MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 26 April 1883)

§ MR. KENNY
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain what was the object and character of this Bill.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, he would have explained the Bill without being asked, but that it was such a simple measure that when it appeared it would explain itself. He should be very glad to gratify the wish of hon. Members from Ireland. The purpose of the Bill was to assist Unions in Ireland—which were not mentioned in the Bill—which were found to be unable to meet their liabilities, without imposing on the ratepayers a burden which, practically, they would not be able to pay. There were three Unions in that condition, having been forced to borrow money—the Templemore Union, which had borrowed £1,000 from the Treasury; the Killala Union, which had borrowed £500; and the Swinford Union, which had borrowed £1,000. These Unions had no power to borrow these sums; and, consequently, one of the clauses in the Bill would indemnify the Boards of Guardians for having borrowed the money, and the Local Government Board for having entered into the transaction. Another clause would enable Boards of Guardians to borrow money in the same way up to the 25th of March, 1884, and would lay down the conditions under which they might borrow. Another 1258 clause would enable the Public Works Commissioners in Ireland to make grants to distressed Unions up to the extent of £50,000; and he was inclined to think that the Local Government Board, who would be the advisers in this matter to the Public Works Commissioners, would advise that grants should be made to all Unions which they were satisfied would not be able to get on without such assistance. Speaking personally, he should be very sorry to see Unions permanently burdened in order to meet liabilities and demands caused by what had certainly been an exceptional year. He would not describe the state of these Unions more minutely; hon. Members knew their condition only too well; but in one or two of them the rate which would have to be struck would be 5s. 6d. on the pound valuation; and in some of the electoral divisions it would be as high as 7s. or even 9s. When he mentioned that, he thought hon. Members would allow that, in the interests of the Unions, they should not be burdened with such burdens as those rates would involve. The Bill consisted of three clauses—tho 1st, empowering the Government to make grants to distressed Unions; the 2nd, to permit the Unions to borrow; and the 3rd, to indemnify the Unions for having already borrowed.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the provisions of this Bill; but he felt great disappointment at the absence from the Bill of any really efficient measures for carrying out the title of the Bill. When he saw that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in a Bill for the purpose of relieving temporary distress in Ireland, he hoped that the Government had, at last, aroused themselves to a sense of the real position in Ireland at the present moment, and were about to make some provision, however late it might be, to relieve the suffering which many people were enduring in some of the Unions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman had now practically informed the House that the only proposal he had to make was to allocate money, by way of grants or loans, to provide indoor relief in those districts, and also, he (Mr. Parnell) supposed, by means of the grants 1259 of £50,000, to facilitate the emigration which had lately been set on foot. This was a Bill which he and his hon. Friends would, consequently, be bound to oppose. They did not believe that indoor relief could be effective for the purpose; and every step which the right hon. Gentleman had taken to force people into the workhouses was simply so much advance made towards the gradual starvation of many thousands of persons in the West of Ireland. Neither could they support the proposal to make grants to Unions for emigration purposes. No scheme which the Government had yet brought forward had recommended itself to either the sense of justice of the Irish people, or to the sense of justice of that House. They saw already the result of landing several cargoes of impoverished emigrants in America. Public opinion in that country was being directed to the necessity of stopping emigration, and the scandal which was being created by large herds of these people being shovelled out on to the American shores. This was fast becoming one of considerable magnitude, and he should not be surprised to see some remonstrance addressed to the English Government by the American Government against their using the United States for the purpose of receiving paupers made so by English law in Ireland.

§ MR. COURTNEY
rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) was in Order in the remarks he was making, seeing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had explained that the Bill did not touch emigration?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must confine himself to the terms of the Question, which is, that leave be given to introduce a Bill for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it was true that the right hon. Gentleman did not state specifically for what purpose the money granted was to be used; and if the right hon. Gentleman would say that this £50,000 which he proposed to enable the Local Government Board in Ireland to advance was not to be used for the purpose of emigration, then he would willingly admit that he was out of Order. But until he had a higher authority as to the purport of the Bill, he should, be obliged to consider that he had accurately described the purport of 1260 the measure, and, in fact, that he was giving a truer description of it than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given himself. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman told him that he was wrong, and that this money had not been used for emigration purposes, and that it was not proposed to be used for emigration purposes, he should drop that portion of the subject at once. But until then, he should submit, as he was entitled to do, that it was intended to use the money for emigration purposes.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, the money was required for the purpose of enabling certain Unions to pay their Union officers, to whom they were indebted for paying factors for supplies, which, in some cases, they had stated their intention of discontinuing. The hon. Gentleman knew the relation of the Unions in Ireland to emigration, and had asked two questions—first, whether the Bill was for the purpose of indemnifying the Unions for money already spent in emigration; and, secondly, whether there would be power to borrow under the Bill for the purposes of emigration. With regard to the first question, of course, he (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) was unable to say whether, under the old law which had been in existence, he supposed, for 30 years, some of the Unions might not, at some time or other, have given assistance towards purposes of emigration out of the rates. He thought, however, that it was extremely unlikely. A very small sum had been expended; on the whole, not more than £34,000. But, as regarded the more important question, whether Unions would either borrow under the Bill for the purpose of emigration, or might indemnify themselves out of the money received under the Bill for loans made under the Arrears Act for purposes of emigration, he could only say that the Local Government Board would look with grave disapprobation on a Union being so indebted that it was obliged to resort to borrowing for another purpose, even if that purpose were emigration. He thought he could give the hon. Gentleman an absolute pledge that no such Union would be assisted out of this loan.

§ MR. PARNELL
But how about the grant?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, he could give a personal pledge that he should consider the Union which had the grant would have no right to borrow money for any purpose whatever, and that it should be applied only to the purpose for which the grant was given.

MR. O'BRIEN
asked how the right hon. Gentleman could have any guarantee that it was being used for relief?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, there would be no alteration made in the Poor Law.

§ DR. LYONS
inquired what distinction the right hon. Gentleman drew between the grant and the power to loan? Was the grant in the nature of a free gift, or of a loan?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, the Bill would enable it to be in the nature of a free gift.

§ DR. LYONS
Out of what source?

§ MR. TREVELYAN
From the Church Fund.