bring in the principle embodied in it in a separate Bill; and the senior Member for Carlow, who was out and out a most energetic supporter of the Government on all occasions, had suggested that the Government should itself accept the principle of the Amendment, and bring in a clause of their own at the end of the Bill in order to carry it out. In the same direction, there had been a unanimous chorus from the Members who represented Ireland on that side, and who represented the people who would have to pay the cost of these very works, asking the Government to consider the Amendment. He must say, however, that when he saw in the course of the discussion the Chief Secretary for Ireland rise early in the debate and declare his intentions, he was always reminded of the story of the racoon who was going to be shot at by the celebrated Colonel Crockett. When the racoon saw that he was being aimed at he proposed to come down at once, when he found out that his enemy was Colonel Crockett. Now, whenever the Chief Secretary rose early, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) felt that the Government was perfectly impervious to argument; and in this instance he had proposed before the dinner-hour that they should at once go to a division, and testify in that way their opinion that the Government had taken a wrong course—for being guided by past experience in matters of this kind, he never expected that any amount of argument or discussion would produce the smallest effect on the intentions of the Government. Now, what was the real position of the matter? During the time of distress in Lancashire, the Guardians of the poor, who were really responsible to the ratepayers and were brought into association with them, had that power given to them. In the time of distress in Ireland the Government refused to trust the Guardians of the poor. Now, that was at once establishing another distinction between the treatment of Ireland and the treatment of England. It was another step towards the perpetuation of that system of jealousy which the Irish people must feel towards a Government that treated them in that way. Where could be the possible objection on the part of the Government to consider the principle of this Amendment? The Guardians of the poor would have to repay this money. It was said that it was money advanced at 1 per cent. That was perfectly true; but it was to be repaid at an annual cost of 3½per cent—that was to say, there was to be 2½ per cent for a sinking fund, so that for every £100 expended in this way to keep the people in work rather than in idleness the ratepayers would have to pay £3 10s.; yet when the Irish people asked to be allowed to carry on these works, which would be a positive benefit, the Government virtually said—"We really cannot even consider it." He wanted to know who had advised the Government to employ the medium of the presentment sessions for the work? The presentment sessions had been condemned in history. During the last famine period, over and over again most useless works were instituted, and they remained useless to this day. Those were works instituted by the presentment sessions. It was said that the works that would be carried on even now under the powers of the present Bill would not be of very great advantage; but with regard to works carried on by the Guardians of the poor, they would be works much more likely—indeed, almost absolutely certainly—to be useful. The presentment sessions was composed of magistrates, grand jurors, and a few assisting cesspayers, who were nominees of the magistrates. If any works were carried on, the fear was that they would be works useful only to particular magistrates, such construction of roads carried on on several estates, that were not likely to be useful to the suffering tenants—that was the supposition, and it was confirmed by the experience of the past famine periods. Therefore, under these circumstances, he would venture to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Cork that he should withdraw his Amendment, provided the Government would accept the advice of their strongest supporter, the senior Member for Carlow, and accepting the principle and bring up a clause at the end of the Bill at a future stage, embodying the principles of the Amendment to as great or as small an extent as they wished. It seemed to him that it was one of the most disheartening things in the world to discuss a Bill of this nature with a Government who refused the most reasonable concessions. It was perfectly certain that these matters had really not been considered by what he should call the strength of the Cabinet. They could not possibly believe that in a Bill of this kind experienced and able Members of the Cabinet had brought their minds to the work, and considered how best it should be done, because otherwise it would be impossible to understand how the Irish Members who sat on both sides of the House should be opposed to the course that was being taken by the Government. It was simply being carried against argument, against reason, and against common sense, in order to give effect to some determination which had been arrived at in the Cattle of Dublin by the advice of some of the permanent officials who had been the curse of the country from time immemorial. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the advice of his own followers; and he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would willingly withdraw his Amendment if the Government would take it into consideration, and themselves bring up a clause embodying its principle, carrying it out as much and only as far as they pleased.

MR. KIRK

said, he rose to support the Amendment, which he certainly thought the Government ought to accept, and to introduce into the Bill. He knew a good deal in regard to the administration of out-door relief, and he recollected what happened at the time soup kitchens were established in 1846 and 1847. He believed the establishment of those soup kitchens was the cause of a good many people being degraded and demoralized. By the provisions of this Bill, the giving of out-door relief, and having no work done in return for it, would, in every case in which it was given, demoralize and degrade the people. Under these circumstances, he regarded it as a most judicious act on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork to bring forward this Amendment; and he was quite sure that his hon. Friend, as the Leader of the Irish Party, had no desire but to facilitate the action of Her Majesty's Government, and provide a satisfactory means by which the relief could be given, and by which the people would give a fair, honest day's labour for the money that would be given to them. So far as the giving of out-door relief was concerned, he thought there was a great deal in the present system that was altogether wrong. By the existing system, many persons were receiving out-door relief that were not entitled to it, simply because they pressed their way, and were so clamorous for it. Persons who had no shame, and who had already been degraded by the mode in which the system had been carried out, got the out-door relief, while more deserving people got none because they did not look after it at all. He believed that, in this instance, the same result would happen, and that many people who did not deserve outdoor relief would get it. With regard to the institution of reproductive works, if the Government would consider any other mode of establishing them besides those mentioned in the Amendment, he was quite sure his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would at once give way. He (Mr. Kirk) entirely objected to the money being expended, and expended alone, in the giving of out-door relief, without having in every instance some kind of labour performed for it. As to what had been said of the employment of farm labourers, he had no fear that they would be drawn away by employment upon public works from their ordinary occupation on the farms when their services on the farms was most required. As his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said, the Guardians would be the persons who would know much better than any other persons when to stop this labour, in order that the people should return to their ordinary employment upon the land. From the present time, and from the 1st of March, there would be very little work done in Ireland, so far as agriculture was concerned; but the people would be comparatively idle until the harvest commenced. Consequently, the employment of the people upon reproductive works by the Boards of Guardians would do no earthly injury to the farmers. He was a farmer himself, and therefore knew a good deal about the matter. It would not do the slightest injury to the farmers to employ the people who were clamouring for labour. The Irish people were not a people who wished to be made paupers. Even the labourers of Ireland had an independent spirit, and the small farmers of that country were as independent a class of men as were to be found in the world. They would reject the idea of receiving out-door relief except they were in a state of starvation, with their families dying of hunger around them. But if they could obtain work, so that they could say—"We are not receiving alms; we are not receiving charity; but we are receiving money for a honest day's labour," then they would feel that their independence had not gone, and that no demoralization had taken place like that which would take place if there was no resource but the indiscriminate administration of outdoor relief. He recollected that when the soup kitchens were established in 1847 some of the persons who received relief at that time had remained beggars ever since; whereas they would have remained independent in spirit, and have sought to maintain themselves by work, if they had been employed upon public works, instead of being made the recipients of out-door relief. Therefore, having seen what had already passed in Ireland at a time of famine, he felt himself bound to object to any recurrence to a system of wholesale relief without provision being made for the employment of the people who received it. He believed that it would do a great amount of good in Ireland to empower the Boards of Guardians to provide reproductive work. It must be borne in mind that it would not be the money of the Government that would be expended in these reproductive works or in out-door relief, but the money of the people of the country. The Government only lent it to them, and it was repaid back after a certain time. Therefore, it was the money of the people, and not of the Government, that was to be expended, and the Guardians of the Poor Law Unions were the people who ought to have the distribution of the money. They of all persons would be able to distribute it to the best advantage, and would know the best means of saving the country from heavy taxation hereafter. If the money were spent in reproductive works, such as the drainage of land, the deepening of rivers, and other useful works, the result would be to increase the future prosperity of the country, and there would be no loss to the Guardians or to the ratepayers of the district. Therefore, it was only an act of justice to the people of Ireland to give them an opportunity of expending the money in the very best way; and while it was being expended in the best way the people themselves would be prevented from becoming a burden upon the country in the future.

MR. SHAW

remarked, that he had waited for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond to the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); and he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary had not expressed their intention of accepting the principle of the Amendment. He was quite sure that he (Mr. Shaw) put forward no theoretical view at all; but he spoke from his own practical knowledge of the matter, when he said that it would be an, injudicious step on the part of the Government to reject the Amendment. The object they had in view was to prevent the great waste of money which occurred in 1847. The system of acting by moans of the presentment sessions wasted money then; and, so far as he could judge from all the accounts he had seen, and especially in his own county, they were going about wasting money now. They were presenting roads that were attempted to be made in 1847, and which no human being had attempted to do anything with since. Yet they were now being presented for again, as a means of finding employment for the people. One hon. Member objected to the Boards of Guardians being the source from which employment was provided, on the ground that the members of such Boards were themselves almost on an equality with the people receiving relief. He could not imagine where the hon. Member got his information. The Boards of Guardians were composed of magistrates and landowners. The persons who attended most frequently the meetings of the Board were the chairman and deputy chairman, and they were almost invariably landlords, and were the most diligent in attending to the details of the administration of the Poor Law. In point of fact, he did not know a better machinery for administering money than the Poor Law Guardians of Ireland. There might be a few instances where this was not the case. At a former stage of the Bill he had raised the question as to the propriety of spending the money on roads, and roads alone; and some Member of the Government said that the Lord Lieutenant had power to extend the powers of the presentment sessions so as to include other works. He believed it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who made that statement; and he (Mr. Shaw) remarked at the time that it would be necessary to have these extended works defined in the Bill, because they did not like on every occasion, when they had useful works to undertake, to be compelled to go up to Dublin and discuss the matter where there was really no necessity. He thought they ought to have power to originate these works themselves. He knew instances where, in his own district and county, works might be carried out to great public advantage, and where they must give out-door relief to able-bodied people, or otherwise the able-bodied people would be starving. If they had power to do the things which he proposed, even in a modified way—for he was quite willing to yield to the suggestions which had been made by his hon. Friends—he was convinced that great advantage would follow. He was perfectly ready to say to the Government—"Accept this Amendment in principle, and I am ready to throw over some of the details contained in it." What he desired was to save the self-respect of the people, and to enable the authorities to do useful work, instead of squandering the money on the people without any return. Any further clauses that would be necessary to give effect to the proposition he was confident the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would be able to draw up by to-morrow morning. He (Mr. Shaw) had not such a very bad opinion of the Government as his hon. Friend the Member for Gal way appeared to have. He thought that the matter commended itself so completely and entirely to the common sense of the House; and seeing that it had been supported, so completely in principle on both sides of the House, and was altogether of so practical a nature, he could not imagine that the Government, on account of some red-tapeism, or some officialism at Dublin, would prevent the object of the Amendment from being carried out. He might add, in conclusion, that he had not the slightest wish to delay the progress of the Bill, but was simply acting from a sense of duty, and he had no other object whatever.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

apologized for not having risen earlier; but he had thought that other hon. Members were anxious to take part in the discussion. Although he was most anxious to proceed with the Bill, and to make substantial progress, he could not but feel that it was important the House should hear the practical views of hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland. But he must, he was sorry to say, still adhere to the decision at which the Government had arrived, and which had already been expressed by his two right hon. Friends near him. He could assure the Committee that he took this course, not from any feeling of red-tapeism or any narrow-minded prejudice, but because by the process by which they had arrived at that conclusion they had satisfied themselves that they were making the best and most suitable proposals for the good of Ireland in the present crisis. He did not quite understand what it was that hon. Gentlemen, in supporting this Amendment, were really driving at. Did they propose that the Committee should give power to the Boards of Guardians to set on foot a certain class of works in addition to, or in substitution for, the works of the baronial presentment sessions? Some hon. Members seemed to urge that these powers should be given in addition to what was already proposed to be carried into effect by the Government. They said—"The baronial sessions may do certain works, but they will present works that are not of a reproductive character; there are other classes of works which the Boards of Guardians might do; and, therefore, it is better to add this machinery to your Bill." On the other hand, many hon. Members had spoken in a tone which was unmistakeable, and which pointed to this—that if they could get the power given which they now asked for the Boards of Guardians, it would be proper to strike out the power which had been given to the presentment sessions. He was not certain which of these two views was the one on which they were now invited to act. If it was intended to add this to the other kind of machinery for public works, what would be the effect? They had already done a good deal on the responsibility of the Government, and they had proposed to Parliament to sanction and develop what they had done in the way of providing what might be called roughly relief works. They bad proposed to give powers to the landlords under the Lands Improvement Acts. Works of this kind had already been incurred and applied for up to something between £500,000 and £600,000; and probably before the end of the month it would amount to a somewhat larger sum than that. Besides that, they had provided for advances for sanitary works to be conducted under the Boards of Guardians, and a considerable sum had been applied for under that head. Then they had the works that were presented by the baronial presentment sessions; and he wished to remind the Committee that the baronial presentment sessions could only be called in on the suggestion and promotion of the Boards of Guardians themselves, who would put the machinery in motion. They applied to the Lord Lieutenant to certify that there was occasion for employment, and then the sessions set the works on foot. If, in entire addition to this, they were to create a new demand, they would find themselves in this very dangerous position, so forcibly pointed out by the hon. Member for the Cardigan boroughs(Mr. D. Davies), who had made the best and most practical suggestions he had heard. He was sorry that the House was so empty at the time the hon. Member made his remarks; but the hon. Member with very great force, and not expressing any opinion with regard to the Amendment or otherwise, pointed out that they would run a very great danger indeed if they drew off the people from agricultural work, such as tillage works, just at a time when it was most important to provide for the supply of food for the next year. That was one of the greatest misfortunes that was noticed in the proceedings that took place in the Famine of 1846. The works that had been executed and called for then in the first winter of distress took up the labour of a great number of people; and his right hon. Friend had quoted from Sir Charles Trevelyan's account of the proceedings to show that tillage fell off and was deficient precisely in those parts of the country where public works had been carried on. They must, therefore, be careful that they did not introduce a new competitor at this time which would draw the people off from works in which they ought to be employed. They had, with great hesitation and reluctance, gone the length of proposing to confer these powers upon the baronial sessions. They were desirous of avoiding anything in the nature of public works, and they were satisfied that they would be committing an error if they were to go on adding another class of works to those already sanctioned. They were told that the example of Lancashire ought to be followed, and that they ought to do through their Boards of Guardians in Ireland what they did through the Board of Guardians in Lancashire in the famine there. The cases were exceedingly different—partly, as his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, because they were only able in 1863 in Lancashire to set works of this character in motion by a special provision for employing the medium of Boards of Guardians. There were no sanitary autho- rities then who had the power of doing what the Boards of Guardians were called on to do. Nor was there any great fund. There was a small fund for land improvement, and they came forward and advanced from the Treasury a sum of £1,200,000 to be used in employment on works of general improvement, and they did that through the Boards of Guardians. But in Ireland they had this class of works in operation already. They had their system of advances for land improvements. They did not require to put the Boards of Guardians in operation for that. They had the machinery already. It was in full work, and they had given it an ample field. So they had also machinery for sanitary works. They would still be able to give employment in that direction. They had those two things to consider, and there was also the third point dwelt upon by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland—the circumstances of the population. How different were those in Lancashire! They had to provide for a large body of artizans and operatives thrown out of employment from the cessation of the factories; and they, therefore, endeavoured to employ them in any way they could—not drawing them off from other important labour they ought to be doing, because, unfortunately, there was no other labour available for them. But here they ran the risk of drawing off the country labourers from the particular occupation it was their special duty to perform, and they would thereby be in danger of doing that to which the hon. Member for the Cardigan boroughs referred—namely, injuring the prospects of their crops for the following year. That being so—and he assumed that he was right—if he was not right, at all events, he had exceedingly good grounds for the belief that he was right—then he was correct in saying that they ought not to add the employment contemplated by the Amendment to the employment of labour for sanitary works at the present time. But some hon. Gentleman got up and said—"Oh, but you are going to do this in your baronial presentment sessions, and your baronial presentment sessions are a mistake. They are the wrong machinery to employ. You ought to employ the Boards of Guardians." The best reply to that was that if this was so it was a pity hon. Members did not find it out sooner. They had been discussing the Bill all that night. There had been prior discussions on the matter, and they were just arrived at the time when this machinery was being set in motion. The baronial sessions had been receiving applications in many cases. In many cases the loans had already been agreed to. In many others they were now at that moment under consideration. If all the machinery was to be stopped it was a great pity the Government were not warned sooner, so that there would have been no need to throw out of gear the great operations which had now just been begun. If this Amendment were now carried they would have to begin the work all over again, and the Guardians would be called upon to do that which had been hitherto committed to the presentment sessions. He did not understand whether they were trying by this Amendment to commit to the Board of Guardians any other work than that which had hitherto been proposed to be committed to the presentment sessions. Any work which the Guardians, under this Amendment, might present, might be presented, at the present time, by the baronial sessions. Any work undertaken in the one case, might be undertaken in the other. That being the intention, as he understood, he did not see what was to be gained by endeavouring to substitute one machinery for the other, and, to use a familiar illustration, by changing horses when they were just in the middle of the stream. He did not say the Amendment was not a right one, but the present plan had already been partially carried out; and he would desire to press very strongly on hon. Gentlemen that it was better to proceed with something like consistency, or, at all events, to let the Government know very clearly and very definitely what was the intention of these propositions, and whether hon. Members wished to substitute the Boards of Guardians for the baronial sessions, or merely to add them together. For his own part, he could not but think that the Boards of Guardians would have plenty to do in the proper work they had to attend to. They had a most serious task before them, for they had to keep the people from starving. They had to see that the relieving officers were properly organized, and did their duty properly, and they would have to see to the discharge of that part of their duties which related to sanitary works; and they would also have to see to the distribution of potatoes for seed under the Bill which had recently passed through the House. He would, therefore, say to the House very seriously, do not overload the Boards of Guardians, and do not overwork them at the time when they require all their energy and attention for their proper work. Do not expose them either to the temptation that may occur when you call upon people to perform work of a profitable character. They were to employ the people by this Amendment for the original benefit undoubtedly of those people; but still there was the fact that the work might be of advantage to the occupiers or the owners, and that would expose the persons who carried out the work to temptation. He maintained that they were, at all events, proceeding upon principles which had been fairly considered. The Government spent many weeks in the autumn in considering the precise proposals that they would make. They postponed giving anything in the nature of encouragement to public works in the earlier stages of the distress; and it Was only when they saw that it had become absolutely necessary to provide some sort of labour that they came to the deliberate conclusion, after taking the best advice, to prefer, of the two systems, the baronial sessions. He believed those suggestions were now working well, he would not say without faults or without mistakes; but that, on the whole, the system was working as well as could be expected under the present necessity, and, therefore, for his part, he did sincerely hope the Committee would not think it necessary to abandon it.

MR. D. O'CONOR

said, he had no intention of prolonging the discussion; but he merely rose to protest against the statement that Irish Members had now only begun to object to the system of baronial sessions. If he remembered rightly, a very strong objection to those sessions was expressed in every debate on the subject, and on the first line of the 3rd clause, a few nights ago, a very strong argument was addressed to the Committee against those suggestions, showing that they were not the proper body to be intrusted with that work. What happened? The Chairman of the Committee intervened, and said that was not the proper time to raise the question—that it would be time enough to raise it when they came to this par- ticular clause. Now they were told that it was too late, and that the question ought to have been raised earlier. That was the way in which the Government perpetually checkmated them. When they first raised the question they were told it was not the proper time to discuss it. Then, when the clause was reached, they were told it was then too late to enter into the matter, and that they must pass the Bill as it stood. He was as anxious to pass the Bill as anybody; but, for his part, he must very strongly protest against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. SWANSTON

said, a few nights ago he referred to his experience in 1846 and 1847 of the disadvantages of baronial sessions, and he had seen nothing since to alter his opinion that the same reckless proceedings would again occur. His opinion was that the Guardians ought to have been left to institute public works in their own localities; for, in 1846 and 1847, he found that the principal works were carried on very inconveniently to the poor people generally. The men who wanted employment were forced to go long distances to obtain it, instead of having work brought to their very doors as proposed by this Amendment. Therefore, he trusted it was not too late now to press the Government to consider this Amendment. He thought it was much to be regretted that something had not been done to prevent works being begun at this particular season, when farming operations ought to be carried out. The presentment sessions were just beginning their works; and these works would, consequently, just come into operation at the very time they should be set aside for a month or two, and the people should be at work upon the land.

Question put.

The Committeedivided:—Ayes 89; Noes 109: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 13.)

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmoved, in page 2, line 16, to add the words— Any union or part of an union may be scheduled in the manner stated in the public notice issued by the Commissioners of Public Works, on the twenty-second day of November, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, as a distressed district, for the purpose of extending thereto the right to borrow money for the purposes of out-door relief, or for sanitary improve- ments, or for the improvement of land, or for works to be presented by extraordinary presentment sessions, as set forth in the tenth section of this Act. It would be obvious that, in order that any Union should get an opportunity to borrow money for any of the purposes set out in his Amendment, they must be scheduled in accordance with the notice of the 22nd November. The object of his Amendment was that the Union, or a distressed district, might be scheduled for one particular purpose only, instead of the general purposes mentioned. It would be much more easy to permit a place to be scheduled for only one particular kind of relief; and it certainly was an objection to scheduling a Union that by being scheduled it was allowed to become entitled to ask for money for every one of the purposes mentioned. [Mr. J. LOWTHER was understood to express the approval of the Government to that part of the Amendment.] As that part of his Amendment was acceded to, the second point he wished to come to was one permitting only apart of anion to be scheduled instead of the whole. According to the notice of the 22nd November, under which the entire scheme of relief was to be worked, the whole of the Union must be scheduled in order that any of these schemes of relief might be carried into effect. His proposal was to schedule only part of a Union, and to schedule it only for the particular kind of relief required there. For this second Amendment there was a precedent in the Amendment conceded last evening, moved by himself, by which the power of compulsory out-door relief might be given to any electoral division, and his second Amendment was recommended by the same arguments which he then used.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),

asked the hon. and learned Member to explain more exactly the definite objects he sought to accomplish by his Amendment. By the existing Circular all applications for sanitary purposes, or for improvements of land, must be made before the 29th of February. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman, by this Amendment, propose to extend that date longer, so as to enable the Local Government Board to schedule districts after that date? [Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: No.] If that was so, he did not quite understand the object of the first part of the Amendment. Then, as to works to be presented to the extraordinary presentment sessions, that was one of the purposes fixed by the Bill.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that the general object that he had in view in proposing his Amendment was to enable distressed districts to be scheduled for the purposes of relief, without rendering it necessary that they should be scheduled for other purposes. If the Amendment were agreed to matters would be greatly simplified, inasmuch as the authorities would be enabled to schedule a district for one particular purpose. In order that the Board of Guardians might be entitled to raise money under the clause as it stood, a district must be scheduled as a distressed Union; and power was given to the Board of Guardians, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to borrow money for the purpose of defraying any costs, charges, or expenses incurred, or to be incurred by them in the execution of the Act. Now, what he desired to do was to provide machinery by which a Union, or any part of a Union, might be scheduled for the purposes of out-door relief, without being scheduled for any other purpose. It would not, however, be at all compulsory on the Government, if the Amendment were agreed to, to schedule a district after the 29th of February for that particular purpose, if the time for carrying it into effect happened to have expired. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that there should be power to schedule part of a Union, as well as an entire Union; and that object, he might add, he proposed to accomplish by the first words of his Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that he would offer no objection to the Amendment as it had been explained by the hon. and learned Member.

Amendmentagreed to.

Clause, as amended,agreed to.

Clause 4 (Power to borrow).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he proposed to insert, in line 25, after the word. "Act," the words "or of the Poor Law Acts, other than for building." The object of the Amendment, he said, was to empower Boards of Guardians to borrow, not only for the new and exceptional purposes of the Bill, but for the general purposes of the Union other than that named in the Amendment.

Amendmentagreed to.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 27, after the word "expenses," to insert the following words:— Every union to which an order authorising relief outside the workhouse shall be issued under the third section of this Act may, with such sanction as aforesaid, for the purpose of defraying any costs, charges, or expenses incurred, or to be incurred, in providing and distributing relief under such order, borrow and take up at interest any sums of money necessary for defraying any such costs, charges, and expenses. The Amendment was one which, in his opinion, was of considerable importance. Clause 3 gave the Local Government Board power to compel—though the word used in the clause was "authorized"—by order under their seal the Guardians of the poor of any Union to give out-door relief on a very extensive scale; and the expenses of that relief would, no doubt in many cases, be very great. That being so, Clause 4 gave the Unions scheduled as distressed districts, and those Unions only, power to raise money for the extraordinary out-door relief they might give under Clause 3, and power also, under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to borrow for even out-door relief. Now, what he desired to do was to have it laid down in one form or another in the Bill, that if a Union was so badly off that the Local Government Board found it necessary to empower the Guardians to give out-door relief, they should be entitled to raise money at 3½ per cent, payable in 10 years. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which the Committee had just agreed, furnished, he contended, a strong argument in favour of that now proposed. According to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, even in a Union where there was no necessity whatever for expending money in an extraordinary manner in out-door relief, a Union might borrow money at the rate which he had just mentioned for a period of 10 years. Now, when such a privilege was given to a Union which was not driven to give extraordinary out-door relief, surely other Unions which were compelled to give such relief ought,ipso facto,to be entitled to a similar privilege. He wished to impress on the Committee the fact that the gift of out-door relief was to be the back-bone of the whole system under the Bill. There were districts where public works could not possibly be carried out, where there were no baronial sessions held, or where it would be difficult to hold them in time to give relief. He might call the attention of the Committee, for example, to districts named Pallysimon and Cahirnarry which were four or five miles outside the city which he had the honour to represent, and whose case was so bad that a member of the Board of Guardians, who was most conversant with the position of affairs there, in bringing it before the Board a few days ago, said that its condition was so wretched that it could scarcely be paralleled during the Famine of 1847 and never since. There was in that district no means of employment, and great distress prevailed. Now, if in places like that the people did not enjoy such advantages as the Amendment would confer, the system of relief provided by the Bill would, he was afraid, be extremely imperfect.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he desired to amend his Amendment by the insertion, after the words "every Union," of the words "or any part of a Union."

MR. PAGET

pointed out that those words were wider in their scope than those employed in the previous parts of the Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

also objected to the insertion of the words "or any part of a union," considering that they would be inconsistent with the 3rd clause, which the Committee had already passed.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he would not, in these circumstances, ask the Committee to adopt them.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Original Amendmentagreed to.

MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 2, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words "of such of the electoral divisions in the union." In proposing the Amendment he was, he said, simply advocating the principle for which he had contended in the discussions on the earlier stages of the Bill. In his opinion, the Union should be the area over which the rates should be levied; and the re-payment of money borrowed ought not, he maintained, to be thrown entirely on poor electoral districts, which might not be able to refund it in a great number of years.

MR. FINIGAN

said, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and trusted the Government would accede to it. The just demands of Irish Members ought, he thought, to be met by at least some concessions on the part of the Government, so that they might show that they were not bent on passing measures which were totally opposed to the wishes of the Irish people.

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Amendment, observing that it opened up the entire question of Union rating on which the Government did not think they would be justified in pronouncing a decision in a discussion raised incidentally on a Bill for the relief of distress in Ireland.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought it would be necessary to make some alteration in the clause to meet that which had already been introduced in Clause 3 by the substitution of the word "indoor" for "out-door" relief.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that if a verbal Amendment was required to make the clause consistent with the previous clause, he would take care that it should be introduced before the Report.

MR. SHAW

thought it was very material that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) should be made.

MR. BIGGAR

contended that, entirely irrespective of the question of Union or divisional rating, the proper locality on which to levy a rate under the operation of the clause was the Union at large.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, which was in the nature of a compromise, for it did not go to the whole extent of Union rating.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. SHAWmoved, in page 2, line 39, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert the word "thirty." In the case of the Lancashire loan, he said, the power of borrowing money for a period not exceeding 30 years was given, and he saw no reason why the period should not be equally long in the case of Ireland. Ten years was a very short period, in his opinion, for the re-payment of the loans under the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert theword"thirty."—(Mr. Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was sorry he could not assent to the proposal to extend the time, which he thought, as prescribed by the Bill, was sufficiently long.

MR. SYNAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for the difference between the 30 years which were allowed to sanitary authorities for the re-payment of loans, and the 10 years only allowed to the Board of Guardians for the same purpose, than that this difference was necessary in the interests of posterity. He (Mr. Synan) could see no reason whatever in that, and thought that the obligation which was binding upon one body to re-pay in a certain time should also be binding on the other; but, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of posterity one was to have 30 years for re-payment and the other only 10. With respect to posterity, he thought that the Board of Guardians were entitled to charge it just as much as were the sanitary authorities and the landed proprietors. Suppose the loans of the Board of Guardians made the rates in any districts bankrupt, would it not be reasonable to extend the time for re-payment to 20 or 30 years? What was the difference between giving money to Lancashire for the support of the poor, and giving money to Ireland, through the Guardians, for the support of the poor? With respect to giving them time for re-payment, it made no difference whether the money was applied to works in Lancashire, or whether it was applied in the shape of out-door relief or in the shape of public works in Ireland. Instead of there being any distinction which could be urged as a reason against extending the time for the Boards of Guardians, he thought that the reason which had been given was plainly in their favour, because the pub-lie got a benefit in the shape of works. Under those circumstances, he hoped they would get from the Treasury some more satisfactory answer, and that they would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend in some form, if not by extending the period to 30 years.

MR. SHAW

was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had hardly understood the effect of the Amendment. There were in his own county presented works, the charge for which amounted to 1s.6d.in the pound for 10 years; that was from the presented works alone. He was quite sure that in that very district there would be a large amount of taxation under this clause, some of which could not be paid. So that if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain the 10 years for re-payment he was certain to lose money extensively. Besides, Irish Members would have to come to Parliament in a few years' time to say that this whole district was going into bankruptcy, and to ask for an extension of time. He maintained that the loans for sanitary purposes in towns being made for the extended period, the loans for feeding the poor people of Ireland and for keeping them alive ought to be equally extended with regard to the time of repayment. It struck him that the Government hardly realized the extent of the calamity which was impending over some parts of Ireland; and, therefore, he trusted that they would extend the time for re-payment, so that the burden upon the taxpayer might fall more lightly.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the difference of time for the re-payment of these different classes of loans was apportioned, not according to the class of persons or public bodies borrowing the money, but according to the class of works to be performed with the money so borrowed. He pointed out that the land improvements and sanitary works were of a more permanent character than out-door relief. With regard to land improvements, these works had to be certified as being of a character which would confer benefit on the property for the time over which the loan would have to run. He thought the hon. Member had erred in respect of the time in which the loans for this class of works were repayable, the term for which was laid down at 15 years. It was not considered right that a district should have the power of burdening itself for the re-payment of loans for an indefinite period.

MR. SYNAN

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he did not want an indefinite period. The Circular of the 22nd of November, relating to loans to sanitary authorities, fixed the time of re-payment at 30 years, and the interest at 1 per cent. He knew of three or four cases in his own county where this rule had been applied.

MR. SHAW

said, that 10 years was a most unreasonably short period for repayment, because it would take three or four years of this time for the poor people to recover themselves from their present condition, and during that period the Government were about to hang a mill-stone of debt around their necks which might amount to 1s.6d.in the pound for public works alone, and which would be in addition to the ordinary county rates and poor rates. In fact, it would amount to a total of taxation that would be crushing to the people, while in the small country towns it would be more crushing still.

Question put,

The Committeedivided:—Ayes 153; Noes 47: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 14.)

Clause, as amended,agreed to.

Clause 5 (Power of Board of Works to lend).

MR. SHAW

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) to reduce the rate of interest upon loans to Boards of Guardians from 3£ per cent to 1 per cent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted upon re-payment in 10 years, he thought he might agree to the smaller rate of interest, because the people of Ireland had a burden coming upon them for re-payment at a very short period. He begged leave to move to leave out from page 3, line 18, the words "three and a-half," in order to insert the word "one."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "three and a-half," in order to insert the word "one."—(Mr. Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'three and a-half stand part of the Clause."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Government had no idea, in framing this Bill, that the money should be advanced from the Public Works Loan Fund upon terms which might be called "alms-giving." No doubt the advances to be made ought to be made, and were always intended to be made at the regular rate for advances from the Public Works Fund. The character of the measure would be altogether changed by substituting 1 per cent for the ordinary rate of 3½ per cent. He did not think it would be at all possible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. SYNAN

did not think that there was any force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the character of the measure would be altogether changed by simply altering the rate of interest from ½ per cent to 1 per cent. The money which was to be got from the Irish Church Surplus Fund was to be advanced at 1 per cent. But Her Majesty's Government had no objection to make the Irish people pay, and to make them losers of the interest on the money to be given from the Royal Treasury of England—the English people were so poor, and in such a state of bankruptcy, that they could not afford to advance their money at a less rate than 3½ per cent; but in one case it was Irish money and must be given for nothing, while in the other case it was Imperial money, and must, therefore, be advanced at interest. He supposed the financial arrangements of the Budget would be disturbed if the money were lent at the lower rate of interest.

MR. FINIGAN

said, it would be a sad thing if the people of Ireland in this exceptional time of misfortune knew that the money that came out of the Consolidated Fund would have to be paid for at the rate of 3½ per cent, while 1 per cent only was charged upon the money which came out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund. He thought it would become the Government, and, at all events, showed that the English people, through their Representatives, were inclined to treat Ireland as justly and equitably out of the Consolidated Fund as the Irish people were treated out of their own fund. They had been for a long time discussing the Bill; it was now late, and he hoped the Government would give way. His personal opinion of the Bill was that it was a very sad one as it stood, and he would like to see it improved, and particularly with regard to the amount of interest which the Government proposed, wrongly, as he believed, to charge upon the Irish people. He trusted that the Irish people might really feel that the Government were anxious to do something at this period of distress for the people of Ireland of an exceptional and favourable character, and for this reason he trusted the Government would give way and accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

believed that the Government wished to do all in their power to mitigate the distress in Ireland; and for what they had attempted to do in reference to this Bill, he, for one, gave them his humble thanks. He put it to the Head of the Government, whether it would not be a becoming thing for them to give way upon that occasion, and not to ask for this increased amount of interest? The question of purse was one which actuated, people in Ireland as well as in England, and he was quite aware that many persons in Ireland would say—"We are likely to be saddled with a considerable sum for the relief of the poor;" and when they saw that they were likely to have to pay a considerable rate of interest on the loans advanced for this purpose they might decline to accept them. Her Majesty's Government were taking action to relieve the distress in Ireland; and he appealed to them to look beyond small matters of this kind, and not to say that small farmers in Ireland should have the right to decide whether or not they would take up these loans. He thought that, upon a question of this character in that House, he had a right to look beyond Boards of Guardians; and he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, who were more especially charged with the conduct of this measure, and who were more conversant with the mode in which it was likely to be administered, whether they did not think that, in the interests of the poor of Ireland, they ought to regard what was likely to be done in their behalf? For his own part, and he said it with shame, in some places there were certain persons connected with the Poor Law adminis- tration, who would look only to the narrow regard of how far they were likely to save themselves. Such a small question as that of this difference of interest was not for the consideration of the Imperial Parliament; the question was how far they could do away with the distress in Ireland, and whether the Irish Members had not a right to appeal to Her Majesty's Government; and in this sense he did appeal to the Leader of the House to say whether it was for the Government to hesitate about this question of interest. The remarks which he had made concerning the Boards of Guardians in Ireland were not likely to increase his popularity. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the statement made by the hon. Member for Cork was not worthy of consideration, and whether it was right to spend the night in fighting over questions of 3½ and 1 per cent interest at a time when the actual existence of the people had to be considered? He had given the Government no opposition upon this Bill in any possible form; on the contrary, he had given them his humble support in the measures that had been introduced. He did not think that there was any Gentleman in the House, be he Whig or Tory, who would not say that the first question to be considered in this matter was the preservation of life; and he trusted that before a new Parliament met in that House it would not be remembered by hon. Members opposite that they had opposed the simple request on the part of the Irish Members to fix the rate of interest at the amount which had been taken on former occasions.

MR. BIGGAR

said, if he had understood rightly the statement of the Government, it was not intended to lend money under the Bill in the form of charity. But, if he were not mistaken, the money was to be lent to the landowners at 1 per cent. The money was to be lent to the landowners at 1 per cent from the Irish Church Surplus Fund. Thus the landowners would get money on charity terms, although, doubtless, they would not like to be told so. It seemed to him that the occupying tenants ought to be treated in the same way as the landowners, and also get money at 1 per cent.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he would like to know what the Government of this country had ever given to Ireland? Had it ever given a single pound? For many years £3,000,000 a-year had been taken from Ireland in the shape of taxes, and nothing had ever been given back. It might be said that Ireland paid no more in taxes than England; but it should be remembered that a very heavy tax was levied on an article which was consumed in Ireland in greater quantities than it was in England. But while thousands of pounds had been contributed from America to help the starving peasantry in Ireland, yet not a single shilling had been contributed by Her Majesty's Government. The National Debt Commissioners were getting money from the public at 2½ per cent, and yet the Government wanted to charge the suffering people in Ireland 3½ per cent. Thus, in place of Ireland getting nothing, the Government proposed that it should be made to pay a profit of 1 per cent.

MR. J. LOWTHER

begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government had become responsible for very considerable sums for the relief of distress in Ireland. It was not fair to say that the landowners were the only persons who were entitled to obtain advances at 1 per cent, for sanitary authorities and the baronial sessions were equally entitled to those liberal terms. The principle on which they had drawn the distinction between 3½ per cent and 1 per cent was that persons who were not obliged to borrow money, but to whom it was necessary to offer an inducement for so doing, should be allowed to have it at 1 per cent. But to those persons to whom it was not necessary to offer inducements, the Government could only grant it at 3½ per cent.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

would have thought that both English and Scotch Members would have joined in urging the Government to grant money for the relief of distress in Ireland at 1 per cent interest; and he should have thought that, under the exceptional circumstances of the case, the Government would have accepted the proposition. He should have thought that every hon. Member, irrespective of his politics, would not huckster over a question of the lives of the people, and that a small matter of this kind would not be made a battleground, when the object was to relieve —he would not say a famine, but the extreme and great destitution in Ireland.

MR. SHAW

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed disposed to exaggerate the liability of the Imperial Government. They had becomeresponsiblefor£500,000 for two years. He did not object to the loans which the Government had already promised to the landowners, because the money would go into the country, and every class of the community would benefit. With respect to the Amendment, there were several reasons why he did not wish to take a division. In asking permission to withdraw his Amendment, he could not help remarking that a very strong argument had been offered for Home Rule. Every step from the beginning of the Session had had the effect of putting arguments into their mouths of the strongest character in favour of Home Rule. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply came to this—that he liked to borrow at a low rate of interest for a long period, and to lend at a high rate of interest for a short period. Those arguments did not commend themselves to the sympathy of Irishmen when applied to the relief of distress in their country. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that the hon. and gallant Member for County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan had both given Notice of the same Amendment. He had been asked by the latter Gentleman to move his Amendment. He did not feel that the arguments which had been adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary carried conviction to his own mind, nor did he think they would to the minds of his hon. Friends. He objected, therefore, to the withdrawal of the Amendment; and he was sure that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would himself have strongly objected to that course.

Question put.

The Committeedivided:—Ayes 141; Noes 38: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 15.)

Clause, as amended,agreed to.

Clause 6 (Repayment of loans made by the Board of Works)agreed to.

Clause 7 (Orders for payment of loans may be made by Local Government Board)agreed to.

Clause 8 (Confirmation of expenditure by Guardians and indemnity)agreed to.

Clause 9 (Validation of loans).

MR. FINIGANmoved, in page 4, line 27, to insert after the word "owners," the words "occupying tenants." This Amendment of his raised a most important question as to loans to occupiers; and as they had now been eight hours in Committee, and the question at issue was one which required very careful consideration, he should, if he could obtain any support, divide the House and insist on reporting Progress.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Finigan.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

really thought, if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Amendment he had proposed, he would see that it was not susceptible of discussion. The clause did not refer to any loans, but merely dealt with the past, and referred to what had been done. The clause did not propose to take any powers for the future, but merely recited what had already been done by the Government, and asked the House to approve of it. He was sure the hon. Gentleman, after that explanation, would see that it was not necessary to make the Amendment he suggested.

MR. FINIGAN

said, as the question was one which must be raised further on and would require a great deal of consideration, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion and Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 5, line 35, after the word "loan," to insert the words— Always providing, That no portion of such loan shall be expended in connection with the consolidation of any existing holdings of land, or causing the termination of any holding or holdings of land; and further providing, That in any action for compensation for disturbance brought or hereafter to be brought by any tenant of land in Ireland under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' any claim of an owner of land, in consequence of improvements effected with any loan granted under this Act, to demand an increase of rent calculated at a higher rate per centum than the rate per centum at which such loan had been granted to such owner of land, shall he deemed and held to he a demand for an exorbitant rent within the meaning of the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.' He moved the Amendment on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in whose name it stood, and who was at that time temporarily absent. One of the strongest contentions of the opponents, or, he would rather say, the critics, of this Bill—for there had been no opposition to it, though there had been much severe criticism—was to give power to landowners to borrow money on the security of the Church Surplus Fund at a very low rate of interest, and to help the landlords with unlimited power of loan-raising, in consequence of these improvements. That, in his opinion, was a totally unfair principle. The landlord would be able to borrow public money at exceptionally low rates—for 1 per cent must be considered to be an exceptionally low rate—and, at the same time, he would be empowered to charge the tenants on his property whatever increased rent he pleased for those very improvements. The Amendment really only carried out the principle already laid down by the Landlord and Tenant Act—that was, that if a landlord asked an exorbitant rent the Court could decide that it was practically dispossessing the tenant, and could give him compensation for disturbance.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was quite at a loss to understand what was meant by the words in the Amendment, "in connection with the consolidation of any existing holdings of land." He was not aware under what section of this Bill money borrowed under it could be laid out in the consolidation of the holdings. Without going into the whole question, however, he would say the Government was prepared to accept the first portion of the Amendment down to the word "land," and the Amendment so accepted would be the 1st Proviso.

MR. SYNAN

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment, although he entirely agreed in its principle, for the simple reason that it did not hit the blot, and would not remedy the grievance of which he complained. The question of exorbitant rents under the Landlord and; Tenant Act was raised in the 9th clause, I which enacted that a Judge might treat the demand for an exorbitant rent as a disturbance of the tenant. But the clause was confined to holdings under the value of £15; and surely his hon. Friend did not intend to limit the remedy proposed in his Amendment in that way. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan had already called the attention of the House to this matter by a Question he had put that very evening, which showed that a landowner in Derry who served notices upon his tenants informing them that they would be required to pay 5 per cent for any improvements he might make on their holdings, while, at the same time, he was getting the money for those improvements on the security of the Irish Church Fund at 1 per cent. Under the Drainage (Ireland) Act, the increase of rents arising from such improvements might be left to the discretion of the Commissioners of Public Works. Upon the application of the proprietors they were at liberty to make an award if they thought there should be an increase of rent consequent upon the improvement, and when made that award was to be endorsed upon the lease, and if the tenant had no lease, then the award was made separately, and the amount was added to his rent. If, however, they thought from the peculiar circumstances of the case, or from the whole property being too high, they were quite at liberty to refuse to put any increase whatever upon the tenant. Now, under the present Bill, the landlord would be able to borrow money at 1 per cent; and unless there was some provision of the kind suggested, he would be able to turn round upon the tenant and charge him 5 per cent—as had, indeed, already been done in the case quoted that evening. For his part, he preferred carrying out this suggestion as one Amendment. The effect of it was that the landlord would borrow the money, and the tenant would get the benefit of the loan, and the Commissioners of Public Works would decide what the increase should be under the circumstances. He might mention that in his own case a loan had been often drawn without any increase of rent being cast upon the tenants. But that, of course, was an exceptional circumstance; and the Amendment, as he proposed it, certainly met the grievance. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would accept this Amendment, because his own, as he had already pointed out, only hit the blot to the extent of tenants under £15. With respect to the other part of his Amendment, he was prepared to postpone it; but he would take the sense of the Committee on the first part before he would decide what he would do with the second.

MR. BIGGAR

said, these were not his own Amendments, and, in point of fact, he never read them at all until he read the Amendment in question in moving it. At the same time, he must confess the early part of it seemed to him to involve a principle that ought to be carried out—namely, that landlords should not borrow money and use it in consolidating holdings, and so getting rid of the tenants.

MR. J. LOWTHER

remarked, that that could not be done under the Lands Improvement Act.

MR. BIGGAR

replied, that a landlord might, at any rate, make small fields into large ones, and make other improvements which were not so desirable as improvements to the land. It seemed to him that a very important principle was involved in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan; but as that hon. Gentleman was now present, he was rather disposed to think that, as he was the author of the Amendment, he had better fight it out for himself.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that in placing this Amendment on the Paper, he did it less for the purpose of bringing this particular Amendment to the notice of the Committee than for the purpose of ventilating an acknowledged blot in the Relief Bill. He observed, however, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County Limerick (Mr. Synan) went further, and was more thorough than his own; and, on the present occasion, he might fairly complain that he had been guilty of the rare merit of moderation in dealing with this subject. He was not sure, however, that moderation in this case was a merit, because he desired most absolutely and thoroughly to prevent the public money being granted in loans on lands, and the land being made use of for throwing im- proper burdens on the tenants. They were to help the landlords to keep the people from starving; but the landlords themselves or their friends ought to be very careful to guard against even the suspicion of a desire to take an undue advantage of these loans of public money; and it would, of course, be monstrous that after receiving a loan at 1 per cent they should charge their tenants 5 or 6 per cent for it. If an amicable arrangement was made between landlord and tenant, that, of course, would be quite fair; but if the matter came to a fight before the local tribunal, they ought to take care that the tenant had the power of defending himself, and ought not to be forced to pay more than his landlord paid for the use of the money. He would prefer to leave his Amendment in the hands of the Leader of their Party (Mr. Shaw). His hon. Friend, when he mentioned his intention of placing this Amendment on the Notice Paper, approved of it, and said he should call attention to the subject himself also. Something clearly must be done; and the hon. Member for Cork, with his great experience and his acknowledged position as the Head of their Party, was the best person to decide upon which of those Amendments they should fight.

MR. SHAW

understood the Government accepted the first part of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan); and, for his part, he could see no reason why they should not accept the second part also.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cavan was withdrawn?

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would withdraw his in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the County of Cavan (Mr. Biggar).

MR. FINIGAN

said, his hon. Friend had gone out for a moment; but he believed he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

MR. SYNAN

said, the Amendment he had to propose was at page 5, line 35, after the word "loan," to insert these words— Provided always, That in any award for increase of rent to be made by the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) under the said Acts, the increase, if any, so awarded shall not exceed the yearly rent charge payable by the owner for such loan. That was a slight alteration of the terms of his Amendment as it originally stood; but the Committee would see it was necessary in order to carry out its intention.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GRAY

regretted the alteration which had been made, because, as he understood it, the landlord was now to add not merely the interest, but also the instalments of principal, to the rent of the tenant. The result would be that after the loan was paid off the landlord would have for nothing the profit of the transaction. ["No, no!"] Surely the equitable thing was that the tenant should only pay the interest, because the improvement remained as a permanent increase to the value of the property of the landlord. Therefore, the tenant should not pay both principal and interest.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the hon. Member for Limerick was quite correct in altering his Amendment as he had done, because, unless it was so altered, it might appear that the tenant was to pay the interest twice over.

MR. SYNAN

said, it was so. The amount to be paid would be the interest on the sum sufficient to repay the principal. If the interest was £3 8s.6d.,and the rent charged £1, instead of paying £3 8s.6d.the tenant would way £4 8s.6d.Really the alteration he had made in his Amendment was in favour of the tenant. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) would understand the matter now he had explained it by figures.

MR. GRAY

replied, that he was, undoubtedly, very dull of apprehension; but he was still unable to understand the exact meaning of the Amendment. Was the amount to which the rent was to be increased to include the instalments of the principal, or was it not? If the increase represented the interest alone, that was strictly equitable, of course; but if it included also the yearly instalments for the re-payment of the loan spread over a certain period, the result would be to give the entire profit of the improvement after the extinction of the loan to the landlord for nothing. Of course, his hon. Friend might be correct, and he himself be suffering from a misapprehension; but he only wanted to know what was the exact meaning of the Amendment, and what was to be the sum the yearly tenant was to pay.

MR. SYNAN

replied, that he proposed what the words of his Amendment conveyed—that the tenant should pay for 35 years what the landlord was liable to pay. After the 35 years a new arrangement would be made for the land; and nobody could, of course, say what at that time might be necessary. But if his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) would add words saying that after the 35 years the tenant should pay nothing at all of the principal or interest he would be quite satisfied to concur with him; but he apprehended that any proposition to decide now what should be done 35 years hence would be hardly likely to receive much consideration from the House. That was, at all events, not a subject upon which they were likely to come to any satisfactory conclusion. For that reason he had not said what was to happen after the expiration of that time.

MR. FINIGANmoved to report Progress, and said, a very difficult question was raised here; and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) that if the tenant was to pay both principal and interest this clause was a very unequitable one, and should be very strongly opposed.

MR. GRAY

hoped the Committee would not think him obstructive; but it seemed to him that the Amendment, as it originally stood, was quite clear. Then, the rate to the tenant was not to exceed the rate of interest payable by the owner. If, therefore, his hon. Friend would leave his Amendment as it was first put upon the Paper, it would convey precisely what the law meant—that the tenant should pay the interest only, and not the instalments of the principal.

MR. J. LOWTHER

observed, that the hon. Member had misapprehended the principle under which these loans were given. Repayment of the loans was spread over as long a period as the Treasury thought the improvements would last, and the idea that the landlord would get the benefit which the tenant had provided for him was not the fact. The principle upon which these loans were made was this—that the repayment should run over a period of as long as it was calculated the improvements would last. If the improvement was supposed to last for 35 years, the loan was spread over 35 years; and at the end of that time, or thereabouts, it was calculated that the outlay would have ceased to benefit the land. Therefore, the proposal that the tenant should pay the instalments as well as the interest was perfectly fair; and the suggestion that the tenant, during 35 years, should have the full benefit of the improvements, and should only pay the interest, while the landlord should be forced to discharge the sinking fund, would be preposterous and most unjust.

MR. GRAY

imagined that drainage was a matter within the terms of the Land Improvement Act. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to accept an Amendment by which the tenant should only pay the interest, and not the principal, in loans of a permanent character.

MR. P. MARTIN

would like some little explanation of the meaning of the Amendment. It seemed to him, according to the words now used, to confer no benefit on the tenant. The tenant would, by instalments levied from him, be obliged to pay the entire principal and interest; yet that landlord would, in the end, become entitled to the benefit and advantage of the improvement. No provision either appeared to be made in it for the case of a tenant who might be evicted after the first two or three years, and who yet had paid the instalments in liquidation of the principal. If the Committee passed that Amendment as it stood it appeared to him they were leaving the tenant to pay both principal and interest, and yet leaving the landlord eventually in possession of the improvements.

MR. SYNAN

said, that during the term for which the landlords had to borrow the money the tenant had to pay instalments; and he had prepared the Amendment for the purpose of saving the tenant being charged 5 per cent while the landlord was getting the money. In fact, he wished to give the tenant the difference between £3 8s.6d.and 5 percent. If the clause stood in its present form, the landlord would borrow the money at the former rate, and make the tenant pay 5 per cent for it.

MR. P. MARTIN

observed, that if the clause ran "shall not exceed the rate of interest payable by the owner for such loan," then it would be plain and simple; but, as it was, the Act imposed upon the tenant the entire payment both of principal and interest.

MR. SHAW

said, that the Amendment was proposed from their anxiety to save the tenants from being overcharged; and, so far as he could judge, the Amendment protected them.

Motion, by leave,withdrawn.

Question put, andagreed to.

Wordsinserted.

MR. SYNAN

said, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the first part of the Amendment relating to awards by the Commissioners of Public Works under the Act of 1870 was quite sufficient protection to the tenant; but the right hon. Gentleman must know as well as he did that no real original power was given to the Public Works Commissioners at all. It was in the power of the landlord, after the improvements had been done upon his property by means of loans obtained at 1 per cent, to give the tenant notice to quit, and he would then be in possession of improvements made from Irish money, and the tenant was thus completely at the mercy of his landlord. The tenant could not compel the Commissioners of Public Works to give him a lease of his holding for 35 years. All that the Commissioners could do was to insure that his rent was not increased during the time that he remained a tenant. In order, therefore, to give the tenant protection, he had framed the following further Amendment:— Provided further, That in any claim hereafter to he made for compensation by any tenant for disturbance under the provisions of The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the county court judge, in adjudicating upon the amount of compensation to be awarded to such tenant, shall not he at liberty to reduce same by reason of any improvements made by loans under this Act. Under the present administration of the law in Ireland, a County Court Judge was at liberty to take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord and the enjoyment of those improvements by the tenant. His object was to give the tenant the benefit of those improvements, in order to secure the full maximum of compensation to which he was entitled for disturbance. For that purpose, he provided that the landlord should not be entitled to reduce the compensation to be awarded to the tenant by reason of any improvements made by loans under the Act.

Amendment proposed, After the words last added, to add the words "Provided further, That in any claim hereafter to he made for compensation by any tenant for disturbance under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the county court judge, in adjudicating upon the amount of compensation to he awarded to such tenant, shall not he at liberty to reduce same by reason of any improvements made by loans under this Act."—(Mr. Synan.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

did not understand the meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Member. The principle of awarding compensation for disturbance was that if the County Court Judge was satisfied that the case was one in which he should award compensation he could give the maximum of S6ven years' rent. He could not see how, upon the construction of the Amendment, any Court could make such a deduction as was suggested. It was provided that any County Court Judge, in adjudicating upon the amount of compensation to be awarded, should not be at liberty to reduce the same by reason of any improvements made by loans under this Act. He was not aware how a Judge could make such a deduction. He was aware of no process by which that could be done. In his opinion, the previous Amendment was fair and reasonable, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had at once assented to it. He thought that that Amendment was quite sufficient to meet the case. After that explanation to the Committee, he trusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn, and that they would be allowed to proceed with the clause.

MR. SYNAN

remarked, that the County Court Judge, in awarding compensation, could not exceed a certain maximum, but might not or need not come up to that maximum. There might be a case in which a tenant had enjoyed improvements for 20 years. In his own mind the Judge might go through a pro- cess of reasoning by which he would reduce the maximum of compensation by reason of the tenant's enjoyment for 20 years. He could not enter into the inner consciousness of the Judge, and he wished to make the matter perfectly clear by a declaration of the House in the Bill that the compensation was not to be reduced by any such process of reasoning. He wished to lay down a certain rule by which the tenant should receive the maximum compensation to which he was entitled.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that as the Bill had been under consideration for nine hours, and involved matters of great importance, he felt it his duty to move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(The O'Donoghue.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. With the exception of a verbal Amendment of his right hon. Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Amendment they were then discussing was the last on the Paper. It had been very fully discussed by the Committee, and there was but one new clause to be proposed. He should suggest that the Committee should then go through the Bill, and that it should be re-printed as amended, and that hon. Members should then move any Amendments they wished to make with the amended Bill in their hands.

MR. BIGGAR

trusted that the Committee would not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as the hon. Member for Tralee very justly said they had been in Committee nine hours upon the Bill. He was physically unable to continue the discussion of the Bill at that time, and he hoped that Progress would be reported. The hon. Member was then referring to the provisions of the Bill which had been brought in during the present Session, when——

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that he would be out of Order in discussing the provisions of any Bill set down for discussion on a future day before the House.

MR. BIGGAR

remarked, that he had not intended to offer any arguments for or against the measure in question; but he had simply alluded to it as bearing upon the question before the Committee. He intended to move two additional clauses to this Bill, and he did not like the responsibility of doing so at that late hour. It was physically impossible for him to continue the argument at that time, as he was very much worn out. His experience was that business done at that hour was very badly done.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, that this was a very exceptional Bill which had been brought in from very exceptional causes. When it was considered that that Bill affected the vitality of a nation, they ought not to be deterred from pursuing their work by the lateness of the hour. When they considered the distress which existed in Ireland, it seemed to him that this measure was one of the greatest possible urgency. They had been told that unless they continued the discussion at that time the Bill would be postponed. He should regret the postponement of the Bill as a calamity to his country, and by all means let them proceed with the discussion. For his part, if it were necessary to sit till 4 or 5 in the morning, he should be happy to do so.

MR. SHAW

hoped they might be able to carry out the suggestion of the Treasury Bench. The Bill was an important one, and as the Government thought it so, he and his Friends certainly ought not to take from their shoulders the responsibility of passing the measure. As to the Amendment, his own mind was not very clear. He did not think it was necessary, and he was fortified in that opinion by the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland—whom alone, of course, they would not trust—but who was corroborated by two legal Gentlemen of their own Party whom they did trust; and all these Gentlemen agreed that this was not such a point as they could not leave for the Report. The other two Amendments ran very much in the same line as that he had proposed to make; and he hoped before the Report came on the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the question, and if it were brought up in a more modified tone that they would be able to proceed further than they had gone that night. With regard to the last Amendment, that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he looked upon that as one of very considerable importance indeed, for it provided that farmers should not be disqualified as electors because they had received relief provided by this Bill. He did not think the Government would seriously persist in their opposition to that clause.

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that he was always in favour of having a Bill properly considered; and no amount of talking would make him alter his opinion that proposals could not be satisfactorily examined at such an hour as that. He had not heard anything from his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) to make him alter his opinion; but if the Government would accept his other Amendment, he would postpone the one he had now to bring forward until the Report. If, however, they refused to agree, then he could not undertake the responsibility of arguing them at that hour. It was, however, evident from the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) that Members of the House were not in such a frame of mind as thoroughly to fit them for the consideration of this question; and, therefore, if the Government did not accept his proposal, he should ask his hon. Friend to go to a division, and if in that division they were beaten he should consider it his duty to move a similar Motion. He really would appeal to the Government not to press them to go on at such a late hour as that. It was perfectly impossible to carry such a proposition into operation. If the Government would postpone the further consideration of that Bill, then he did not see why they should not put it down for the next day, and appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to postpone his Motion, which stood first for the next evening. If they would take that Bill at the Sitting of the House the next day, he would himself undertake to rise in his place and make the appeal. It was most unreasonable, he thought, to ask them to continue work at that hour.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am afraid I cannot hold out to the hon. Member any assurance that we will accept the 2nd clause—in regard to the electoral franchise—of which he has given Notice. That would deserve consideration and discussion; but he will have an opportunity, if the suggestion thrown out be adopted, of moving it on Report and having it discussed then. I hope the Committee may still—without losing more time in discussing whether they will or will not go on—be able to complete the clauses of this Bill. I am afraid there is not much chance of getting it on at the next Sitting. Our encouragement to make an appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is not very great, when we remember the result of an appeal we made to an hon. Member the other night to sot aside other Business in order to get on with this Bill. Of course, however, we shall be anxious to take the Bill as soon as we can. I cannot tell whether we can take it on Monday, because it may be necessary to take Supply. It is, therefore, really of great importance that we should not lose this evening. Members opposite have it in their own hands. They see how the matter stands, and no time must be lost in regard to the clauses now remaining for discussion.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a definite statement with regard to the clauses providing that persons should not be disfranchised in consequence of their receiving relief. If the right hon. Gentleman would state that the admitted principle of that clause—for this was a purely exceptional case, arising from a visitation of Providence—although he could not speak for other Gentlemen around him, he had a very strong opinion that they would be disposed to allow the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, and prevent any further fruitless discussion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

That was the one clause I referred to, and I cannot make any such promise. It may be discussed when it is brought forward; but it is of a serious character, involving serious considerations, and I cannot make the promise asked for.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, then he should decidedly be in favour of reporting Progress, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give the promise asked for with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan. That Amendment was of the very highest importance, because if it were not made the Bill would disfranchise every Liberal elector in Ireland.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should certainly do every- thing in his power to help his Friends to have this matter discussed in the broad light of day. If he understood rightly, the Government were going to use this money, now voted by Parliament for the relief of Irish distress, for the purpose of obtaining an electoral advantage in the approaching General Election. That was the interpretation he put upon the declaration of the Government, and that was a policy which must be fought out to the bitter end in the daylight, and that the debate on it must be dragged out as long as it could be dragged out, in accordance with the Forms of the House. If the Government meant to make use of this dire calamity and the fearful necessity of the Irish people, almost exclusively and entirely arising from the bad government of Ireland by England—and when he spoke of England he did not mean it in any evil sense; he meant England represented by the Tory Party—if Her Majesty's Government meant to make use of this money, voted to Ireland as extraordinary relief, in order to disqualify and disfranchise the electors of Ireland, then he declared that that policy must be exposed and debated in the full light of day.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that although the Committee allows reference to be made to any subsequent clause to be discussed, on a Motion to report Progress it is not in Order to discuss any such clause. That must come on in due course.

MR. O'DONNELL

remarked, that he was discussing an intimation just given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and informed him and the Government that that declaration of policy would produce a corresponding change of front on their side. If that sort of strategy was to be indulged in towards their country, then it would become their duty to oppose that policy by every moans in their power; and certainly it was not at that hour of the night that a policy of that kind would be allowed to be smuggled through the House, if constitutional opposition could prevent such a result.

MR. J. LOWTHER

would not follow the irrelevant turn the discussion had taken. He merely wished to point out that the reasons just given were no reasons in favour of reporting Progress at that point, because a new clause could be brought out equally well on the Report, and there was nothing to prevent their adoption of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw); and by disposing of this Amendment they might allow the Bill to be reprinted.

MR. BIGGAR

replied, that he had some little experience of Public Business in that House, and that experience was that it was always a bad plan to defer such questions. He was there that night; but he might not be there next week. He might be dead then. He was anxious, therefore, to have an opportunity of discussing this question now rather than next week. He must confess also that he did not understand the details involved in the present intimation; and if he had an opportunity at the Sitting of the next day to hear the arguments of each side he might be able to form an opinion. He must really declare that he was perfectly incompetent to form an opinion then, and he believed that the great majority of the Members present had not the least idea as to the meaning of it—though they would, of course, vote as the Government told them. That was not the way in which such a matter should be decided. It should be decided after discussion and consideration, and after proper and impartial criticism of the merits of the question. He would not now refer to the two Amendments which he had himself proposed. He hardly remembered at that moment what they were about. It was not desirable he should take the trouble to think about them, because he was not going to discuss them; still he should like an opportunity to discuss them, because he thought they were thoroughly reasonable and based on sound principles, and in accordance with the principles of the Bill.

MR. LAW

wished to appeal to hon. Members opposite whether they did not think the Opposition had now a right to go home. There were still some very important Amendments in the Bill, and one instanced by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County was very important indeed—the question being whether the recipients of relief were to be disfranchised. It was quite obvious that a matter of that kind ought to be discussed in public, and not be settled on the Report. Hon. Gentle- men knew perfectly well that there was a great deal more restriction upon discussions on Report than upon discussions in Committee. He had an Amendment himself to propose at the end of Clause 14—namely, that the county cess which was to be levied for the repayment of these loans ought to be in the same position as the labour rate of 1847, in order to be imposed only on occupiers of over £4. In other words, he maintained that the precedent of 1847 might be followed, and the burden of these rates not cast upon the class of occupiers, who were very little removed from those who were themselves getting relief. Considering everything, he thought no time would be lost if the Government yielded to the appeal made to them. He did not see for himself why they should not have a Morning Sitting, and get a Committee through then, instead of wasting an hour or two now, and only arriving at the same result in the end. It was not desirable that they should discuss any question which should give rise to angry discussions or divisions at that hour of the morning; and it was of the greatest importance also that this Bill should be carried through with the greatest unanimity and good humour that was possible. He thought the Government might smooth matters over, and yet, in the way he had suggested, get the Business very quickly done. He, for himself, was ready to come down at 2 o'clock the next day.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

remarked, that a very large number of Government Members were present, and there was also present a large number of the Opposition. It seemed to him a very fitting opportunity to finish the discussion on the Bill. Time was everything with regard to this measure; and the people of Ireland were waiting for its passing.

MR. MONK

said, he had taken no part in discussing this measure, and it was not his intention to do so; but he thought the announcement just sprung upon them by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the clause affecting the electoral position of the unfortunate Irishmen who, in consequence of the visitation of Providence, were under the necessity of receiving relief, would make it utterly impossible for the Committee to go on and finish the Bill without a thorough discussion of that particular clause. If that discussion were postponed until the Report of the Bill, the clause could not be nearly so satisfactorily discussed as it would be in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman would give way on that, hon. Gentlemen would probably consent to accept the rest.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he had just heard an hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the present was an excellent hour for considering so important a Bill as this; and if his ears had not deceived him, he had heard two hon. Gentlemen cheer that statement who had previously explained the reason that they blocked the Bill of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), because half-past 12 was not the proper time to consider so important a matter. It would not be Parliamentary of him to say this was hypocrisy, and he would not say it was. The two statements were certainly irreconcilable. If 2 o'clock was an excellent time for discussing this most important measure, then what became of the excuse of the two hon. Gentlemen who stated that their reason for blocking a Bill was that half-past 12 was not the proper hour?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is not in Order in referring to debates in the present Session.

MR. SULLIVAN

begged pardon, and asked the Committee to forget any reference he had made. He would assume that what had been stated was correct and orthodox in every way, and that this was an excellent time—at 2 o'clock—to discuss important Business. He would not refer to past debates, but to future debates; and he hoped they would soon hear the same doctrine when some other Gentleman got up and declared half-past 12 was an hour at which a Bill ought not to be brought forward. He had taken no part at present in this discussion; but it would be just as well for the Government to understand that if this Bill was a covert design on the eve of a General Election of disfranchising a mass of the people of Ireland, with the hope of giving some political advantage to one Party in that House, then it would be their most solemn duty to resort to every form of constitutional action allowed them in order to defend the franchise of their countrymen, and to take care that, under the pretence of relief, that House was not going to disfranchise those electors. The sooner the Government realized that the better. They, of course, were not being reported at that hour; but he had that faith in the good sense of the country and in the force of English public opinion, to believe that even England—which did not, as a rule, understand Irish questions, as they might, like themselves—would yet not allow the people to be disfranchised. He could not but believe that better counsels would prevail on the Treasury Bench. At present, a most exceptional state of things reigned in Ireland, and he could not believe it was intended to strike the people in that way. Considering, however, the gravity of the question now raised, he should certainly support the Motion for adjournment, which otherwise he should not have done; and if the Government had an idea that they would be driven, at an hour like that when they were exhausted, to discuss the question, they put upon them a most unhappy and a most unwelcome part. He appealed to the Government, therefore, not to drive them into a corner in that manner.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

did not wish to prolong the discussion. A few nights ago he had ventured to represent to the House that this was no Party measure, but a Bill introduced to deal with the distress in Ireland as rapidly as possible. He ventured a few moments ago to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement with respect to a certain clause, in the hope of promoting concord. He regretted to find, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not give him the answer he expected. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had spoken of him in a manner which, perhaps, was not unusual to him. He must say, since he had had the honour of being a Member of that House, that the hon. Member for Cavan had been most civil to him on all occasions. That night, however, he had said he would not imitate him. He would not venture to do that; but he had said the hon. Member for King's County spoke in a peculiar fashion. Well, thetu quoqueof argument would be improper on his part; but if he were to say the hon. Member for Cavan had spoken in a peculiar fashion, 19 out of 20 Members in the House would say, "Quite true, and we quite agree in it." Was it a proper thing, however, thus to attempt to make differences where they ought to have but one object—to look to the relief of the distress in Ireland? Was it proper, also, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come forward and raise such a question as this, when they were dealing with the distress in Ireland? It was disgraceful for the Front Bench to raise this question of the franchise.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Baronet will see, on consideration, that his phrase is not a correct one.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

Well, Sir, you correct me, and I know you correct many persons here rather sharply.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

That is hardly the way, I think, to address our Chairman. I think the hon. Baronet has no intention of expressing himself disrespectfully to the Chairman in the Chair; but I think he ought to withdraw the expression.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he would withdraw it at once, as he was told that he ought to do it; yet they knew he was not what was called "Saxon born," and that, therefore, he was not acquainted with the exact word he ought to use which was Parliamentary in reference to this; but the nearest word that he could use in Saxon phraseology he begged to apply to the decision of the Chairman. Now, he hoped he had sot himself right with the Committee. He said so much; perhaps he had said too much. [Loud cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen might cheer him; but they forgot that he, as one of those who had endeavoured, as far as his humble power and his humble expression of opinion went, to promote the passage of this Bill, and that he made the appeals to his country people behind him to press on with it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, they had been spending something like an hour discussing whether they should go on or not, and they might spend another hour in the same way. It was obvious there was no use in so proceeding; and, therefore, probably the best course would be to agree to report Progress. He wished very much, however, to say one word. Hon. Gentlemen had gone off very much at score with regard to a particular clause. He expressed no opinion with regard to it, except that it was an important point which required consideration, and he merely suggested that it might be fairly discussed on the Report.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

believed there was no indisposition on the part of hon. Members on the other side to continue the discussion of the Bill; but he thought the Government should immediately made a pronouncement on this question. He understood that Her Majesty's Government intended to deprive of the franchise the poor people who were now requesting aid; but unless he heard that definitely stated he would not believe it, and he would never believe it till then. It could not be the intention of the Government, nor of any hon. Member sitting behind Her Majesty's Government and supporting them, to deprive any elector of Ireland of his franchise under the peculiar circumstances of the case. He was sorry he heard no response from the other side to that; and he could only say he should heartily join with his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan in endeavouring to report Progress.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, it would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill, if the Chief Secretary took an earlier occasion to make a definite statement upon this particular clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was quite prepared to discuss each clause when it was called from the Chair.

MR. R. POWER

remarked that, unless he got an assurance from the Government that there was no intention to disfranchise any person because he received relief, he should throw every possible obstacle in the way of the passage of the Bill.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, he could tell the Government that they would have to report Progress many, many times, if they adopted such a policy.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that the whole of his constituents in Galway were largely affected by this clause; and he and his Friends, if the opposition to it were persisted in, would have to consider the Bill as a whole, and see whether it was worth having. The Irish Party would have to consider, in fact, whether it was worth anything whatever, and whether it would not be better for them to reject it altogether, and to throw themselves on the charity of America and Australia.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

fully endorsed the sentiments of his hon. Friends in reference to the serious character of this proposition. His proposal was was not to go, but to stop and discuss it. However, the Government were engaged in obstructing Obstruction—so let them report Progress and have done with it.

Question put, andagreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit againTo-morrow.