HC Deb 15 March 1881 vol 259 cc1068-83

(1.) £6,883, Local Government Board, Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

observed, that this was a Vote for the Local Government Board, which Department had the administration of the Act passed last Session for the relief of distress in Ireland, and he expected, in view of the announcement made by the Government, that they were to take a Vote on Account to last up to Whitsuntide; that this Vote would have been postponed to a late period in the Session; and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the President of the Local Government Board would have furnished some information as to the working during last year of that Act. The matter had been before the Government for some considerable time; and he certainly thought that the Committee generally was entitled to complain that so little information had been put before the House in the shape of Returns, although there had been a great many Returns with regard to agrarian outrages in Ireland; and although a great deal of pains was taken by the Irish Commissioners to manufacture a very bulky volume of agrarian offences, not a single Paper had been issued this year to show the working of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act. Last Session exceedingly meagre information was given; he thought there were two Papers, one of which, however, he had been unable to find in the Library, and which seemed to have disappeared during the Recess. This Session they had no Return whatever, except a Return which was moved for by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold), and which he had not yet been able to see. It was of the utmost importance that the Committee should have some information as to the working of the Act, to show what had been done to carry out the intentions of the Government. It was of importance, both as regarded the past and with reference to the future. He feared there might be many abuses in connection with the distribution of this money when the Act was passed, and took occasion to object to the allocation of money to the Irish landlords for the relief of the distress in Ireland, pointing out that it was merely adopted by the late Government to enable the landlords to collect their rents, and that it could not be of any advantage for its ostensible object as set forth in the Preamble of the Bill; and that so far from any large portion of the money allocated in the last Session of the last Parliament and the first Session of the present Parliament—over £1,000,000 was given to the landlords for the relief of the distress—so far from any large portion of that money being made available for the relief of distress, he would prove to demonstration that a very small proportion of the amount could by any possibility come into operation to check the very intense distress which might exist in many parts of the West of Ireland. He wished to ask the Government if they had information—and if they had not the information, he could not understand why they had not—as to how much of the £1,100,000 had been granted for the relief of distress in Ireland up to date? He also wished to know how much of that money the landlords had actually spent upon relief works; and whether the Government could state how many men were employed with that money, and for how many days? He also wished to know if they could give him any information as to the districts in which that employment had been given, and as to the amount of money disbursed in each Poor Law Union? These were all matters upon which he thought the Government would have informed the House at the commencement of the Session. An Act of the exceptional character of that passed last Session should, he ventured to submit, have been closely watched in its operation by the responsible Executive Government of Ireland. It was money belonging to the Irish people which had been given in trust to the Government by the Irish Church Act of 1869, to use for the benefit of the Irish people, and for certain purposes in Ireland. This money was seized upon by the late Government, and £750,000 was granted for the relief of distress; and the present Government upon coming into Office supplemented that amount by another sum, and revived the Act previously in force. Now, they were fairly entitled to ask what had become of that £1,500,000, or, at least, of the £1,100,000 granted to the Irish landlords? They were fairly entitled to ask what had become of that £1,100,000, belonging to the people of Ireland, which the Government of England laid hands on last Session upon the pretence of relieving distress in Ireland; and he hoped that before this Vote was passed the Government would be able to afford the Committee some information in reference to the points that he had ventured to lay before them.

COLONEL COLTHURST

wished to refer to the question which more immediately concerned the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland last year. That Board had received powers to grant relief in every Union in the shape of food and feel, receiving labour in return. Those powers were, in his opinion, sparingly exercised; but, in so far as they were exercised, they were the means of preserving human life, and warding off great suffering. Those powers had now expired, and as it was quite possible, and even probable, that there might be a re-appearance of distress, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to consider the advisability of bringing in a short Act to confer on the Local Government Board power, when necessary, to give out-door relief in any particular locality. Within the last few days an instance had happened to justify his suggestion. In the South Union, in Dublin, there had been great distress, but the Local Government Board had been quite powerless in the matter, having no authority to give out-door relief; and it was only by what might be called a Providential accident that the workhouse happened to be overcrowded, and relief could, therefore, be given to a certain number of men in return for labour. There would be no danger in adopting his suggestion, judging from past experience of the way in which the Local Government Board had used their powers, and judging from close observation of the past action of Boards of Guardians in the matter.

MR. CALLAN

also wished for some information from the Chief Secretary with regard to the details of this Vote, especially with regard to the number of Inspectors temporarily employed, and the amount of money paid to them. The Irish Office had always been remarkable for deliberate suppression; but he hoped the Chief Secretary would not allow that characteristic of the Irish Office to continue. He had asked that night for a Return of Information. Of course, some trouble would be involved in giving that information; but the information would spare the House a great deal of time, and it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to see that his understrappers and officials in Dublin Castle furnished that information. He wished to know how many of those Inspectors had been temporarily employed, how much they had been paid, and whether any of them wore still retained. Then he would like to know what gratuities had been paid to the Assistant Secretary and seven clerks for extra services, and how much the Assistant Secretary had grabbed for himself. He further wished to have some information as to the bill of costs of the Solicitor to the Board for several years, which amounted to £1,017. These were all matters to which the tax-paying public attached great interest, and the information would save a great deal of that unnecessary friction which existed with regard to the present occupants of the Irish Office.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, in reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) as to how far the Local Government Board should have power to authorize the Guardians to give out-door relief, said, that he could not give any definite answer on the subject. His own inclination was in favour of the hon. and gallant Member's proposition, and he promised to keep the matter in mind, although be could not undertake to bring in a measure on the subject. In reply to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), he did not think that the present was the most opportune moment for reviewing the state of the country in reference to the Relief Acts. He thought that the subject would more properly come on when the General Estimates were brought forward for the next year. He was most anxious that the House should have the information desired by the hon. Gentleman, and he would have granted a Return on the subject if the hon. Member had moved for it. The money granted had not yet all been expended. In January last the loans to landowners then sanctioned amounted to £1,068,000, and at that time about £639,000 had been distributed. Thelarger part of the balance, £427,000, would be spent in wages before August next. On baronial works completed or in progress £173,000 had been spent; while works had been commenced which required more than £2,000. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), three additional Inspectors were employed during the height of the distress. With regard to the gratuities, they were given for very hard work—he did not think it was easy to exaggerate its severity. Gratuities varying from £120 to £40 had been paid to the Assistant Secretary and the seven clerks, the total amounting to £600. With respect to the Solicitor's bill of costs, he explained that they were fully certified and taxed up to October, 1879; but as accounts had not been furnished in June last, it had become necessary to make provision for them in the Estimate for the present year. The amount of all costs during the last 10 years was £1,458.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

thought that, before the Vote left the Committee, it would be convenient to put a question or two with respect to the use which the Irish Government had made of out-door relief as applied to the distress in Ireland. The Relief of Distress Act was passed with the object of providing for distress caused by the failure of crops in the year 1879, and the House assented to it on that account. But the Irish Government, in the winter months, made another use of the powers of the Act, and one which that House had not foreseen; because, in the months of December, January, and February, permission had been given by the Local Government Board to the Boards of Guardians to grant out-door relief, not for the purpose of relieving distress suffered from the failure of crops, but for the purpose of relieving distress caused by numbers of persons being thrown out of employment in consequence of the exodus of Irish landlords. The question had been thereby raised as to whether the operations of the Land League had not, to some extent, interfered with the material prosperity of the Irish labourers; and it was thought possible that the labourers, seeing the effect which the operations of the League had had on the agricultural interest of the country, might have expressed opinions against the League. However that might be, opinion was strong in December that the use which the Chief Secretary for Ireland authorized to be made of the powers of the Relief of Distress Act had had the effect of preventing classes in Ireland who depended on daily labour from seeing the real result of the policy of the Land League. As a matter of fact, in many parts of the country the distress consequent upon the want of employment had been so great, that bands of men paraded the country, one of which actually stormed the office of a Board of Guardians while it was sitting, and clamourously demanded outdoor relief. It was then that the Chief Secretary used the Relief of Distress Act for the purpose of authorizing out-door relief to be given to persons thrown out of employment. Now, that was a use which the House had not contemplated when it gave assent to the Bill, and he thought that assent would not so easily have been obtained had the House had any idea that the Irish Government would have made such a use of the Act. In December, 1879, there were 2,000 persons more in the workhouses than there were in December 1880; and in December, 1879, there were 10,000 persons less in receipt of out-door relief than in December, 1880, when there was absolutely no distress consequent upon the failure of crops. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could give any explanation of the policy which he authorized the Local Government Board to pursue—namely, that of giving outdoor relief to provide for distress that was not consequent upon the failure of crops, but was due to a totally different cause—that was to say, to the exodus of the landlords and the consequent want of employment over large portions of the country? He would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain on what ground he considered himself to have power to use the act in the manner referred to. It would appear, he thought, that the Chief Secretary had committed, what in legal phrase was called a fraud, on the power of the Bill, by authorizing the application of it in a manner not contemplated when the Act was passed.

MR. MACARTNEY

desired to mention a circumstance with regard to which he had received some private communications. The poorer class of farmers in Ireland had had the benefit of an Act passed last Session, call the Seed Potatoes Act, one of the provisions of which was that loans were granted to poor farmers by the Boards of Guardians for the purpose of purchasing seed potatoes, the cost of which was to be repaid in two instalments. In many parts of Ireland the crops had been bad, and these payments had pressed with extreme severity on the poor persons who received the loans; and he wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of allowing the Local Government Board to consider whether the repayment could not be made in four instalments instead of two. If the Local Government Board had no power to do this, then he suggested that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should bring in a short measure to give them power to relieve the poor farmers to whom he had referred in respect to the repayment of loans.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that the policy of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was of a Machiavellian character; it would have been cruel, and might have excited insurrection. The noble Lord said that the Chief Secretary ought to have allowed the labourers to feel the prick of poverty arising from want of employment; but the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) had stated that in many places the people would not be able to pay even for the seed potatoes they had got, because they had not full crops. In many districts the policy advocated by the noble Lord, instead of having the effect he expected, would have driven the labourers to desperation. He gave the Chief Secretary great credit for following the policy which the noble Lord had condemned. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consider the propriety of receiving the price of the seed potatoes in several localities in Ireland in four instalments instead of two. There had been nothing like general failure of potatoes; still there had been some, and the condition of the poor farmers was in itself a sufficient reason for the postponement of the instalments. He admitted that in his own county the right hon. Gentleman had behaved very well in this respect. He would like to know what was the policy of the Local Government Board in connection with the matter to which reference had been made last night, but which had not been pursued owing to a point of Order being raised. He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had fully considered the question of instituting relief works in some of the localities in Galway and other counties, or whether he would make some further provisions? He had no doubt that the works were very much required in some places, and would be for a short time, although the cost of them would not be very great.

THE O'DONOGHUE

wished to point out a remarkable instance of remissness on the part of the Local Government Board in connection with the Relief of Distress Act. In December last the Killarney Board of Guardians adopted unanimously a resolution in favour of holding extra baronial sessions, as there had been great distress in the neighbourhood. The Local Government Board assented to the resolution; the sessions were held and attended by all the proprietors in the district and by the associated assess-payers, and a considerable sum was voted for the works. A resolution was also passed, pointing out to the Lord Lieutenant the extreme urgency of the case, in reply to which they were given to understand that the works would be almost immediately carried out. Inspectors were sent down, and the attention of the Local Government Board was drawn to the facts of the cases by several local proprietors. He had himself asked a Question upon the subject; but he regretted to say that, after the considerable lapse of time which had taken place, nothing had been done.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, with regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, it had been decided to postpone the works in question until after the spring sowing. In reply to the Question asked by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, as to the extent to which the Government had made use of the powers of the Act to give out-door relief, he had received from the Vice President, in the beginning of the year, a statement to the effect that he foresaw there would be a period of distress, and that he feared out-door relief would have to be given in several cases. In consequence of this, 72 Unions were authorized to give out-door relief. There were now, however, only 27 in which out-door relief was given. The Government, at the time, saw no other way in which they could meet the distress. It was believed that there was then a great chance of the distress increasing; but, happily, the result had been different, and it had greatly diminished. The reason why relief was given was partly owing to the circumstances of some Unions in which the people had not recovered from the failure of the crops. In one or two Unions there had been great distress through mismanagement in the planting of potatoes, although this had not been general. Then there was another cause of a temporary character, but nevertheless of great weight, and that was the exceeding severity of the winter. Then there came the want of employment. No doubt, a large number of labourers had been thrown out of work. He did not think the administrative of the Poor Law in England or in Ireland had any right to allow anything except the fact of distress to weigh with them in such a case, and it would be fatal to the right working of the Relief Act to allow social and political considerations to stand in their way. There were persons at the time who said if you do relieve these people, they will tell the farmers they ought to pay their rents, so that the landlords may give them employment. On the other hand, persons said if you do not relieve these people, they will be in a condition of destitution and become an easy prey to agitation. Well, the Government paid no attention to one argument or the other. They considered the extent of distress and the best way to deal with it; and with respect to it there were three courses open. They might have forced the people into the workhouses, given them out-door relief, or set them to work by means of baronial sessions. In the case of the county which came before him first, the gentry were unanimous in advising against forcing the people into the workhouses, and were also in favour of a system of out-door relief, with work where it could be substituted. Then came the question of work or relief, and he could only say he had tried, in connection with the Vice President, to get as much work for the people as possible. On the 5th March, 1881, the total number of persons in receipt of out-door relief was 67,667, and, comparing the present month with the corresponding month of last year, the number was 67,667, as against 59,548. It was, no doubt, the case, that in many Unions some demoralization had existed, consequent on the relief given last year, and which, in his opinion, had not been diminished to the extent it ought to have been. With regard to the seed potatoes, the cost of seed in 253 Unions was £599,000, and the half which was to have been collected this winter amounted to about £300,000. In consequence, however, of provisions made under the Act last year, payments had been postponed to the extent of £146,000. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) desired that the repayment should be in four instalments, instead of two, in some of the distressed Unions; but he wished to point out that this could not be effected without another Act of Parliament, and he very much doubted whether the proposal was a wise one. Generally speaking, no doubt these seed loans had been of great advantage to the farmers; but he could not help thinking that they would feel the repayment, after four or five years, to be a very heavy tax upon them. Of course, the law must be carried out; but it was not the intention of the Government that it should be carried out with severity. He confessed that he did not think the circumstances of the country were such as to warrant any alteration in the conditions on which the aid in the construction of public works had been afforded. The time fixed for the payment of the instalments of the loans could not be extended without an Act of Parliament.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

asked, if a Return would be given of the number of Unions to which advances had been made?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the names of the Unions would be given if the hon. Member would move for a Return.

MR. CALLAN

asked, if there was any chance that relief would be afforded in the matter of repayments if a representation were made as to the state of particular Unions? The Poor Law Union of Dundalk was one of the richest and most prosperous Unions on the East Coast, but it was connected with districts that were miserably prior. If in such a case a representation were made, would the Local Government Board be in a position to make some concession so as not to insist on terms of repayment which, at the present moment, would press very heavily upon the Union? He was afraid that if the terms of repayment were absolutely insisted upon, it would be necessary, in many cases, to seize the household furniture of the people of the district, as by no other means would it be possible to get anything whatever. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the propriety of extending the period of repayment still further—say for another year—in regard to those Unions in which the Government were satisfied that there still existed extreme distress. There could be no harm in giving the Local Government Board a discretion in the matter.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that a discretion had already been given in regard to increasing the number of Unions in which a postponement of repayment would be allowed. Great care had been taken in preparing the rules that were laid down in reference to postponement, and he feared that it was now too late to re-open the subject afresh. He presumed, however, that the hon. Member would not expect him to give an answer as to any particular case until he had had an opportunity of making an inquiry. He would ascertain whether the regulations as to postponement were final.

MR. CALLAN

said, the concession was only asked for in the case of part of a Union, and he thought the case was one which would commend itself to the consideration of the Government.

COLONEL COLTHURST

thought the regulations in regard to the suspension of relief works would be most unequal in their operation. In many districts, where the relief works might interfere with the spring work, the suspension would not avail because the work was generally done by contract; but it would materially affect the relief in remote and mountainous districts, where the spring work was almost nothing, and where the work was generally done under the county surveyor. It had thus been the means of providing employment for old men and boys, who could not obtain work otherwise, and who were not likely to be employed by a contractor. These were the very classes who could not obtain employment in the spring work; and if the suspension was intended to be carried out generally now, it would inflict great hardship upon this class of labourers, without giving any appreciable advantage to the farmers.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had not got the Circular with him; but he was very much mistaken if there was any rule for the suspension of relief work under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

COLONEL COLTHURST

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to send instructions to the local Standing Committees, so that they might have a discretionary power to continue the relief work, merely displacing such labourers as the farmers chose to take? If the right hon. Gentleman would give that discretion, it would settle the whole question.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that, as a rule, the relief work ought to be suspended in the spring; but he would give an assurance to the hon. and gallant Member that his statement should be thoroughly considered.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, there were a number of Unions which, although in a comparatively flourishing and solvent condition, had in them electoral divisions which were in the poorest possible condition. That was the case in his own Union, and three or four attempts had been made to induce the Local Government Board to postpone the re-payments, on account of the extreme poverty of the people, and because, having got their seed very late in the season and owing to the wet weather, they had hardly any crop. The circumstances of one electoral division in a Union was no criterion of the condition of another in the same Union. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow representations to be made in favour of these divisions.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, there was a special case upon which he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. In some Unions—for instance, in the Galway Union—seed was supplied which purported to be champion seed, but when the crop came up it was found to be very bad seed of some other kind of potato. The districts in the Union were willing to pay their instalments, but they considered themselves to have been very badly used. Instead of being supplied with good seed, they had simply wasted the manure they had put upon the land. He wished to know what steps the Local Government Board intended to take in the matter? In many instances the people had bad seed not worth 5d. a-stone. They considered that they would be very badly used if they were compelled to pay the seed tax, and the Local Government Board and the Poor Law Unions said they had no authority to do anything except to charge it. It was certainly a case which might be considered by the Government, and some rule laid down.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that a special case of that kind could not be subject to any rule, but must be left to the Boards of Guardians.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought the Chief secretary had not quite caught his point. The Boards of Guardians did not consider that they had any power in the matter. Of course, the Local Government Board were not responsible, but they ought to give the Guardians power to charge over the whole Union the loss occasioned by the supply of bad seed to a particular district. The Local Government Board, however, required to have the power to make this charge upon the whole Union.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would communicate with his hon. and gallant Friend upon the subject.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it was undoubtedly the case that primarily the expense of the seed was charged on the land, and the year's crop should be able to pay for it. But the illustration given by his hon. and gallant Friend applied to a particular district, and it showed that, in certain instances, there was a tendency to encourage jobbery. He believed that hon. Members representing different parts of the country had been urged to use their influence with the Government in regard to particular localities. That, in itself, was a very mischievous prin- ciple, and if the payment for these seed potatoes was dispensed with, it would only enable the landlords to drain a little more of the life-blood out of their poor tenants. The first thing provided for should be the expense of the seed, and the landlords should only get their share of what was left. If the payment for the seed was not made, the practical result would be that the landlords, for some time longer, would be able to obtain extortionate rents. The charge for the seed should be payable in one sum, and it should be paid before the rent, the money due to the landlords being paid afterwards. At the same time, in a district which had been impoverished by the exceptionally extortionate demands of the landlords, and the exceedingly bad crop of the year 1879, it might be legitimate to allow the payment for the seed to extend over a period of two years. The same thing applied to the baronial works. The execution of these baronial works had, he believed, afforded an opportunity for a good deal of extensive bonô fide fraud, and in some cases gross jobbery and rascality had been perpetrated. He knew, personally, of cases in which jobbery had been committed. And he thought it would be well if the Government refused to lend too willing an ear to the appeals made to them to encourage this baronial expenditure, which, in many cases, simply meant the throwing away of money. He very much approved of the view of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that, in granting relief, they should not inquire too closely into the reason how it came about that relief was wanted, but only into the fact whether relief was required. Where the suffering was wide-spread over the country, it was desirable that the people should not have their homes broken up, and that whole families should be sent to the workhouse; whereas, by temporary relief, they would be able, after a certain time, to tide over their present condition of pauperism. He did not think there was anything in the contention of the noble Lord that many men were out of work because the landlords had left Ireland. The real fact of the matter was that the employment of labour in the cultivation of the land was an unprofitable business. The money granted to the landlords was a serious part of the case, and had been a real evil. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to state, if he could conveniently, to what extent aid was likely to be still given to the landlords? In a great majority of cases the money paid to the landlords had been a complete fraud, and a perfect scandal. A friend of his, in the county of Cork, informed him that the agent of Lord Kenmare—which noble Lord was a Member of the present Government, a Catholic in religion, and a Whig in politics—had received money for the relief of persons in distress; but instead of making advances in cash to the parties who did work, he had simply given them a receipt for their rent in advance. His friend wrote to say that so recently as the 11th of February, Mr. Downing, the law agent of Lord Kenmare, gave a receipt for rent up to the 1st of March. The landlords refused to give cash to people who were members of the Land League; and, beyond that, the actual amount of work done was misrepresented—credit being taken for seven and a-half yards where only five yards had been done. The person he referred to—Mr. Downing—only represented a class, and was no worse himself than the great majority of land agents in Ireland, who obtained plunder from the public works sanctioned by the Government, and were able, at the same time, to gratify their political animosity against the Land League agitators. They got their rent, charged for more work than was actually done, thus making an improper profit out of it; and, in addition, they borrowed the money from the State at a nominal rate of interest. He thought it was the duty of the Government to attempt, in some way, to remedy the evils of such a system. He should be glad to learn if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intended to do anything in the matter, and if there was any possibility of getting off without paying the landlords anything further.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the hon. Member must be aware that the loans had already been made, and the work, to some extent, done. There was no discretion as to the allocation of the loans. In regard to the specific complaint made by the hon. Member, his attention had not been called to such a case, and the deduction of rent from the money earned for labour was illegal.

MR. BIGGAR

asked for an explanation of an item of £391 in the Vote for an additional Auditor appointed at a salary of £500, of which £400 was to be repaid by the counties, and £100 by the Port and Docks Board, Dublin. Why was this sum to be paid first by the Government, and then repaid?

THE O'DONOGHUE

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the employment of money advanced to the landlords as loans for public works in the payment of rent was illegal. That was quite true; but was there any cheek upon the expenditure, and were there any means of ascertaining how the money was employed? Had the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing that the money was actually expended in the payment of labour?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

stated, that an endeavour had been made last year to ascertain how the money was expended, and it was found, almost universally, that it was paid for labour. The law was that the persons employed should receive the full value or consideration agreed to for their labour respectively in the current coin of the Realm. In regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), if he would refer to the Estimates for 1881–2, he would find that £216 13s. 4d. per annum was paid to the Auditors; but the Local Government Board found that the existing staff could not get through the work, and they had appointed an additional Auditor.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £1,800, Public Works Office, Ireland, agreed to.