§ (1.) £500, Friendly Societies Registry.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that a gross miscalculation seemed to have been made with regard to this Estimate, inasmuch as the sum now asked for was 70 per cent is addition to the original Estimate of £500. He thought some explanation ought to be given of this large discrepancy.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the additional sum was required in order to meet the expenses necessary to pay for the preparation of independant and fuller actuarial Returns than had been previously given, in order to guide Friendly Societies in their future operations. The preparation of these Returns involved a great amount of extra work, and hence the additional charge for an increase in the actuarial staff.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,280, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic in course of pay-
1760
ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1S83, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates.
MR. BUXTONmoved to reduce the Vote by £500, on account of the cost of distributing Parliamentary Papers to Members of the House. The hon. Member said, he thought he need not apologize for taking up the time of the Committee with regard to this question, seeing that the Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to a question which he (Mr. Buxton) had put to him on the subject, had stated his opinion that the matter in question was one which had better be settled by debate in the House rather than by means of a simple answer to an interrogation. He had therefore raised the question, because, while they were all anxious to see economy promoted in every branch of the Public Service by the introduction of all possible savings and reforms that might be found feasible, both sides of the House found it somewhat difficult to to select a place at which such reforms should begin. On this occasion he thought he had found a point on which the Committee could put its finger in order to effect some economy. He thought he had good authority for believing that economy might be effected in reference to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to private Members and also to the Public Offices. Two years ago—in 1881—a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the whole subject. The Committee sat and took evidence, more especially that of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Department. They presented a Report, in which they submitted various recommendations, particularly as to three of the points referred to them—namely, the storage of Papers, the printing for the two Houses of Parliament, and the distribution of Papers to Members. As to the recommendations in reference to storage and printing, he thought the Committee might fairly congratulate the present Secretary to the Treasury and his Predecessor upon the satisfactory re suits which were found to result from putting in force the recommendations of 1761 the Committee. He believed that a very large saving had already been made in regard to the waste Parliamentary-Papers—of which an enormous store was found—large numbers of which had never been, and were never likely to be, required. But he would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the third point—namely, that as to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to Members. He could not go very fully into the matter, because he had not had much notice of this Vote coming on; but he thought that all Members would agree with him that the present mode of delivering these Papers was not only wasteful and uneconomical in the extreme, but that at times it entailed a very great amount of trouble upon Members who were in search of some particular information embodied in Parliamentary Papers, a vast mass of which filled up their houses. In searching for information on particular subjects a doubt and difficulty, which most hon. Members must have experienced, was as to whether a particular Paper had been issued generally, or whether it was included only in what was called, the "short list" of Papers, which the authorities of the House, having made a selection, did not think it necessary to send to Members generally. He thought he was right in saying that a very large and constantly-increasing number of Papers were included in this "short list." It was hoped that the House would see its way to adopting the suggestions made by the Controller of the Stationery Office in the course of his evidence before the Joint Committee, to which he had referred. Those suggestions were as follows:—
1. The present system of general delivery of all Papers, as a matter of course, to cease.2. A Schedule to be circulated daily, weekly, or otherwise, as might be thought most convenient, giving reference, number, short title, and short note of contents of all Papers presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, or printed by order of either House since the date of the Schedule last issued.3. A full subject index to be issued at the close of each Session, to be, if required, bound up with the Schedule, which would thus become simple and convenient books of reference to all Parliamentary Papers issued.4.Members of both Houses to be supplied with small books on demand; each demand being addressed at the back to the authority to whom application for Papers should be made. Any Member, on filling in and signing a demand, or making otherwise written application, to be supplied with any Paper in the Schedule, whe- 1762 ther or not presented to or printed by the House to which he may belong.5. Any Member wishing it to receive, as at present, all Papers issued to the House to which he may belong, on making a general application in writing to that effect.6. In cases of Papers of special interest a full delivery to be made to Members of either House on an order to this effect being given in writing; if a Command Paper by a Cabinet Minister; if a Paper printed by the House of Lords by the Clerk of the Parliaments; if printed by order of the House of Commons by the Speaker.This was the scheme of suggestions made by the Controller of the Stationery Department, and the Joint Committee to which he had referred, having considered the scheme on its merits, as to its feasibility and its convenience to hon. Members of the House, decided that such a scheme was not "unworthy the adoption of the House." The Committee used the word "adoption," though in the draft Report hon. Members would find the word "consideration" in place of "adoption." This discrepancy was explained by the fact that after the draft Report was prepared the Committee reconsidered the matter at some length, and in the end, by a very large majority—in fact, he believed there was no division—decided upon using the word "adoption" instead of "consideration." The Secretary to the Treasury was himself a Member of the Joint Committee, and it was satisfactory that he had now become responsible for the statement contained in the Report, that the scheme suggested by the Controller of the Stationery Department was "not unworthy the adoption of the House." They had very good authority for believing that the introduction and adoption of such a scheme would be attended with great convenience to Members, and would involve in a short time—he did not say in the first or the second year, but certainly at no distant date—a very large saving in public expense. The present expenditure of the Department was a very large sum—not less than £560,000 or £570,000 a-year—and it was not only a very large, but it was a constantly increasing sum; and if this expenditure could be decreased without interfering with the facilities which hon. Members have for obtaining information, he thought the House would agree with him that such a reform would be very advantageous. The present system was not altogether a satisfactory one, inasmuch as it was not easy to trace 1763 what Papers were and were not distributed; but, by the scheme of the Controller, information would be given to Members each morning as to the Papers issued, and they could at once notify to the proper authority those which they wished to have supplied to them. Another difficulty, under the present system, was that there were two modes of distribution—one distribution at the private residences of Members, and another distribution at the Public Offices to Ministers. He thought it would be well for Ministers to get their Papers at their private houses, by which means they would receive them several hours earlier than at their Offices. Another advantage would be that Members who were temporarily absent from town would be able to have such Papers as they required delivered to them in the country. There were many other respects in which the Controller's scheme would be advantageous, and he therefore commended it to the favourable consideration of the House. In conclusion, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,780, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the Publication of Parliamentary Debates."—(Mr. Buxton.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the present was scarcely the most appropriate occasion to discuss the whole of the scheme which had been unfolded by the hon. Member for Andover. It would, he thought, come much more properly in the debate on the main Estimate than in the consideration of a Supplementary Estimate to a sum already voted and spent. If the hon. Member would favour the House by bringing forward his proposal again on the Estimate for the coming year, he felt sure that the Committee would give to the subject all the consideration and attention which it deserved. What he (Sir Walter B. 1764 Barttelot) wanted from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was an explanation of the very great increase in the Vote. He should like to know whether it was caused by the Autumn Session; and, if so, whether that was thought to be a prudent way of spending the nation's money? He should also like to know how it came about that so large a sum as £6,000 was put down for paper. This seemed to him to be an enormous sum as compared with £5,500 for printing. There were several other points which would, no doubt, suggest themselves to his hon. Friend, and for which he should have asked for fuller explanation than appeared on the face of the Estimate had there been more time to consider them.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he also wished to ask for some explanation as to the increase in the cost of Parliamentary records. The original Estimate was for £5,100, and now an additional £1,250 was asked. Perhaps the addition was due—as in the case of the additional grant of £i,000 to Messrs. Hansard, without doubt, it was—to the holding of an Autumn Session; but, in any case, the matter was one calling for fuller explanation.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDalso desired to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In the first place, however, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the enormous amount of the Supplementary Estimates for this Department. No less than £20,000 for this year, 1882–83; and £19,600 for last year, 1881–82. Now, it was a bad thing to over-estimate the probable expenditure of a Department, because, if a larger grant was made than was really necessary, it led to extravagance; but he was not at all sure that a large under-estimate was not worse, for it led to large Supplementary Estimates, and lessened the control of Parliament over expenditure. In February, 1882, the then Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) deplored the steady and most unsatisfactory increase of expense in this Department; and the House, upon his Motion, passed last year certain Resolutions affecting this Department. The question which he desired to put to the Financial Secretary was, whether he could inform the Committee what had been the practical effect, if any, of the 1765 working of these Resolutions. He desired also to know if the expense of Foreign Office printing, which was commented upon last year, had received consideration? He could not conclude without saying that he did not hold the Controller of the Department responsible for this great increase of expense. On the contrary, he believed that that officer had acted with great vigour and efficiency, and had saved the country considerable expense. But, in fact, that officer was the servant of other Departments, and had no power to check the Papers or demands of those Departments. He was inclined to think that a Committee should be again appointed to investigate and report upon the working of this Department.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought there should be some explanation of the discrepancy between the main Vote and the Supplementary Estimate. The main Vote was one of £388,944, but the foot note put it down at £530,000, and he wished to know the reason of this very large increase. The Department ought to have estimated more closely, and not to have found it necessary to come to the Committee for so large a Supplementary Estimate as was now asked to be voted. He could see no very great reason for the large additional sum demanded. Some increase was due to the holding of an Autumn Session. It could not, however, be all due to that cause; and he hoped the Committee would have afforded to them a full explanation of the reasons which had led to this great excess over the original Estimate.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the officials nominally responsible for this Vote were those at the Treasury; but, practically, they had no control over it. The Heads of the Departments were men of great power, and they demanded just whatever supplies they pleased, the Stationery Office being bound to comply with their demands. If the Committee wished to effect any economical reform in this Department they must go back upon the Treasury, which could alone do what was necessary. In the present instance, the Committee had no help but to pass the Vote, inasmuch as it was a Supplementary Estimate for money which had already been spent. Hence it was that he deprecated, in the strongest possible manner, the sending up of Supplementary Esti- 1766 mates over which the Committee could exercise no check or control. He had on many occasions tried to get the accounts sent up in some intelligible form, so that any Member of the House could understand them, but hitherto without success. The Offices adhered to the old-fashioned form of putting down lump sums, which it was next to impossible to analyze; and, therefore, they could not get at the root of the evil. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would pay particular attention to this point, and see to it that reforms were effected.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSagreed with hon. Members in thinking that the matter was one requiring very careful consideration at the hands of the Committee, for the reason mainly that the increases had not been in particular items, but had pervaded the whole Estimate. It was quite easy to understand that some sudden pressure might come upon a particular Department, and that a Supplementary Estimate might be necessary to meet such pressure; but he could not understand how it came about that mistaken Estimates had been made in the first instance with regard to nine-tenths of the items. The amount of the excess they were asked to vote was £20,000 over the original Estimate; and he should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether this was a proportion of excess which might be expected in another year, or whether it was a special circumstance attaching only to this particular financial period? He asked this because, as the Committee would see, the original Estimate upon which this excess Vote was asked amounted to £530,000, while the Estimates for the current year, 1882–3, recently presented, amounted to £540,000. How could this be explained? Had there been any especial expenses incurred, or was the sum of £540,000 mere matter of guess work, with the possibility of a still larger Supplementary Estimate next year? The Committee had, in his view, a right to some fuller explanation on this point than had yet been afforded them by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
§ MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, there was another point to which he should like to draw the attention of the Committee. It was certain that in many directions there was room for economy; but, on 1767 the other hand, he thought that at a comparatively small increase of expense many of the Returns issued from Public Offices might be very much further utilized. It had often struck him as being surprising that many of the Returns—for instance, relating to the doings of local authorities in various parts of the country—were not sent down to the local authorities themselves, for the purpose of conveying what was, in very many instances, most valuable information. Then, again, there were Returns being constantly moved for by the President of the Local Government Board and by private Members on matters relating to pauperism, which Returns would, in many cases, be very useful to Boards of Guardians, to whom, in his view, they ought to be sent officially, in order to assist in reforming the administration of the Poor Law.
§ MR. SALTsaid, he thought there was not much use in moving the reduction of a Supplementary Estimate except by way of protest. The money had already been spent, and unless the Committee could protest in a practical way by reducing expenditure, he did not see that much good was gained. In regard to the observations in which the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) commended his Amendment to the Committee, he would only make one or two remarks which occurred to him at the moment. He understood the hon. Member to suggest that a list of the printed Parliamentary Papers should be sent to Members of the House each morning, and that they should choose from that list the Papers which they wished to have sent to them. There appeared to his mind to be several difficulties in the way of carrying out this suggestion. It very often, or at any rate not unfrequently, happened that at critical periods Papers were laid on the Table late at night, which it was of the utmost importance should be in the hands of Members at the earliest moment on the following morning. This would not be possible if hon. Members were only to be supplied on each morning with lists of the Papers, and not with copies of the Papers themselves. Another difficulty that suggested itself to his mind was as to the number of copies of each Paper that would have to be printed. The issuing Departments would be left in great doubt as to the 1768 number of copies that might be wanted; and while in some cases they might cause to be printed a large number of copies where few were needed, in others the supply might fall very far short of what was requisite. He would wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee an assurance that before the debate on the regular Estimate for 1882–3 came on in the Spring in ordinary course, he would consider the matter, and tell the House whether he would or would not be prepared with some scheme of reform in this Department. The hon. Member might, on mature consideration and further examination, find the present system the best on the whole; but if, on the other hand, he found it within his power to propose some efficient plan of economy, he would find that he had the very hearty co-operation of both sides of the House. He should also like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why details of an excess of expenditure largely exceeding the original Estimate and pervading the whole of its items were not given to the House at the commencement of the Autumn Session? He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would consider this matter, and afford some satisfactory explanation with regard to this increase of £20,000.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was unable to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), which seemed to him, in the first place, altogether to depart from the gravamen of the charge against the Estimate; and, so far as the small change his hon. Friend had suggested went, he was disposed to agree very much with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Salt) that it would be a matter of inconvenience to carry out the proposal to the extent contemplated. There were a number of Papers kept back from Members, because they were not applied for, which would be much better circulated amongst them. There was, for instance, the Report of the Royal Mint, in connection with which there were matters of very great public interest, and he believed that attention to the Report would lead to a considerable saving in that Department. The hon. Member asked what was the use of issuing a large mass of Papers which were only read, perhaps, 1769 by 10 or 20. But that was not the point—the knowledge of their being in the hands of Members was considered to be a useful and necessary check. Again, there were the Reports sent from the Consulates abroad to the British Government. These were not distributed until they were asked for; and how many Members applied for them? [Mr. COURTNEY: The Consular Reports are distributed.] He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Consular Reports of Siam and Japan were in the list of "Command" Papers, which were only given to hon. Members on being applied for; and his hon. Friend had entirely overlooked the fact that this list was handed to Members every day. That, however, was a small matter. They had before them the fact that this Vote was increasing by leaps and bounds; and although he was quite willing to admit that the present Controller of the Stationery Department was a very able and efficient officer, that he had introduced some reforms and carried out certain suggestions, he was bound to say that he entertained a strong opinion that, whenever there was a large increase in any of the spending Departments, the way to meet it was by the appointment of a Select Committee, for the purpose of investigating the matter. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that this was just one of those cases in which the appointment of a Committee would probably lead to a very considerable saving. He considered that the very fact that there was a large increased expenditure in connection with the Department was a reason why that expenditure should be looked upon with suspicion. He could not agree with all that had been said with regard to the Supplementary Estimates; but the demand for £20,000 in the present Vote was so extraordinary that the Committee were bound to ask from the Government a full explanation as to the increased expenditure, and the exact nature of the work in connection with which it had been incurred. The Committee wished to know why this increased expenditure had been incurred; and whether it had been incurred because the Departments were so ignorant of what they were likely to require that they did not bring in their Estimates at the proper time, but came forward at the end of the Ses- 1770 sion with a Supplementary Estimate for £20,000. He was now able, having referred to the list, to satisfy his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that some of the Consular Reports were only distributed to hon. Members when applied for. It happened that there were only five Papers on the list this year, and under the terms of distribution which he had described, there was the Report of the Consul in the Corea, a Memorandum on the trade between Japan and the Corea, Reports from the Consuls in China, and the Consular Report from Siam. So that out of the five Papers presented up to that time for the year 1883, four of them were Consular Reports, which were only given to Members on being applied for. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion to reduce the Vote by £500, which he (Mr. Rylands) and his hon. Friends could not support, and if the Secretary to the Treasury did not give satisfactory replies to the questions he had urged, hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would feel it their duty to support a Motion for the specific reduction of the Vote, and to ascertain the opinion of the Committee as to whether that reduction should or should not take place.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the Committee had a right to know why, in the face of the Vote of £530,000 taken last year, the Department which had spent so much money should now come to the Committee with a Supplementary Estimate for £20,280. There had been, as hon. Members would see by the detailed account of the Vote, an increase upon almost every item of expenditure; and he said they had a right to ask for information as to the excess of £3,000 over the original Estimate of £18,000 for Printing, &c., for Stationery Office Publications, and the excess of £1,250 under letter for Parliamentary Records on the original Estimate of £5,100, which was equal to more than 20 per cent. These were matters upon which they were entitled to detailed information, in order that they might be assured that the money had been rightly spent, and that the causes of the present Vote could not have been foreseen. The fact must not be lost sight of that the practice of putting forward Supplementary Estimates tended very much to withdraw from public notice the actual expenditure in the various Departments, which would doubtless receive more complete 1771 examination at the hands of Members were the whole amount placed before them when the Estimates for the year were brought forward. The Committee having been brought face to face with such an exceptional increase of cost in respect of the Stationery Office, he trusted that the fullest explanation would be afforded by the Government upon the items to which he had called attention.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had not quite so voracious an appetite for Blue Books as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); those he received were almost sufficient for him. At the same time, he did not think the Committee agreed with the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) in thinking that his proposal was a desirable one; or, at all events, he believed there was a concurrence of opinion that the point raised by the Motion before the Committee might be discussed with more advantage on the general Estimates than on the present occasion. He believed some hon. Members near him wished to take the sense of the Committee on a reduction of the Vote to the extent of £5,000. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Andover, however, stood in the way of this; and, therefore, with all respect to him, they would be exceedingly glad if he would withdraw it. Now, he had this complaint to make—that the printing was very badly done. He had, on two or three occasions, asked Questions of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench with reference to Bills which had not been presented to the House within a reasonable time; but he had not been able to get any answers to them. The reason of this was that no person was specifically responsible in the matter. For example, a few days ago the Bankruptcy Bill was laid on the Table of the House, and one or two printed copies were placed in the Library. This Bill was wanted not only for the information of Members themselves, but the Members connected with commercial towns were exceedingly anxious to get copies of it for their constituents. Nevertheless, they were only able to send the Bill down that day. Now, having some technical knowledge of printing, he was in a position to state that if they once set up a Bill it was absurd to say they could not strike off any number of copies. That was one incident. Another was that an hon. Friend sitting near him, who 1772 wished to make certain remarks on one of the Votes in Class VII., which related to special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons across the Channel, had asked for a Return of the names of those gentlemen. The Return was agreed to, and he believed it had been laid on the Table of the House. But it had not been distributed, although it was Thursday, and the Return had been ordered to be printed on Monday last. They were exceedingly anxious to know who the distinguished persons were, before voting the money required for carrying them from this country. He hoped that an explanation of these matters would now be given by someone on the Treasury Bench. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury represented the Stationery Department; and, as he had said before, he had never yet discovered by whom it was represented. But it must be understood that they could not go on voting vast sums of money for the Department when they were always being put off with old excuses on the part of Ministers, who did not want Returns to be in the hands of Members. The usual answerwasthat—"They were very sorry, but the printer was not ready with the Papers." All that was plainly nonsense and sham; but even if it were true, then by all means let them have some other printer who could do the work. Their specific complaint was that they did not get the Returns promised to the House within a reasonable time of the first copies being presented. Speaking technically, there was not the slightest necessity for this delay, and a better arrangement ought to exist, seeing that they paid something like the sum of £500,000 annually for the Office.
§ MR. SCHREIBERsaid, the last three years, as he understood it, had been years of Liberal economy; but during that time the public had been startled, and were now not a little perplexed, by a continued increase in the Civil Service Estimates. He thought hon. Members would perform a good service if, under the circumstances, they could help the public to understand why that increase had taken place, and under what heads. He supposed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would tell him that among the principal heads of increase was to be included that on account of the Post Office Vote, for which no Member of 1773 that House was more responsible than himself (Mr. Schreiber). But he anticipated that reply of the hon. Gentleman by saying that he accepted the responsibility, and that all the money spent in connection with the Post Office had been well spent. If this year was to be regarded as a year of Liberal economy, and 1880 as a year of Conservative extravagance, he thought it would be only fair to compare the expenditure which had taken place in respect of the Stationery Office in those two years. In 1880 there was spent £460,000, and for the year ending on the 31st of March, 1883, there would have been spent no less a sum than £550,280, the difference being £90,000, and equivalent to an annual increase of £30,000 for this Vote alone. He thought it would be a profitable exercise for the Financial Secretary to explain to the Committee and the country the causes of that increase of expenditure. So far as that increase resulted from the Autumn Session, which was held for the purpose of passing the New Rules of Procedure, he would like to have it precisely stated what the Autumn Session had cost. He could make a pretty shrewd guess as to the value of the New Rules; but what the country and the House wanted to know was the amount of money they had cost. He apprehended that the greater part of the £20,000 now asked for was to be placed to that account; and, if he was not mistaken, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) pointed in the same direction. Therefore, he trusted the Committee would receive from the Financial Secretary an explanatory statement, setting forth the causes which had led to this large increase in the expenditure of the Stationery Office.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORbegged leave to remind the Committee that the Stationery Department was three or four years ago re-organized. Now, re-organization was a process which went on every now and then in the Civil Service, and with the invariable result of increasing the charge on the public. The Controller of the Stationery Department, about two years and a-half ago, was ordered to render an account, which was, indeed, the first Report rendered by the Controller. The interesting document went to show that re-organization would secure a considerable reduction 1774 in the Stationery Vote. Among other things, the Controller reported that in the item of salaries alone a saving of £4,000 a-year could be effected. But, notwithstanding this, the charge for salaries, instead of decreasing, had shown a regular increase. Again, the item for printing had gone up since the re-organization took place from £136,000 to £160,000. The charge for paper had also risen from £95,000 to £120,000, and so on through the great majority of the items in the Vote. He thought, however, that some of the criticism which they had heard that evening with reference to the Department was very unfair. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), for instance, did not hesitate to attribute to the Stationery Office the delay which often took place in furnishing Government Reports and Papers; but everyone acquainted with the facts would know that no blame attached to the Stationery Office at all. It was the Departments concerned in those Papers that were alone responsible; and if there was one Department more to blame than another for the delay of which the hon. Member complained, it was that of the Board of Trade, whose Reports were invariably in arrear. Therefore, he said that to fix the blame on the Stationery Office was extremely unjust. But, during the last three years, the Vote had increased from £469,000 to £530,000; and, according to the Estimate for 1883–4, they were to be asked to grant a still larger sum. Now, he had no doubt that the money was really required. He believed the Stationery Office was administered as well as any Department in the Civil Service; but he wished to urge on the Secretary to the Treasury the desirability of securing an annual Report from the Controller, in order that ample and detailed information might be afforded to the House with regard to the regular increase which took place in the expenditure of the Department. If that Report were supplied, he was satisfied the House would see that there was reason for the expenditure; but, in the absence of it, he was equally sure that the continued increase under this head would be challenged.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHexpressed the hope that the Motion of the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) would not be further proceeded with. He did 1775 not think that the proposal of the hon. Member would conduce to the saving of a single sixpence; whereas, on the other hand, it would, undoubtedly, cause great inconvenience to hon. Members, by depriving them of a large amount of information which ought to be placed in their hands. Any Gentleman having a knowledge of printing would be aware that the expense did not consist in the distribution of copies which were in existence, or in the multiplication of copies within a reasonable limit. There would, therefore, be no saving to the public if the suggestion of the hon. Member were adopted. There was, however, a method by which a considerable saving both of public time and money could be effected—namely, by the condensation of some of the voluminous documents presented to Parliament. He was sure hon. Members would agree that the exceeding detail in which public Papers were given constituted a public misfortune, and that much of the documentary matter put into their hands might, by the exercise of a little labour on the part of gentlemen engaged in Public Departments, be decreased in bulk, and, at the same time, increased in value. It must be borne in mind that for many years past this Vote had continued to increase; and, although efforts had been made to check that increase, they had failed in their object, because the Stationery Department was the servant, so to speak, of a great number of Public Offices, and it was out of the power of the Controller of the Department, unless backed up by some superior authority, to resist the demands made upon him by the other Offices. However convenient it might be to have an Office charged with supplying the various Public Departments with the stationery and printing required, there was this to be said—that it was very difficult to bring home to the Heads of Departments a sense of responsibility for expenditure, when the amount did not appear upon their Estimates in any way as a charge against themselves. Under the system which existed at present, whatever work was required to be done would be at once ordered, without consideration of cost, because the Departments did not pay for it; but if, by any means, the cost of stationery and printing could be brought home as a charge against them, he thought there would be a little more 1776 economy under that head. So long as the world lasted, if a man had not to pay for the expenditure he incurred, he would not be so economical as the man who had to account for it.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid the proposal of the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton) had not given very great satisfaction, although he could not see that any Gentleman who had followed him had greatly improved upon his suggestion. Tie trusted, however, that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and withdraw his Amendment. Two suggestions had been made with regard to the delivery of Papers, both of which would tend greatly to increase the amount of this Vote. One of these, made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond), was that all Papers of general interest should be distributed, not only amongst Members of the House, but that they should be sent broad-cast about the country. That was a proposal which the Treasury, having the fear of the Committee before them, could not look upon with approval. Then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had complained that the Papers were not delivered as rapidly as they ought to be. No doubt there might be a more rapid delivery if unlimited funds were allowed to the Department. It must be remembered that the Department was subjected to great pressure by the demands made upon it for the production of many Reports, long and complicated accounts, Appropriation Accounts, Estimates, and Bills—all these were required and ordered to be printed at the beginning of the Session, and there was in consequence a great crush and hurry amongst the printers in order to get them out. One question raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) was, in his opinion, inappropriate to these Estimates, and the discussion of it would be more fitting when the year's Estimates were brought forward. The hon. Member had inquired, half-jestingly, whether the Autumn Session had anything to do with the increase of expenditure? Undoubtedly that was the case to a certain extent; but he submitted to the Committee that it was largely attributable to the increased activity in many Departments, consequent upon the state of public affairs. The Autumn Session was responsible 1777 for the increase in the cost of public records under Sub-head O; but, as an instance of the demands upon the Stationery Office, the War Office alone had increased the cost of the Department by no less a sum than £4,000. The printing for the Irish Government, as the Committee would understand, had been exceedingly heavy; and, as a matter of fact, whatever Department was in a state of excitement, that Department must make extraordinary demands upon the Stationery Office, and cause a corresponding increase in this Vote. A question had been asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to the increased charge of £6,000 for paper, as compared with the cost of printing. The answer to this was that, under the new contract made for printing, the supply of paper was made by the Department itself; and, that being so, the cost was included in these Estimates, which, had it been met by the contractor, would not have been due until after quarter day. The business of the Stationery Office had also been increased by the taking over of the Customs Bills of Entry, which had necessitated the appointment of a special staff in order to conduct those publications. Before concluding, he wished to offer his tribute of respect to the present Controller of the Stationery Office. A better public servant did not exist, and the exertions made by him, in order to effect reductions of expenditure, were beyond all praise.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, one of the remarks made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had raised in his mind a great doubt as to the sufficiency of his replies on other questions which had been raised in connection with the Vote. The charge made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the Bankruptcy Bill, which most hon. Members were interested in, no matter what might have been the pressure from the various Departments for printing, was on the Table of the House a fortnight ago, notwithstanding which the supply of Bills, on which hon. Members depended for sending copies to their constituents, was not ready until last night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated that when once a Bill was set up in type any number of copies could be furnished without 1778 additional cost to the public. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not touched that point in his reply. A Return of one page ordered to be printed on Monday last was not in the hands of Members until long afterwards, and the Committee were told that the delay was owing to the enormous pressure put by the various Departments of the Civil Service upon the Stationery Office. That reply appeared to him quite insufficient; and he was bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it would promote a very considerable amount of discussion, when the Estimate for the Department for 1883–4 was brought forward, if the Committee were not placed in possession of the details now asked for. The country had spent £500,000 already upon printing and stationery, and at the end of the financial year the Government came forward with a further Estimate of £20,000. The Committee was powerless to go through all the details of the Department and say where a reduction ought to be made. When complaints were made, replies were given by the Heads of Departments exactly similar to that just given by the Secretary to the Treasury; and the only way to deal with the matter was for the House to say—"We will not go beyond a certain amount on account of this Office." If that step were taken, he had no doubt the Controller would see his way to keeping the amount of expenditure within the prescribed limit. He appealed to the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), whose proposal it had been shown would not effect any saving of cost, to withdraw his Amendment, and he would then move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he trusted hon. Members would bear him out when he said that his wish, in bringing forward this subject, was to effect economy in the Public Printing Department. He hoped, also, before the Estimates for next year came forward, that hon. Members would consider whether such a scheme as he had suggested would not be very useful, and effect the saving which, on high authority, he believed would result from its adoption? At that time he should move, and carry to a division, an Amendment to the Stationery Vote of the same kind as that now before the Committee, which, having come to the conclusion that the present 1779 was not the best occasion for pressing it, he now asked leave to withdraw.
§ Motion by leave withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would now move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000. As a Member of the Liberal Party, who went into Office on the ground that the Conservative Party had been extravagant, he thought it was high time that some consistency should be shown to exist in the matter of expenditure.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,280, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he rose to remind the Secretary to the Treasury of the very simple inquiry he had ventured to address to him with regard to the proposal that the House should be furnished by the Controller of the Stationery Office, or by the Treasury, with an annual Statement in continuation of the Statement made on a former occasion. His reason for asking this was that, although a re-organization had taken place which the House was assured would effect a considerable saving in the expenditure of the Department, there had been a considerable increase of charge, respecting which there was absolutely no information. With all respect to the Secretary to the Treasury, he was sure the hon. Gentleman must feel that the explanation given to the Committee had been wholly inadequate. Moreover, it would be impossible for any official of the Government, having multifarious duties to perform, to furnish such an explanation in detail as the Committee had a right to expect. It could only be supplied by the Controller of the Department; and it was on that ground that he asked that the 1780 arrangement he had indicated might be made.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must apologize for having, through inadvertence, omitted to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County. He admitted the desirability of the scheme; but he was bound to point out that it involved a further increase in the cost of printing.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose simply for the purpose of pointing out to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. II. H. Fowler), with whose Motion he concurred, the utter powerlessness of any Member of the Committee to check expenditure. If the Committee were then to divide it would be seen, from the attitude taken up by Members, that the Government must be put in a minority, and that the Vote would be reduced. The Committee was perfectly persuaded of the justice of the Motion to reduce the Vote; but what would happen? When the bell was rung a large number of Gentlemen, who had not heard a single word of the discussion, would come crowding in from the Library, and when the door was shut they would be ordered to go into the Government Lobby. In that way Motions of the kind now before the Committee were rendered perfectly useless; and he thought the country ought to know that they were frequently withdrawn, because Members had not patience to attend to the discussion.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, it was to be regretted that everyone who had in his mind a crotchet had the power of forcing the Government to furnish special Returns. So long as Members would ask for Returns on every conceivable subject, which involved great cost for paper and printing, there would always be Supplementary Estimates at the end of the year. If any plan could be adopted by which the demands for fresh Returns might be submitted to a Committee he thought that a great saving might be made. The Secretary to the Treasury had just informed the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that he had been asked for a special Return this year upon a subject with regard to which a similar Return had been made last year; and it was in this way that thousands of pounds of the public money was annually spent. He thought that a Committee would do a 1781 great service to the House of Commons by recommending economy in the matter of Returns.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It was quite natural for the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Head of any Department, to resent the inquisitiveness of Members into the Departmental Estimates; but the country had come to the conclusion that its expenditure needed reduction.
§ MR. WIGGINsaid, a great deal of dissatisfaction had been expressed last year with the enormous cost of the Printing and Stationery Department, and some hopes were then held out that a reduction would be effected. But the Committee now found that, after voting £500,000 for this purpose, they were called upon to meet a deficit of £20,000. He agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that the country was rightly complaining of the enormous expenditure of the Government; and as they came into Office with the cry and complaint that the expenditure of the late Government was excessive, he thought the least they could do was to make a firm stand against further increase of charge. He was most reluctant to vote against the Government on this Motion; but he felt it his duty to do so, on the ground that if no beginning was made there would be no economy. He should support the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and other reformers in their endeavours to reduce the National Expenditure.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad to find that the desire for economy was finding expression amongst a great number of Members in all parts of the House. It was, of course, expected, when the Government came into Office, that there would be great economy in the matter of expenditure; but anyone who looked into the Estimates during the time they had been in Office would see that, instead of a diminution, there had been a growing increase of charge in all the Departments. There was one thing which the Prime Minister had insisted upon more than another in reference to the comparison of Estimates—namely, that when they compared the Expenditure of one year with that of a former year, they should compare original with original Estimates. If the Com- 1782 mittee looked at the original Estimates of this year, they would see, by comparing them with last year's original Estimates, that there was, on the whole, an increase of £1,100,000. The country, at all events, was not aware of this; and when the Estimates for next year came to be discussed, he, for one, should be prepared to vote for any proper reduction that might be proposed; although, on the present occasion, the money having been spent already, he did not see that any useful result would follow from opposition to the Estimates before the Committee.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that, while agreeing with the principle of economical administration, he thought that the energies of economists should be wisely directed. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), in his opinion, had not taken the right course by proposing a reduction of the present Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury had informed the Committee that there had been increased activity in all the Departments of the Service, and that this activity had found its expression in an increased charge for paper and printing. Now, he thought it was absurd that a man whose business was increasing should object to the increased charges which that increase of business rendered necessary. Besides that, his hon. Friend appeared to have missed his mark, inasmuch as this expenditure had already been incurred, and it was absolutely necessary that these Votes should be agreed to, in order that the House might have sufficient time to enter upon questions of general legislation. He believed, if the item of printing were looked into, it would be found that no great reduction could be made under that head. Committees had frequently sat to consider the expenditure of the Public Offices; and surely, by that time, they had arrived at some satisfactory system with regard to their administration. For his own part, he did not wonder at the cost of the Stationery Department, considering the urgency with which Members insisted upon Returns being printed. At the same time, he believed those Returns were, for the most part, useful, because the country could not have too much information as to its affairs; and it must, therefore, be willing to bear the cost of supplying it. The expenditure 1783 of the Department was large; but it did not amount to more than half the cost of a man-of-war. Therefore, while offering his services in support of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and every other reformer who would assail extravagance where it existed, he hoped the Committee would not be led aside into wasting time on the present Supplementary Estimates, and particularly in connection with a Department where such useful expenditure was incurred.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 118: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 20.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had alluded to a valuable Report made in 1881 by the Controller of the Stationery Office. The Secretary to the Treasury, as he understood, had stated that it would be a desirable thing to have such a Report; and he (Mr. Labouchere) trusted that the House would be furnished with an annual Report of the Department in future.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had not pledged himself to an annual Report. He had said it would be convenient if it could be produced without further adding to the cost of the Printing and Stationery Department.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had a few observations to make, before the Question was put from the Chair, with reference to the publication of Parliamentary debates. He asked whether the Government had under consideration the publication of full reports, instead of the partial and varying reports furnished at the present time? He thought the present system involved the maximum of disadvantage. He would not go into the question of an official report; but would only remark that any one so unfortunate as to be compelled to read through the Parliamentary debates of former years would find it one of the most difficult and embarrassing of operations. They were difficult, and sometimes self-contradictory. He understood that for a portion of the evening the reports were still left to the newspapers; but that the proceedings in Committee, and after a certain hour the debates, were recorded by the reporters supplied by Mr. Hansard. Now, he 1784 suggested that this was a most illogical and absurd compromise between two systems, and that to have a complete report would not cost very much more than was now spent. He could not understand why the Government should abstain from adopting the method which, he believed, had been adopted by all the Colonial Legislatures. He would not trouble the Committee with any further observations on the subject; but must express a hope that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would not state that a full report was not furnished because of the expense it would involve.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, this question had been brought forward in the last Parliament. He was bound to say that the opinion of the House was then entirely against the adoption of any scheme for the production of a full Report.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (3.) £1,100, Works and Public Buildings Office.
CAPTAIN AYLMERasked what price had been obtained for the old Law Courts, and why it was not mentioned in the Estimate?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the total amount on account of the old Law Courts was £3,300, and he presumed that this would appear in the original Estimates. The present Estimates were only Supplementary.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that, so far from this being in the nature of a Supplementary Vote to meet the balance of expenses incurred by the Office of Works and Public Buildings, it actually constituted a permanent increase in the cost of the staff of that Department, and that it was for salaries and wages alone that £900 was now asked for in excess of the sum of £43,630 taken in the original Estimates for 1882–3. But that was not all, because it appeared that, though the total original Estimate for 1882–3, as stated at the foot of the Vote, was £46,480, yet that for 1883–4 was £49,144, or an increase of upwards of £3,000 over the amount at first voted. Such an item as an increase of charge for the Departmental salaries had never before been allowed to appear in these Supplementary Estimates; and he was bound to say that if it was necessary to appear at all it should have been brought to the notice of the 1785 House on the regular Estimates. With, regard to the item of £900 for salaries and wages, on account of the increase of business arising from the transfer of change of Inland Revenue Buildings, he thought that a transfer in connection with buildings of that nature ought not to have involved the country in so large an increase of annual expenditure. But the point of objection to which he referred was that this increase of salaries had taken place at the middle, instead of the beginning of the year; and he appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to move the Treasury to prevent the recurrence of this in future.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this was a permanent increase of the Vote, and it was rendered necessary by an addition to the staff of the Department of a Surveyor, Assistant Surveyor, and Clerk. The increase was not only due to the Inland Revenue Buildings recently thrown upon the Office of Works, but also to the requirements of the Postal Service, which had so increased the duties of the Office that it was impossible to avoid an extension of the staff. He pointed out that had another Surveyor not been appointed the Parcels Post could not have come into operation when it did, but would have been necessarily postponed for several months to come. He begged to assure the Committee that the additional assistance was rendered indispensable by the increased labour thrown upon the Department by the transfers indicated, and that the existing Surveyors were at the time of the fresh appointments thoroughly overworked.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished it to be clearly understood that he did not grudge the money if that had been well spent. His contention was that the Commissioner of Works, who knew of the overcharged state of the Department, when last year's Estimates were before Parliament, should have laid a statement immediately before the House, and not have made the expenditure, and then ask sanction, when it could not be refused.
§ MR. MOLLOYasked if the Government had in contemplation any system of assurance in connection with the Post Office?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREadmitted the importance and interest attaching to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which, however, was one that would 1786 more correctly be addressed to his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £627, Fishery Board, Scotland.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, before the Vote passed, he wished to give the Government an opportunity of explaining the grounds upon which Sir Thomas J. Boyd had been appointed Chairman of the Fishery Board. An Act had been passed last year for the re-organization of the Fishery Board in Scotland; and it might have been expected that, in order to make the Board useful, it would be composed of men in the full vigour of life, and possessing some knowledge of fishery and maritime affairs. Sir Thomas J. Boyd was, he believed, a most distinguished and estimable citizen of Edinburgh, and a publisher of books; but he had never heard that he possessed any special experience of the kind he had mentioned. Besides that, the gentleman in question was well advanced in years, and it was not to be expected that he could infuse such vigour as was desirable into the action of the Board. The appointment of Sir Thomas J. Boyd had taken all those who were interested in fishing in Scotland very much by surprise. There was at that moment great agitation in Scotland with regard to fishing; the line fishers and net fishers were greatly exasperated with the system of trawling; and it would be of great advantage if this Board were to collect trustworthy information as to the effect of trawling upon the supply of fish. He had not heard that the Board had taken any active steps in this matter, although it had been hoped that the re-organized Board would prove itself of some use, if not directly, then indirectly, by obtaining the information indicated. He hoped some Member of the Government would be able to explain what the Board was intended to accomplish, the purposes to which it was going to devote its energies, and the circumstances which justified the appointment of Sir Thomas J. Boyd to the Chairmanship of the Board?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he might answer the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire by saying generally, in the first place, that Sir Thomas J. Boyd had received his appointment because, after the fullest inquiry into the subject, he was considered the best man 1787 who could be obtained for the office of Chairman of the Board. He was a man of great administrative experience; he had been twice Lord Provost of Edinburgh; he had given evidence of his powers of organization by establishing, upon a new basis, the Merchant Company Schools in Edinburgh. What he did in connection with these schools, and in other municipal affairs, showed that he was possessed of administrative powers of a high order. The Fishery Board was to be placed on an improved footing, and undoubtedly it became an important matter to discover who was the best person to give it a good start on its new footing. The fishing interest, as had truly been stated, was a large one, and he might add that it was one in regard to which there were various conflicting interests. There were, as the Committee well knew, as regards herring, the brand and the anti-brand interests; and in the case of salmon the complaint between the upper and lower proprietors, and various other matters in respect of which there were adverse interests. Hence there could be no doubt that it was essential to have the Board presided over by a gentleman of approved ability, I and who had given evidence, in many capacities, of fairness, and moderation of mind, and who had no sort of personal interest in the controverted matters with which the Board would have to deal. In the judgment of those who had the duty of nominating the Board, Sir Thomas J. Boyd possessed these qualities, and seemed to be eminently fitted for the office. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had said something in regard to the ago of Sir Thomas J. Boyd. From the Book of Reference on the Table, it appeared that Sir Thomas J. Boyd was born in 1818, and he did not think any hon. Member would be prepared to say that a gentleman of that age was necessarily disqualified from holding the office by reason of his years.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYremarked that he had not said anything of that nature.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he thought there was every prospect of Sir Thomas Boyd being able to serve in this capacity for a considerable time to come. With regard to trawling, that was a question which was under careful consideration; but as to the particular steps the Board had taken, or intended to take, in the 1788 matter, he would venture to ask his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Williamson), who was a Member of the Fishery Board, and who would be able to give the Committee more precise and accurate information on the subject than he (the Lord Advocate) could, for an explanation.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he would like to supplement the remarks of the Lord Advocate with regard to the Chairman of the Fishery Board, by saying that he was sure that Sir Thomas Boyd was a man of ability and energy, and that he would devote his time and power to the business of the Fishery Board with enthusiasm. He was sorry that any remarks should have been made in that House in any way derogatory to the Chairman of the Board, who made a most admirable President in every respect. He believed that the business of the Fishery Board, under the Chairmanship of Sir Thomas Boyd, would be conducted with great advantage to Scotland. He was able to form this opinion, because he had attended most of the meetings of the Board. With respect to trawling, he had not come down there believing that that question would be discussed under the present Estimate. He wished to point out that the Fishery Board of Scotland were only the administrators of the law. They had not had the law to make, nor could they rescind it. Representation had been made to the Board as well as to the Government, and they were under very careful consideration; and all that it was possible for the Board to do would be done for the fishermen. In the meantime, he could only repeat that they were simply the administrators of the law, and not the makers of it.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had done good service to the country in raising this question. The hon. Member had a large fishing population among his constituents, as he (Sir George Balfour) also had in Kincardineshire, who were very poor and unprotected, and required to be carefully looked after. His hon. Friend had, by his useful criticisms and remarks, done good service to the public interests, and he hoped he would long remain in the House to continue that service. In reference to the Estimate, he could only repeat what he had stated upon the last 1789 Estimate—namely, that the, Committee had not received all the information connected with the expenditure which it was entitled to have. The present demand, though for only £627, was only a portion of the extra cost for the reorganized Fishery Board, because the Estimate for 1883–4 amounted to £17,740, against £16,307 in 1882–3, being an addition of £1,433, and not £627 as now asked for. That was the result of the hurry scurry of last year in forcing through the House the Fishery Board Bill. Personally, he had done all that he could to induce the Government to delay the passing of the Act constituting the new Fishery Board, until they had fuller information. He had no hostility to the Board; but he believed the Government had acted upon imperfect information as to the requirements and duties of the Board. He found that there had been an increased expenditure for salaries and allowances from £6,537 to £8,420, and that the sum of £900 for travelling expenses had been increased to £1,100. Incidental expenses had also been raised from £350 to £400. But, to enable these increases to be made, the extra grant for Fishery Harbours which last year was £3,000, was in 1883–4 put down to £2,300. He did not complain of the money that had been given to make the Fishery Board efficient; but he thought that the Government ought to lay full information before the House at the time the ordinary Estimates were passed, and an Estimate of the extra cost of the new Fishery Board over that for the old Board ought to have been submitted to Parliament before the Bill for the re-organization had been passed. He could not help thinking that, with regard to the financial control of the House, the House of Commons was frequently placed in a false position, and in this case some deception appeared to have been practised, in asking for changes without making known the cost thereof. He had no wish to assert that there had been anything positively wrong; but he was satisfied that deception had existed, and he hoped the House would take steps to guard against it in future. He thought that the Secretary to the Treasury was to blame. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were probably glad to hear him making those remarks about the policy of his Friends; but he hoped he would not be wanting in criticizing 1790 their policy if in power just as he criticised that of the Liberal Party.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYtrusted that he had not said anything derogatory of Sir Thomas Boyd in the business to which he had devoted so much of his time, nor yet of his connection with the organization of schools; but it did seem to him a most extraordinary statement to hear from the Lord Advocate that a gentleman was qualified to be Chairman of the Fishery Board who was 65 years of age, who possessed no knowledge of fishing, so far as the House was aware, and who had passed his life in publishing books. He thought it not only desirable, but that they were entitled to know from the Lord Advocate what progress had been made in the organization of the work of the Fishery Board. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give them some idea of the benefit this Fishery Board was going to confer upon Scotland, and what it had done since its reconstitution? The improvements already pointed out by the Lord Advocate were improvements with which neither the Government nor the State had anything to do, but which were already determined by the law. He thought, before they voted this money, it was desirable they should have some idea of what the Fishery Board had already done; and unless they obtained some explanation they had a right to challenge the Vote.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was of opinion that the demand for answers to these interrogatories was rather absurd, seeing that the Board had only been in operation for three or four months since its re-constitution. It was somewhat preposterous to ask a Member of the Board, after so short a period, to go into all that the Board were going to do in the interests of the fishermen of Scotland. The Board would do the best they could. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: What are they doing? It was impossible to enter into an explanation at that moment.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he thought it was as well to emphasize the qualifications of the Chairman of this Fishery Board, as they had been stated by the Lord Advocate. He presumed, however, that it was simply a lawyer's idea of the business qualifications of the President of the Board. The only explanation as yet given of this appoint- 1791 ment, and the qualifications of Sir Thomas Boyd, was that Sir Thomas Boyd had been twice Lord Provost. He did not know how far a man occupying the position of Lord Provost indulged in fishing; but it further appeared that Sir Thomas Boyd had also been Chairman of some educational establishment, and that he was a bookseller. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one single question—had this distinguished gentleman, who was to be an authority upon fishing, ever done as much as publish a single book on fishing?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was unable to answer that question. He had no list of the books which Sir Thomas Boyd had published.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he did not think it should be a qualification for the Chairman of the Fishery Board that he should write a book. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Oh! do not take me seriously. He failed to see what possible qualification it would be. It was desirable, if possible, to get a scientific man to preside on the Fishery Board, because it was desirable that the Board should engage in a scientific investigation in regard to the general aspect of the fisheries. But, apart from that, Sir Thomas Boyd was eminently qualified, and had already displayed his skill in the successful carrying out of many useful works connected with the City of Edinburgh; and he thought the Government could not have done bettor than select that gentleman as the President of the Board.
§ SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEprotested against the argument of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson), that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) should not be entitled to demand some sort of information as to the working of an important Board of this kind. It was unfortunate that a question of this kind should have come up in Committee of Supply. No doubt, there was a very great and growing interest taken in these fishery questions, especially in the North of England and in Scotland. That interest was increasing very much, and the present appointment seemed to him a somewhat lamentable one, when they considered the reasons given for it. The 1792 people of Scotland had a right to ask for something more than the suggestion that the Chairman of the Board had displayed ability in other pursuits. They had no guarantee whatever that this gentleman had over had anything to do with fishing. Personally, he could hardly conceive what possible qualification Sir Thomas Boyd possessed for the post, and he could imagine nothing more unfortunate for the fishing on our Northern Coasts than this appointment.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURregretted that the Lord Advocate had not risen to give an explanation. The reason was quite clear—namely, that the Lord Advocate found it impossible to give one. His right hon. and learned Friend knew how earnest he had been in trying to obtain information as to the position of the Board, and the nature of its work, before it was decided upon constituting it; but the Lord Advocate said—"No; let the Board be constituted." He (Sir George Balfour) had communicated all the information he possessed as to what the duties of the Fishery Board ought to be, and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) knew how he had endeavoured to obtain an explanation as to the nature of the duties which the Board would officially be ordered to perform. The Lord Advocate, however, refused to listen to him, and he accordingly intimated that he would raise the question on the first occasion the Estimate was brought forward; nevertheless, even now, his right hon. and learned Friend was not prepared to give any information as to what the Board intended to do. He did not ask what they had done, because he thought they had done nothing. But the Committee had every right to ask under what regulations the Board acted apart from the meagre directions contained in the Acts. At present they knew nothing, except that the Board said they intended to do something; but what that something was nobody knew. The Lord Advocate represented the Government, and it was to him that he (Sir George Balfour) appealed, and not to any Member of the Fishery Board. The Lord Advocate was an officer of the Government, and it was his duty to supply the information; and he ought not to depend upon the fact of a Member of the Fishery Board being in the House to father on that Member the duty of giving an answer to the question which 1793 had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay).
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) should have asserted that the Fishery Board had done nothing, and he would, therefore, take the opportunity of referring to one particular work which they had just arranged. The Board had resolved to make a harbour at Ness, in conjunction with the representatives of Sir James Mathieson. That harbour, which would cost £4,000 or £5,000, would be of the very greatest value to fishermen, and would relieve the distress which now prevailed in the district, by providing labour for men on the spot who were also fishermen. He was sure that it would be a most valuable work, and that it would absorb a large portion of the revenue of the Board for the current year. If the House would grant the Board £250,000, they would be able to construct harbours all round the coast; and he would suggest that their Irish Friends should receive an equal amount for the construction of harbours on their coasts. Then they would see a large amount of valuable work done; but as long as the House stinted the Board in the amount, and asked what they were going to do, it was absolutely impossible to give assurances upon the subject. He could, however, assure hon. Members that the harbour they had decided upon constructing at Ness would be of very great value indeed, as an important point in the interests of Scotch Fisheries.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the duty to which the hon. Member had just referred was part of the duties charged upon the previous Board. When the Fishery Board was re-organized, it was understood that they would take some general interest in the fishing throughout Scotland; and if they had really had on the Board, as Chairman of the Board, some gentleman who took an interest in the question of fishing, either scientific or practical, some stops might by this time have been taken in regard to the question of trawling, which was now occupying so much attention. What the Scotch Members wanted to know, and what they ought to know, was, whether the Fishery Board had made up its mind to see how they were to direct inquiries for the advantage of 1794 the fishermen of Scotland? No doubt, if the House voted the Board large sums of money, the Board would give instructions for the erection of harbours of refuge. But what he understood, when the Bill was passing through the House, and the Board was being re-organized, was that the new Board would put itself to some trouble in order to gain some information respecting the sea fisheries, and not merely information to enable them to discriminate between the private rights of the upper and lower proprietors of salmon fisheries, with which he apprehended the country had nothing to do. He hoped the result of this discussion would be to put some vigour into the Fishery Board in the direction he had intimated. And he begged to give Notice that, if the Fishery Board were not prepared to give a clear account of their proceedings, when the regular vote came on for discussion, he should again call attention to the matter.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)remarked, that his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) was a member of the Fishery Board, which he (the Lord Advocate') had not the honour of being, and therefore the hon. Member was in a position to give more information about their proceedings to the Committee than he could. But there had not yet been time for an annual or any other Report. The Committee must bear in mind that the Board had only been established for a few months, and they could not be expected to show any very substantial results in the way of work. Ness Harbour was truly, looking at the unhappy condition of some of his countrymen in the North of Scotland, at the present moment a very valuable piece of work to start with; and, unless he was mistaken, from the information he had received, the Board was now concerning itself in making regulations upon various matters connected with fishing, and he hardly thought much more could be expected from them during the short time they had been in existence. As for what the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had said in regard to the rights of proprietors, it had not been suggested that the Board should determine any question of rights between the upper and lower proprietors. Almost all the main questions regarding the fisheries 1795 in Scotland had very controversial elements in them, and that was one of the considerations which made it desirable that a gentleman of administrative ability and of undoubted sense, probity, and experience in business affairs should take up and consider and deal with the opposing interests which would be duly represented before the Board. The question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire was reasonable to the extent that when the Board had been a little longer in existence it should justify itself in greater detail than it had yet had an opportunity of doing. He had never seen any cause to depart from the view with which the Bill was passed. He believed now, as he believed then, that the Board would effect great improvements, and render important services to the fishing community, although there had as yet scarcely been an opportunity of their doing so.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he wished to add to the explanation of the Lord Advocate, that the question which was agitating the people on the East Coast of Scotland had reference to trawling. They were all aware a ware of that; but the representations of the fishermen had been addressed chiefly to the Board of Trade, to the House of Commons, the Law Officers of the Crown, the Lord Advocate, and others. Very few of these representations had come directly before the Fishery Board. If the Board of Trade, or the Government, desired the aid of the Fishery Board upon any question in regard to any alteration of the law, or as to trawling, or in regard to inquiries on other questions, they would be most happy, and only too glad, to have these delicate questions settled. It was not right to accuse them of indifference in the matter; but, as he had already stated, the Board were only the administrators of the general law, and were not empowered to frame now laws in regard to the Fisheries.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, they were now told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews, who had a seat on the Fishery Board, that the Fishery Board were making a harbour at Ness, in the Island of Lewis, and that it would relieve distress in that Island. He should like to appeal to the Irish Members how they would like to find that £6,000 a-year was taken away from the harbours of Ireland, so necessary for the prosecution of fishery works, 1796 in order to be expended in the relief of I distress? Yet that was what the Fishery Board of Scotland had done. They were taking £6,000 a-year from fishery harbours, and spending it in giving relief to distress. This amount of £6,000 was the annual sum given for fishery harbours, and the sum was to be applied this year solely for the purpose of constructing one new harbour, in an Island which had already been twice aided with grants of Fishery Board money; so that the very first thing the Fishery Board of Scotland was doing for themselves was what the Irish Members insisted on having done for them by Government out of funds quite distinct from those applicable to fishery havens. The Fishery Board had sent an engineer down to Ness, who reported that the work would cost about £4,000. That was all they had done; and as to any labour or brain work, not a single particle of it had been expended in the matter. Notwithstanding his earnest representations to the Government to define what the duties of the Board were to be, the Committee was still left in the dark, and no information could be obtained. Unless some more good was to be clone than had been done hitherto, he despaired of any good object being accomplished by the Board.
§ MR. MOLLOYdesired to put a question to the Lord Advocate. The Estimate amounted to £16,000, and he found incidentally that out of this amount £8,414 was to be expended in salaries. Therefore, in order to expend for the benefit of the fishery interests in Scotland the sum of £16,000, the Government were taking £8,414 of the sum voted for salaries, and the only thing the Committee was told the Board had yet arranged to do was to provide a harbour which was to cost £4,000. Possibly the Lord Advocate might be able to explain to the Committee how it came to pass that, in order to expend £16,000, it was necessary to apply £8,000 in salaries?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that what the hon. Member referred to was by no means all the work the Fishery Board had done, or were doing. There was a very large administrative staff employed in connection with the herring brand; and he might say that this was an operation which, so far from resulting in any cost to the National Exchequer, brought in a very material profit of something like 1797 £6,000 each year. He thought that when the whole of the accounts were placed before the hon. Member, he would see that it was quite a mistake to suppose that they were spending £8,000 in salaries for the purpose of administering £16,000. There was a large sum of money received from the herring brand.
§ MR. DAWSONasked in what part of the Estimates he would find the credit account of the £16,000?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was in the ordinary Estimates. The hon. Member must bear in mind that this was merely a Supplementary Estimate. The whole of the matter was gone into in the ordinary Estimates, and the information would be found fully detailed there as to what was done with the money received. When the Estimates came up, he should be glad to give every information with regard to them.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter which, very naturally, did not attract the Scotch Members. When the Irish Members were asked to vote a sum of money for the Fishery Board in Scotland, they should bear in mind that this was an exceptional Vote for the encouragement of the Scotch Fisheries. He failed to see why, out of a common taxation, these sums should be demanded for the support of the Scotch Fisheries, while the Irish Fisheries, which, in comparison, were still more important to the well-being of the Irish population, were comparatively neglected. It was no answer, on the part of the Government, to say that the outlay for the purposes of the fisheries was more than repaid by the results. They were told that the branding system more than paid these expenses by the fees received. His contention was, that if the Scotch system were extended to Ireland in a similar way, the expenses of the same encouragement would be more than repaid by the returns. He wanted to know why they should be asked, from year to year, to support the Scotch Fisheries, when there was no similar treatment of the Irish Fisheries. Under ordinary circumstances, he would not attempt to interfere with the encouragement of the Scotch Fisheries, because he thought there could be no better way in which the money of the country could be expended than in promoting an industry 1798 like the Scotch Fisheries, which employed and supported so many thousands of worthy men, and maintained so large and industrious a population. But every argument which could be advanced in favour of the support of the Scotch Fisheries became an argument against the Vote while the same fair play was refused towards Ireland. ["Oh!"] Scotch Members cried "Oh!" He thought this objection came with double force from Irish Members, because on more than one occasion all the influence of Scotland had been employed with the Government for the purpose of preventing the encouragement of the Irish Fisheries. ["No!"] Hon. Members said "No!" but did they know the history of the Lymph Fishery, in regard to which the Irish interests had been opposed by united Scotland, headed by the Duke of Sutherland? He had heard a Scotch Member just now intimate that he would welcome a proposal for a grant of £250,000 for the encouragement of the Scotch Fisheries, and a similar sum for the encouragement of the Irish Fisheries; but it would require strong measures to induce the Government to observe the rules of equality and fair play as between Scotland and Ireland. Only a short time ago a Representative of the Irish Fisheries asked from the Government an advance of the paltry sum of £50 for the purpose of trying the experiment of the winter cure of herrings in Ireland, which might have provided the fishing population with a means of support. Winter-cured herrings from Scotland were sent all over the world. He read only the other day, in a Consular Report, that almost all the cured herrings which formed the staple article of diet in Silesia came from Scotland. The Irish people were refused every opportunity of developing their industries, and too often it was some Scotch Member who came forward and referred to the want of industry, the want of self-dependence, and the want of self-help which characterized the Irish people. Well, this was a specimen of the self-help of the Scotch. They got thousands upon thousands of pounds to help their industry, and beyond question the help they got from the Government was more than repaid in the fees returned. All the Irish people asked was that they should enjoy the same privileges. He repeated, that if Ireland was treated in the same way as Scotland, he would not 1799 say one word against the cost of encouraging the Scotch fishing industry. No section of the Scotch people was more remarkable for their industrial efforts. No section of the Scotch people was more deserving of encouragement and admiration than the fishing population; but he had felt that he ought not to allow this occasion to pass without renewing his protest against the system of denying to Ireland the encouragement which was lavished on other parts of the Kingdom.
§ MR. DAWSONremarked, that at any other time this question of fair play between Ireland and Scotland would have been an interesting topic; but at a time when they were told from the Treasury Bench of the fearful scenes of starvation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had seen in Ireland, and when they knew that the Irish seas were teeming with food for the starving population and for export abroad, this was even a more effective occasion for attacking the Government for having treated ponuriously so great and so prolific an interest. His contention was, that every industry ought to be encouraged and fostered; and he suggested that they would never extend the Irish Fisheries, or any other Irish industries, until they received the support and encouragement of the Government.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that the Vote now before the Committee is for the Scotch, and not for the Irish Fisheries.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he would go on then to the Scotch question. They were now called on year after year to vote these large sums of money for the benefit of Scotland, and that they did cheerfully because they were always glad to see the trade and industry of Scotland developing themselves. It was, however, painful to see the Scotch industries in so flourishing a state, while those of Ireland were depressed, and the people in a starving condition.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was altogether wrong in what he had stated with regard to Scotland, and he himself (Sir George Balfour) had assisted the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) in getting a large grant for a harbour in Ireland—namely, for Wicklow, for which £15,000 was granted, and a loan of £20,000 on low interest. It did not, therefore, become the hon. Member for Dungarvan 1800 to complain of the Scotch Members. No less than £15,000 were this year being voted to Ardglass, Kintail, and Arklow; and if they compared the payments made to Scotland with those made to Ireland, it would be found that the grants paid to Ireland far exceeded those given to Scotland. In regard to the branding question, the hon. Member knew very well that it was declared by the Commissioners of Irish Fisheries to be impossible to brand herrings from Ireland; therefore, there was no necessity for imposing the brand. [Mr. O'DONNELL dissented.] He observed that the hon. Member shook his head; but if he inquired, he would find that to be quite correct. He hoped that Irish Members had too much good sense and good judgment to indulge in such absurd comparisons and such extravagant statements. He trusted that they would new drop comparisons, and try to get for Scotland as much money as Ireland had got.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had appealed to him in regard to the expenditure on Irish harbours. He willingly responded to the appeal by saying that the very largest expenditure which had taken place in Ireland for some time past had been done entirely in the interests of Scotland. He had no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member had in his mind's eye the harbour of Ardglass, in the county of Down. Now, he happened to be the Inspector sent down by the Government to report upon the advisability and necessity of increasing the accommodation at Ardglass. Since then the Government had agreed to expend £15,000 upon that harbour.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked what the expenditure had been?
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, that, in his Report, the chief fact he laid stress upon, and the great fact which was brought before the Government, was that this harbour was more largely used by the Scotch fishing-boats than by any other class of boats. From that point the Scotch fishermen were able to carry on, with great success, their winter fishing; and the Scotch who used it were as ten to one compared with the Irish fishermen. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had alluded to another matter which had come under his (Mr. Blake's) experience. While he was on the Fishery Board in Ireland, the Board felt that a large income might be realized 1801 from the winter cure of herrings. They, therefore, recommended to the Secretary to the Treasury, the Predecessor of the hon. Gentleman who now occupied that position, that a sum of £50 should be given to them, in order to try the experiment, and after some correspondence and consideration that paltry sum of £50, to enable the Irish fishermen to try the experiment, was refused. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Mr. Blake) had a much better opportunity of knowing the facts than the hon. Gentleman had. He was an officer of the Fishery Board at the time, and he spoke from his own knowledge. He would tell the hon. Gentleman another fact, and that was that since the Union between Eng-gland and Ireland, Scotland had received £1,000,000 more for the encouragement of her fisheries than Ireland had. He asserted that positively. In a work he had written on the subject of the fisheries, that fact stood recorded, and it had never been contested. The hon. Gentleman must be aware—for he believed that he understood very well the fisheries of the country—that long after the bounties were removed from Ireland they were continued to Scotland, and that Scotland received every possible help she required for the purpose of harbours, and for other purposes, until she was able to walk alone. While no advances were made to distressed Irish fishermen, a sum of money annually continued to be given in aid of the Scotch fishermen, until they continued no longer to require it. He had the honour of sitting, about a year ago, upon an Inquiry, under the Presidency of the hon. Gentleman the junior Lord of the Treasury, upon the subject of the Scotch Fisheries; and the hon. Gentleman would recollect that he had worked very zealously in the interests of Scotland, no believed that the recommendations which he made at that time had since been carried into effect to a certain extent. He believed that it was a great mistake that they had not been carried out still further, because he thought that a great deal depended upon their being carried into effect. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) asked that £250,000 should be given to Scotland, and a similar sum to Ireland. He (Mr. Blake) would be glad to close with that offer. He was happy to say that, as far as the fisheries of Scotland 1802 and Ireland were concerned, there was ample room for both, and nothing could do more good than a wise and judicious expenditure upon harbours. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish went uncaught in consequence of the want of harbour accommodation. Perhaps it would be as well if he should now return to Scotland again, or he might find himself called to Order by the Chair. He thought that the Scotch people knew very well how to manage their own business; and he was indisposed to pass any, except a favourable, commentary on the late appointment which had been made upon the Fishery Board. Hon. Gentlemen had questioned the qualification of Sir Thomas Boyd, because he had written books and had filled the office of Lord Provost; but he (Mr. Blake) did not see that those facts interfered in any way with his qualification for the appointment. He was confident, from what he heard and knew of Sir Thomas Boyd, that the appointment was a most excellent one; and that under his very able Presidency the Scotch Fishery Board would do satisfactory work. He wished all good luck to it, and to the efforts to promote the fisheries of his country by the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson), who was a member of it. At the same time, he thought it was unjust to Ireland, when everything had been done that could be done for Scotland, when the Scotch Fisheries were now well able to walk alone and pay their own expenses from branding fees, to refuse the same advantages to Ireland which had so long and usefully been extended to the Sister Country.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, the Irish Members did not grudge the money asked for, for the encouragement of the fisheries, or that they should be able to go with superior gear and fish in Irish waters; but what they did object to—and he believed the objection was equally shared by Scotland—was that foreigners could come upon their coasts, and take away from their very doors the food which Nature had provided them with.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present, the Committee resumed.
§ (5.)£18, Lord Lieutenant's Household, Ireland.
1803
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,750, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments.
MR. O'BRIENbogged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £2,000. He thought it would be the duty of the Irish Members to mate every opposition in their power to this Vote so long as Ireland was administered upon the present principle, on the ground that so long, instead of deserving grants of money, the Chief Secretary and his assistants deserved the rebuke of this House, and at all events must expect no mercy from the Irish people or their Representatives. He hoped they would have other opportunities for discussing other portions of the right hon. Gentleman's policy; but the thing that it was most important for him to explain, and for the Committee to hear, was what was to become of the unfortunate people whom he (Mr. Trevelyan) saw in the first stages of starvation as far back as January last. The right hon. Gentleman had himself put this fact beyond dispute. It was part of the Government case for emigration, that the number of people who could not live in Ireland, who were wasting away towards death, owing to bad and insufficient food, might be counted by thousands and tens of thousands. Then what was the right hon. Gentleman going to do with them, until his only remedy, the emigrant ship, was ready? Was he going, as a matter of experimental philosophy, to wait and to see how much longer a human being could go on famishing by slow degrees in an Empire able to afford £55,000 for the repair of a Royal yacht? It was very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to visit the unfortunate peasantry of Donegal in their little cabins, and to and out all about their being hungry find half naked, and living in the same room as their cattle. He (Mr. O'Brien) only wished that thousands had any cattle to live with; but, unfortunately, although the Donegal peasants did manage to subsist upon seaweed, they were not able to live on the light of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance; and during the three months which had 1804 passed since his visit, what had these unfortunate people received from Dublin Castle except a few barren official Reports? A few bags of meal would have been of much more consequence. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he himself saw women and little children, whom he described to the House as starving, or next door to starving, in the early stage of the distress, now nearly three months ago. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these people should go on starving, losing health and strength, and their hope every day, while he was there theorizing about the workhouse test? Was it to be a crime, punishable with death, that these people refused to quench their little hearths for ever and go into the workhouse? He was almost afraid to dwell on the misery of which the right hon. Gentleman took so philosophical a survey, and he would turn for a moment to the argument by which English Ministers thought themselves justified in goading the people on to emigration. As it happened, he (Mr. O'Brien) could claim to have had rather more than three days' experience on a jaunting car among the cabins of the Irish poor. It was his business to make himself acquainted with every portion of these so-called congested districts, and he protested against the attempts which had been too often made in that House, and out of it, to speak of these districts as if they were incurable wastes and nothing more, and to represent some of the most hard-working peasants in the world as if they were little better than professional beggars, soliciting alms on the doorstep of England. On the contrary, he said that their poverty, instead of being due to nature, or to their own thriftlossness—instead of being due to their drinking tea, or buying dresses, as they had been so generously taunted with doing, their poverty was the direct result and consequence of the system which those who had gone before had set up in Ireland, and which the Government were now maintaining. The entire stigma and blame rested upon the Government and the people of this country, and not upon the Irish peasants themselves. It was their Cromwell who first drove them where they were. Probably he did not anticipate that his sins would fall on the heads of so many generations of Englishmen, or he would have driven them further than Con- 1805 naught. But even Cromwell did not find out what landlords, far more cruel than he, were not long in discovering—namely, that even in Con naught there were tracts of land too fertile for mere Celtic refugees—the tracts of land they had been driven to were too good for them. The first process was to drive them into Con naught; the next process was to sweep them off every bit of fertile land in Con naught, and to drive them back among the rocks and bogs, where it hardly seemed worth while to follow them. But there was a third process. The landlords pursued them, and found them out even in these wretched places; and he spoke from a pretty fair knowledge of the South and West of Ireland when he stated that as heavy rack rents per cultivable acre were exacted from them for the miserable patches they occupied in Kerry and Connemara as for the same extent of the richest land in Tipperary. Anybody who knew the interests of Irish landlordism could explain why. It was because, in dealing with the stubborn farmers of Tipperary, the landlords had to encounter a sort of "rigour beyond the law," which made them cautious in rent raising. He knew of many instances in the West in which the value of the land had been paid three and four and five times over in the shape of rent. He need only quote Mr. Tuke's book to show that it was estimated by that gentleman that the fee-simple value of the small holdings in Connemara had been purchased over and over again by the labour and reclamation and rent paid by the peasants who cultivated them. Mr. Tuke said, in the postscript to his pamphlet, that a friend of his, who was agent for some property in Yorkshire, writing from Galway on the 29th of July, 1880, said—
It is no wonder that Englishmen do not understand the demand for fixity of tenure in Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that He tenant's outlay throughout the district I am in, in the erection of buildings and cabins, in fencing the land and clearing away the stones, exceeds many times the value of the fee-simple of the land before such outlay.Yet these men were the very men on whom rack rents were piled up, until they were double and treble the valuation of the land. These were the men whose cattle-runs were taken from them and given to the graziers; who were taxed for the turf they raised on their 1806 own land, and for the very seaweed they drew out of the sea. These were the men whom Lord Sligo, for instance, grouped together in "co," as it was called, in Mayo, in order to evade payment of the poor rates which the law made him liable for in respect of holdings of a valuation under £4, so that he might be able to throw the payment of the poor rates upon these poor creatures themselves. It was these men who, for many long years, had been forced, in weariness and want, to trudge through England in search of employment through harvest time, and bring home the rent for the Lord Sligos. Yet, as if to add insult to injury, when bad seasons overtook those men, when they left themselves bare in the effort to raise the year's rent necessary to take advantage of the Arrears Act, they were taunted with being beggars and "ne'er-do-weels," because they had left themselves poor and starving. He denied that, in any country less fatally governed than Ireland, these men's case, even as it stood at present, would be hopeless. Their case was only hopeless in the sense that any man's case would be hopeless when he found himself, bound hand-and-foot, in sight of a granary, with the key in the pocket of the English Government. All the Irish people asked for was to give them fair play. They would then not only be able to live, but to live in comfort in these very places. They did not ask Parliament for its charity. If they would set any great works of National improvement going in any part of the country, they would swarm to it as they at present swarmed to England and Scotland for employment. Give them some encouragement to reclaim the hundreds of thousands of acres in front of their holdings; do something to enable them to catch the fishes teeming in the seas before their eyes; migrate some of them to land further inland, which Professor Baldwin said was unfit for grazing, and which they would be ready to dig and break up, as had been done before in England in the time of Henry VII. Mr. Froude mentioned that when the Isle of Wight was threatened with depopulation, when the Island was becoming deserted by its inhabitants, that House passed a very summary law—That no manner of person should take any several farms, more than one, whereof the 1807 yearly value should not exceed the sum of ten marks.Mr. Froude remarked that it was—An Act tyrannical in form, yet singularly justified by its consequences.The farmhouses were rebuilt, the land reploughed, and the Island repeopled. Now, if the Government proposed to treat Ireland to the penal legislation of Edward III.'s time, at least let them have the advantage of some of these methods of medieval relief, instead of the methods recommended by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If the grazing tracts must remain grazing tracts still, let them throw the burden of poverty on the wealthy graziers, who monopolised the lands of the people; let them saddle them with the poor rates, just as they did the duty upon distillers and the Succession Duty; but do not go on charging poor rates upon these miserable people. Let them, at all events, do something worthy of a Government that had the rich and unbounded resources of Ireland under their control. Let them do something that was more like statesmanship than falling back upon the workhouse and coffin-ship—their only instruments of government. If they would not do anything, all he could say was that the Chief Secretary could hardly hope to escape the execration of the world by exhibiting as paupers—branding them as hopeless paupers—men whom their own cruel system had reduced to poverty, and who would never find it necessary to emigrate if English officials would emigrate instead. Until the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee something like a satisfactory assurance, first as to the present of these unfortunate people, who were slowly dying, and next as to their future, he hoped the Committee would refuse to pass this Vote.
§ MR. TREVELYANThe speech of the hon. Member is not very relevant to the Vote which stands at the head of this Supplementary Estimate; but I am not sorry that the hon. Member has made it, because I know that the hon. Member desired to take an early opportunity of attacking me. In regard to this point, he has already attacked me elsewhere, in a manner which I am glad to have an opportunity of alluding to before this House and the country. The hon. Member—I beg his pardon, I should rather say a certain paper—has 1808 successively, and with singular ferocity, and in terms and with charges almost inconceivable to gentlemen accustomed to read only newspapers on this side of the Channel, attacked four Gentlemen who have been connected with Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLI rise to Order. We are discussing the salaries of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and the salaries of the officials connected with his Office. The right hon. Gentleman is also President of the Local Government Board, which has to deal with the question of distress in Ireland, and therefore I suppose he has a good deal to do with the direction of the policy of the Irish Government with reference to that matter. Therefore, the speech of my hon. Friend was strictly in Order. I wish to ask you now, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to go out of his way, as he was proceeding to do, to criticize any newspaper article written by my hon. Friend—[An hon. MEMBER: Or not; and Cries of "Oh!"]—or not written by my hon. Friend, but appearing in a newspaper, at all events, of which he is editor, in reference to matters not connected with this Vote, or with the relief of the distress in Ireland?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member, in his remarks on this Vote, seemed to me to travel over a wide range indeed, yet I was unwilling to interrupt him. But I have observed nothing in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who is now replying to the hon. Member, which is not completely in Order. Indeed, they seem to me to be somewhat called forth by the speech of the hon. Member.
§ MR. TREVELYANI was going to say that the newspaper to which I was referring has held up to the execration of the people of Ireland four Gentlemen. Now, I wish to explain to the Committee what being held up to the execration of the people of Ireland moans. I say that four men have been so held up; these men were, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), Mr. Burke, Mr. Justice Lawson, and Mr. Field, and I ask hon. Members to observe the connecting link. Within the last few weeks the same class of attacks has begun to be directed, against me; and I have now in this newspaper been told that I am 1809 the most hated man in Ireland; that up to this time it had been believed that no one could be found more inhuman, or more destitute of feeling, than my right hon. Predecessor, whose life was attempted three times; but at last a man has been found, more inhuman, and more destitute of common feeling still. I have been told, in regard to a speech I made on a former occasion, and to which reference has bean made in the most stirring terms—I have been told that that speech was heard throughout the House, except on the Tory Benches, with a feeling little short of horror. In the first place, with regard to the Tory Benches, I must say what I have never mentioned before, because it was not necessarily called for, that this policy which the hon. Member has been denouncing was a reversal of the policy of the Conservative Government in 1879–80. No doubt, this reversal of policy was accepted by the Conservative Party themselves, and adopted by the general consent of the nation. If the Tory Party have changed their minds, I believe the nation has gone against them. But for this newspaper in Ireland to tell the House that this enunciation of policy was heard on the Liberal Benches with horror, is nothing else—I am speaking only of the newspaper, I have nothing to do with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Brien)—is nothing else than a calumny, because it was not heard on the Liberal Benches with horror, but with adhesion, and with a sort of subdued applause which came from men who agreed with the sentiments of the speech, although they were not anxious to cheer it lest they might give offence to others. And when a division came there were only two Liberal Members who did not vote with the Government. As for myself, I have been for 17 years in this House, and hon. Members know very well whether I am inhuman and inconsiderate, and desire to take pleasure in the sufferings and misery of the poor. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), coming here with the experience of a fortnight, is not likely to persuade my old Colleagues, either on the other side of the House or on this, that I have been all this time a monster, such as I have been described, rather than a gentleman with the ordinary sense and feeling of gentlemen of this House. I 1810 have said that the speech of the hon. Gentleman was irrelevant to the Vote before the Committee; but I must say a single word on the class of persons he has attacked, for he has attacked others as well as myself. The class I refer to is the landlords of the congested districts to which he refers. The hon. Member says that the misery of these poor people has come from the landlords insisting on their rack rents; and I think I heard him say, insisting on them until a vigour beyond the law taught them to take another course. Now, what have rack rents to do with the sufferings of these distressed districts? Allow me to refer to one of these distressed and congested districts to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. In the one which I inspected the rents amounted to something like 30s. apiece; and will anyone pretend to tell the Committee that whether a man pays 30s., or does not pay it, makes a difference as to whether he lives a life a human being ought to live, or does not? Even were the 30s. exacted, it would not make so much difference; but it is not exacted, and in this district for four or five years successively none of these people have paid any rent at all, and the landlord is not a man who cares to enforce it. To say that in this district of Donegal the Messrs. Musgrove are inclined to coin the blood of the people into drachms, is not true. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has led us into these regions. I am a little suprised, I must own, that some hon. Members who have had a long experience in the House should imagine that I could sit quiet when I was told that I had earned the execrations of the people of Ireland.
MR. O'BRIENWhat I said was, that if you could not propose anything better than the workhouse, or the emigrant ship, you could hardly hope to escape the execration of the people.
§ MR. TREVELYANAt any rate, hon. Gentlemen who cheered that sentiment will feel, in all fairness and justness, that it was one that I could not listen to without, at any rate, making a protest. As regards this Supplementary Vote, neither my own salary as Chief Secretary for Ireland, nor the salary of my Colleagues upon the Local Government Board, come into question. The Supplementary Vote, for the most part, consists of the salaries and allow- 1811 ances of the new Under Secretary for Crime and Police, and for subsistence allowance to the Under Secretary for Ireland and his Private Secretary. Hon. Members in that quarter of the House said, when we were introducing the Prevention of Crime Bill, that instead of having more stringent laws we ought to alter and improve our police system. Well, the best way to do that is to alter and re-organize the Police and Constabulary and the Dublin Detective Force, and to have a gentleman who was able to give his whole time and attention to that important branch of administration. The gentleman we have appointed is Mr. Jenkinson, and his salary forms a very large part of this extra Vote. In a great crisis the Government thought it right to look round for a successor to Mr. Burke, and they had to consider two things. They had, in the first place, to choose with promptitude. The Chief Secretary of State was dead; the Under Secretary was dead. My noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant had only been three days in his place, and it was necessary to have the machinery of the Government set going with the greatest possible rapidity. Promptitude was, therefore, the first object. The next great object was to choose the most able man we could get; and, therefore, we took from the English Public Service a man who appeared to be pointed out by everyone. I refer to Mr. Hamilton. He was a man who was very much relied upon, and he gave up a most agreeable and delightful position in order to go to Ireland, where he gained no advantages at all, but really suffered a pecuniary loss. Mr. Hamilton, who, with great public spirit, accepted the appointment, simply asked for that common subsistence allowance which is given to an ordinary clerk when away from his own home. These are the two principal items in the Estimates, and I think hon. Members, in order to make the discussion in Committee practical and business-like, will do well to pass them by, and to direct their attention to those more material points of the Estimates which may be attacked.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that their debates in Committee ought to be practical and business-like; but as there were so few occasions under the New Rules of raising important questions, he thought 1812 that his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had selected an apt and suitable occasion for raising the whole question of the administration of Ireland. He was sorry he was obliged to say that the right hon. Gentleman had approached the discussion of the question in a most unfortunate spirit; and his sorrow arose from this consideration. If he had regarded the advent of the right hon. Gentleman to official life with hope, that hope was rapidly dying, even if it was not already dead. The right hon. Gentleman claimed his right to protest against the references which had been made to him. He admitted the right of the right hon. Gentleman so long as he conducted his protest in a rational manner, and in a reasonable spirit; but he (Mr. Sexton), in his turn, protested with all his might against the right of the right hon. Gentleman to stifle debate in that House under an ad captandum appeal to English prejudice. What right had the right hon. Gentleman reply to an indictment of the Government upon the question of distress by attacking an Irish Member? The right hon. Gentleman talked of irrelevancy. What was it to the House what an Irish newspaper had written, or who was responsible for it? The question before them was the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the policy, or the inadequacy of the policy, of the Government upon the question of distress. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had referred to a county in which the admixture of English blood was larger than in any other county in Ireland; and Englishmen must give credit to their own race for the obstinacy with which the landlords had been met in that county. Never had an Englishman betrayed more ignorance, or more thoughtlessness, than the right hon. Gentleman when he taunted the hon. Member for Mallow with his experience of a fortnight in that House. His experience of what? Was it in that Chamber that a man learnt to know Ireland?
§ MR. TREVELYANI said that there were Gentlemen in this House who had sat here with me for 17 years, and I appealed to them as to my personal character against the statements made by the hon. Member.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had apparently contrasted 1813 his own knowledge of Ireland with that of his hon. Friend. [Mr. TREVELLYN: No!] The right hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friend had attempted to hold him up to execration; but was not that purely hypothetical? It depended upon a hypothesis which might never arise. What his hon. Friend said was that the administration of the right hon. Gentleman would be an utter failure, if he persisted in dealing with the large distress in the West of Ireland by means of the inhuman and barbarous alternative of the workhouse test, or the emigrant ship; and that in that case the right hon. Gentleman would inevitably, in the end, expose himself to the execration of the Irish people. Nobody more sincerely deplored than he that the time should ever come, or would be more sincerely sorry, when the gifts the right hon. Gentleman possessed in regard to literature, and in his public life should be worse than wasted—that his life should be wasted and his reputation thrown away on the dreary morass of English politics in Ireland. Now, why did the right hon. Gentleman keep the Committee in the dark? He had led the House to expect at the end of the Autumn Session that the House would be presented with Reports upon this subject. He was aware that the Local Government Board had made numerous Reports as to the state of distress in Ireland. Where were those Reports? Why should they moulder in the pigeon-holes of Dublin Castle? Why should they not be communicated to the House? Why were the Resolutions passed by various Boards of Guardians last winter, not only warning the Government of the actual existence of distress, but pointing out, with the knowledge of men who possessed full acquaintance with the facts, the best method of dealing with that distress—why were they kept back? The House was asked to discuss the question entirely in the dark; and he complained with bitterness that the right hon. Gentleman had placed the Estimates before them that night without accompanying them with that information which would alone enable them to come to an accurate decision upon the question. His hon. Friend had been taunted with his experience of a fortnight. No other man in that House better knew the condition of the farmers and peasantry of Ireland than his hon. 1814 Friend, who had been for years connected with the Press of Ireland; and it was a curious instance of the irony of Irish politics exhibited in that House, that the Chief Secretary should content himself with an inspection conducted in a carriage with closed windows, and should taunt a man with ignorance whose knowledge and experience of Ireland was second to that of none. Of course, they had to come to London to hear such taunts. Was it not true that the right hon. Gentleman left a certain town in the North of Ireland, and drove for 15 or 20 miles on a tour of inspection with the windows of the carriage almost hermetically closed?
§ MR. TREVELYANIf the hon. Gentleman puts the question to me, I have already answered it. I have already explained that my remarks as to the experience of the hon. Member for Mallow did not refer to his experience of Ireland, but to his experience of me in this House. As to my celebrated tour in a closed carriage, it is scarcely worth while mentioning; but I have already explained to the House that that journey was made from Donegal to Killybeg through a district in which there was no distress, and I certainly did ride in a closed carriage.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, there might be a difference of opinion as to the distress which existed in that district at the time of the right hon. Gentleman's tour of inspection. Upon that morning, when the windows of the right hon. Gentleman's carriage were closed, he passed through a district, perhaps unconsciously, that was permeated with distress. There happened to be on his trail a newspaper reporter who found in that district a cottage in which a woman and four children were starving; they had not tasted food for two days; and the right hon. Gentlemen, in his closed carriage, bowled unconsciously by without seeing them. He objected to such a tour being called a tour of inspection. The Irish Members were not responsible for the action of wild and undisciplined minds. They were responsible for the manner in which they discharged their duty to their constituents and the public; and, for his own part, he would never abate one word from what he conceived to be truth because criticisims upon public men had led to violence. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Mi- 1815 nister cheered that sentiment. He should like to know if the Prime Minister, during a long and eminently successful life, had imposed silence upon his tongue because of consequences to those who became the objects of his criticism? He claimed the right of following so eminent an example; and for his own part, and that of his Friends, they would ever in that House speak what they knew to be the truth, and uphold what they knew to be justice, without the slightest regard to what might be the consequences to any person. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would never again meet an argument by pointing out that the consequences might be violence to others. If violence resulted to others it was not the fault of the Irish Members, but it was the fault of the evil system maintained in Ireland against their will, and in the face of their denunciations. He assured the Committee, and the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), who appeared sensitive upon this part of the question, that the Irish Members would never cease from speaking the truth, whatever the consequences might be. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had been told that his remarks were not relevant. They were strictly relevant, because his hon. Friend had proposed remedies large and drastic. What had been done in the West of Ireland as to the construction of harbours? Had the Local Government Board, or the Board of Works, taken any action to provide a single day's wage or labour for any man in Ireland? If that question was answered in the negative, both the Local Government Board and the Government stood condemned. Was it true that the Prelates of Connaught, who understood as well as any man in the world the condition of the people of Ireland, had waited upon the Government and implored them to authorize the construction of productive works? And had not the Government, by maintaining a system of red-tape, made their effort useless? Did not the Bishops implore the Government to withdraw the regulation requiring a farmer, on receiving a loan, to give security for it?
§ MR. COURTNEYSecurity for the repayment of loans has long ago been dispensed with.
§ MR. SEXTONasked if other security was still required?
§ MR. COURTNEYNot for the repayment of a loan.
§ MR. SEXTONinquired if the Committee was to understand that a loan was still embarrassed by security?
§ MR. COURTNEYSecurity is required for the expenditure of the money in order to see that it is expended for the purpose for which it is granted; but the security for the repayment of the loan has been dispensed with.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid that, nevertheless, the security was so embarrassing as to render the loan of no value.
§ MR. COURTNEYThere is only a limited temporary security. As I have already stated, the security for the repayment of a loan in 20 years is dispensed with.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he should have imagined that that was a matter for inspection. It was exceedingly hard for any poor farmer in Ireland to obtain any security whatever, and why not have allowed the loan to be granted after inspection? The money could be paid in instalments; and if the Department provided the means of inspection, so as to ascertain the actual position of the borrower, this embarrassing and absurd security might be got rid off. But it seemed to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to defeat whatever gift Parliament made to the Irish people. Parliament had originally been moved by an impulse of justice, perhaps by an impulse of generosity. He could say, honestly and sincerely, that that was the impulse of the Prime Minister; but it unfortunately happened that whenever Parliament passed any Act, the Treasury made some underhand arrangement to take away the merit of the gift. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in regard to this question of distress, that if he persevered in the course he was pursuing; if he met reasonable arguments by appeals to passion and prejudice; if he attempted to stifle debate by terrorism; if he met rational proposals for relief and distress in the spirit of a cold and obstinate doctrinaire, it would be better for him and his reputation that he should abandon Office in a month, rather than that he should remain in it for another year.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to press the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord 1817 Lieutenant, more particularly on some points which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and subsequently ended by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to answer the main point of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow. His hon. Friend wanted to know if the Government intended to adhere to insistance upon their policy of the workhouse test as the main condition of relief? His hon. Friend wished further to know what steps the Government were prepared to take in regard to relief measures? The Chief Secretary had turned these questions aside by an entirely irrelevant attack on some newspaper article which had appeared in a journal of which his hon. Friend was the editor. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely evaded and neglected to answer the important point of saving from famine Irish women and children during the next few months in the congested districts, and he had gone off into the side issue of an attack upon his hon. Friend. He wished to point out to the Committee that he and his hon. Friends were strictly governed by precedent in raising this question of Irish distress. On the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the beginning of the second Session of 1880—the first Session of the present Parliament—he had raised precisely the same question upon the same Vote. It was not a Supplementary Vote, but the main Vote; and he knew that if they allowed this Vote to pass the necessity would be gone, for the people would be dead before the main Vote was reached. He, therefore, could not allow this last chance to be thrown away of drawing the attention of the Government to the important and weighty matters which they were now discussing. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman, in the debate on the Address, several questions which the right hon. Gentleman was not able to answer, being prevented by the Rules of the House from replying to those questions. He had asked him then, and he asked him again, whether or not, when he pledged himself a few days before the end of last Session to give outdoor relief in Ireland in order to save the people from hunger, he knew it was 1818 the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to address the letter to the Local Government Board which appeared a fortnight afterwards? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware then, when he gave that solemn pledge, that the Lord Lieutenant was about to write to his Department in Ireland a letter insisting upon the rigid enforcement of the workhouse test as a condition of relief? That was a plain question, and was capable of an easy answer. He wished also to know whether, before Lord Spencer issued this cold-blooded letter—as cold-blooded as any that had ever been issued from a Department of the State in Ireland—whether the Cabinet was consulted in regard to the letter, or whether it was done on the responsibility of Lord Spencer, in order to satisfy some idea of his own in regard to the best means of driving the Irish people by starvation into an unwilling emigration? Was the Cabinet consulted or informed before Lord Spencer wrote this letter to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board? Dr. James Ferguson, of Whithorn, in the county of Donegal, in reporting upon the condition of the poor in that district, said that the people were suffering from poverty and destitution, and this was clearly evidenced in their appearance. Diarrhœa and influenza prevailed amongst them, the outcome of insufficient food and general debility. And this was a Report prepared by one of their own Commissioners, a paid officer connected with the Poor Law system in Ireland. Dr. Ferguson went on to say—
That in almost every house there was a sick patient, especially amongst the old folk, for whom medicine was useless, the only thing necessary being nourishment. He had been sadly disappointed on visiting one of the schools. He saw nothing but dull eyes and languid faces, betraying weariness and depression of spirits. He also noticed the dreadful sleeping accommodation with which the houses were supplied.In order to meet that frightfully alarming state of affairs, the Chief Secretary said the Government insisted upon the enforcement of the workhouse test. They knew very well what the enforcement of the workhouse test meant. They knew that it meant more deaths from starvation; that the famine fever would break out in extensive districts, both before and after people sought that remedy. That was the experience they 1819 had already had, and the experience which every one of those who lived in any part of Ireland had gained. The English Members of that House did not know the chronic distress which was the portion of the labouring classes and the smaller tenants in the Western districts every winter that came round. But it was also the fact that the people, rather than break up their homes, rather than leave their little huts and go into the workhouse, would endeavour to put up with the pangs of poverty, and wait until death reached, or almost reached, their door. He was not using exaggerated language; he was not capable of using exaggerated language; but it was the history of successive attempts to relieve famine and distress in Ireland, that if they insisted upon the workhouse test, people would die in large numbers, and that many others would become so infected with disease, and by the march of disease and by starvation, that the workhouse would come too late to save their lives. They were told that they ought to advise the people. They would be very glad to give their advice; but he could not wonder much, as he knew what the workhouse system in Ireland was, that the people refused to accept it. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), now in prison, had repeatedly urged the people to go into the workhouse; but they would not go there. They had never gone there in famines far worse than the present. They had steadily refused to go until pestilence took hold of them, and until it was too late to save thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives. He did not wonder at this, because he knew very well what the workhouse system in Ireland was. Little children were separated from their mothers; young girls were exposed to the contamination of associating with immoral women; husbands were separated from their wives; and all the ties of home were broken up and entirely set aside. It was not surprising, in the face of this, that the people in these districts should go on from day to day husbanding their last bag of meal, and, when that meal was gone, resorting to seaweed rather than enter the doors of an Irish workhouse. The priests knew, and everyone connected with Ireland knew, that it was utterly impossible to induce them to go into the workhouse. They asked, as a means of stemming 1820 the distress, that a small grant, by way of loan, not exceeding £150,000, should be made, in order to enable outdoor relief to be administered. Let the Local Government Board appoint a regular officer to see that the money was not squandered. That was the policy of the late Government. They gave outdoor relief, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) gave outdoor relief. Then why should not the present Chief Secretary? It was only because Lord Spencer had set his mind on facilitating a scheme of emigration by insisting on the workhouse test. The Government would undertake a very great responsibility if they ignored the signs of the times, and left the people to their inevitable fate, unless something was done, and that, too, very shortly. The Government were very foolish for having undertaken their present policy; because they were deliberately spreading abroad the idea that they wished to take advantage of the famine and hunger of the people to force them to emigrate. He ventured to say that everyone in Ireland was disposed to consider any well-prepared scheme of emigration brought in by the Government, with a desire to give it a fair chance; but he doubted if such a policy as this would not render it absolutely impossible to support any scheme of emigration, but would render it essential for the Irish Members to offer a strong opposition to any system of emigration bolstered up by such means as these. This question of the relief of distress in those districts must not be confused with the permanent amelioration of the condition of the people. These were two separate and distinct problems. The Government must save their lives; they could not let the people die. [An hon. MEMBER: You have the Land League money.] That money was not subscribed for purposes of charity, but to stem the tide of landlord oppression, and it would continue to be used for that purpose. It was entirely inadequate for the purposes of wholesale relief which was required in these districts. The Government were responsible for the state of affairs now existing in Ireland, and they would be held responsible for it at the proper time. The people would die if the Government did not do something; and he thought he was entitled to an answer on the points 1821 that had been raised. Did the Chief Secretary mean to maintain the workhouse test as a condition of outdoor relief? Was he aware, when he pledged himself to give outdoor relief, that Lord Spencer intended to write that letter to the Local Government Board of which he was President? Were the Government aware that this policy was to be inaugurated—this change of policy in Ireland? Up to that time outdoor relief had always been given in periods of pressure; and what was now demanded was that the wants of the people should be attended to, and that they should be saved from starvation and pestilence. The Irish people would then be willing to consider with the Government other proposals for the permanent amelioration of the condition of these districts, whether by emigration or migration.
§ MR. S. SMITH, as a new Member, wished to say a few words on this subject. He was sure that the universal feeling in the House was one of great sympathy with the poor people who were in distress in Ireland; but he was grieved to see matters of recrimination mixed up with questions of distress. Most hon. Members wished to look at this subject from a humanitarian point of view, with the sole desire to help the unfortunate people in the West of Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said very few English Members were aware of the condition of the people in Ireland. He himself had shared several times in measures for the relief of distress in Ireland; he had made himself acquainted with the subject; and the judgment to which he had come was that which he was sure was universal in the House—namely, that it was quite impossible for the people in those barren and remote districts ever to be in any but a state of chronic poverty. They must remain in a condition of perfect hopelessness; because it was found that every few years this misery recurred, if possible, in an aggravated form; and the conclusion of philanthropic men desirous of benefiting the people was that there was no practical remedy but either emigration or migration. The land on the West of Ireland would not maintain more than half, perhaps scarcely more than a fourth, of the population in decent comfort; and for the sake of the people themselves, the best thing would be to take them from these abodes of hope- 1822 less misery, which had become stereotyped, and move them into new scenes and surroundings. He was very sure that if the Government would introduce any liberal measure for removing the people in a comfortable manner, so as to maintain home ties as far as possible, the House would vote any reasonable sum of money for that purpose. It seemed to him that no practical scheme presented such advantages as emigration to Manitoba. There they could acquire fertile land virtually for nothing; and it would be quite possible to move a large section of the population to that country, and insure them happiness and comfort. But such was the aversion of people to emigration, that he should be glad if some scheme of migration could also be devised. If any reasonable plan were advanced by which these people could be settled in comfort at home, he was sure the House would be most willing to consider it. At all events, many hon. Members would be thankful if they could effect some permanent good for the people of Ireland. He did not himself intend to suggest anything specific, because he felt sure the Government had given all possible consideration to the subject; he rose rather to assure the Committee that there was a large measure of true sympathy for the Irish people, and perfect readiness to discuss any plan proposed in a reasonable and kindly way.
COLONEL DAWNAYsaid, he quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith), which were in remarkable contrast with those of several previous speakers. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had made several suggestions for the relief of distress in Ireland, one being that the great grazing districts should be broken up; and he had observed that at present the starving inhabitants of some districts had to choose between the workhouse and the coffin-ship. At all events, the workhouse would save them from actual starvation if they choose to go there; and with regard to the "coffin-ship," or emigrant ship, if it took them from misery and famine to comfort and prosperity, he thought they had reason to be thankful to the emigrant ship. But hon. Members from Ireland would have nothing to say to emigration; they set their faces against it. He believed that was because they dared not allow the people to escape; they must keep them 1823 as the tools of their agitation, which I had been so well described by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Were there no starving paupers in this country, and within a short distance of that House, that the whole time of Parliament must be taken up with starving Ireland? England had lavished millions on Irish starvation, and would do so again; but that would be in spite of, and not because of, the hon. Members for the City of Cork and Mallow and their Friends.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), considering his antecedents, would be heart-breaking to the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman could not be ignorant of the Poor Law principles in Ireland when he proposed this system. Lord John Russell, when that Poor Law system was introduced, recommended the reclamation of waste lands and reproductive works. That was the spirit with which the system was proposed; but they had had more recent evidence of what the Poor Law could do if properly worked. How was it worked in England at the time of the Cotton Famine? Was there any red-tape then? Were there any of these heart-breaking statements, that the people must die or break up their homes? No; the Poor Law system in England was elastic and self-governing; but the Government were utterly powerless to do anything in an elastic way with the Poor Law system in Ireland. When the President of the Poor Law Board, at the time of the Cotton Famine, took upon himself to suspend red-tapeism in Lancashire, and to give outdoor relief, the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright.) wrote to him and urged that the widest discretion should be given to the Guardians to deal with that great evil, for there was no body to which the spending of the ratepayers' money could be more wisely intrusted. Contrast that with a recent case, in which when some Guardians in Ireland ventured to be elastic and to spend some money, they were at once discharged by the Auditor of the Local Government Board. An hon. Member who had just spoken had asked what could be done in the present emergency? What could be done in the shape of emigration or migration? He would rather put it: What could be done from 1824 migration and emigration? As a last resource, he would go to emigration, for he was not one of those sentimental people who would keep the poor at home to starve, and when the last resource became necessary, he would even advise emigration; but he was strongly against emigration while the country was teeming with undeveloped wealth, which was sufficient to support its population. What did Lord John Russell say when the population of Ireland was 8,000,000? He said that although he found that vagrancy required the Poor Law in Ireland, yet—
Let it not be supposed that I believe, when I speak of emigration, that the present 8,000,000 of inhabitants living in Ireland may not be very well sustained with good and sufficient means by the soil of Ireland?The right hon. Gentleman now stated, after many years of beneficial English, legislation, Ireland was not able to support 4,000,000 or 5,000,000. It had been said that the action of the Land League had led to crime in Ireland; but it was the Poor Law system that had led to crime. That was the opinion of a Government official high in office in Ireland. Dr. Hancock stated that not only was the Poor Law system bad, but was the sure origin of a fruitful crop of crime, which the Government were for ever punishing, but never eradicating. He stated that one of the earliest cases of shooting at an employé of a landlord last autumn was the shooting of the agent of an English clergyman who demanded his rents, but refused to make any abatement, though so many landlords had done so. He, no doubt, thought the Poor Law in Ireland was the same as in England, and that outdoor relief would be given without his reducing the rents; and upon that misconception he pressed for his rents, families were ruthlessly broken up, anger and revengeful feelings were engendered, and the outcome was murder. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr S. Smith) asked what could be done; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to answer the question. The Government had been told in Reports from their own Commissioners, Professor Baldwin, in his evidence before the Commission had stated, that in Donegal half of an estate had been given over to the people to cultivate free of rent for a time; they had reclaimed the land, and the holdings were now paying 1825 a good rent; while the land on the other side of the estate was not paying 6d. Could it be said that there were not productive resources in Donegal after that? In the chapter on Peasant Proprietary in his Political Economy, Mr. John Stuart Mill described how the Waste Lands Society took half the side of a mountain, gave the people £2 apiece for temporary sustainment; the people reclaimed the land, and before their leases were half out they repaid all the money, and had live and dead stock in superabundance for their maintenance. That case was only typical of hundreds and hundreds in Ireland. It was time to tell the people and the Government of England, and the whole world, that the Irish people were not unreasonable, and that when they had exhausted the resources of their own country, which at present could support them in a state of prosperity and wealth, they would be glad to send the honourable surplus away from Ireland; but while the resources of the country were undeveloped they would not allow the English Government to outrage their countrymen by hunting them away from their own land.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would invite the Committee to make a descent for a moment from the height to which they had been invited by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) to the practical issue before them. He had listened with great pleasure to the practical observations of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), who was well known to have some actual knowledge of this subject; and he was glad to find one hon. Member giving utterance to sentiments which he himself had frequently expressed. He had always said there was only one sound practical remedy for the great mass of evil which existed in Ireland, and that remedy he had always called migration, though in a different sense from that in which it had been used that night. He had always held that the removal of a British subject from one part of Her Majesty's Dominions to another was simply migration, even though the removal might be from the United Kingdom, so-called, to some other portion of the Empire. He used the words "so-called," because he believed, in reality, that the whole of Her Majesty's Empire was as firmly united as was what was called the 1826 United Kingdom; and, therefore, he used the term "migration," because he thought the removal of the surplus population from one portion of the British Empire to another could not be termed emigration. But without bandying arguments upon that question, he was glad to find that it was recognized by practical philanthropists on the Liberal side of the House that emigration or migration, whichever was the correct term, was the true remedy for the existing evils in Ireland. Without dwelling further upon that matter, which he thought had been raised not quite within the four corners of the discussion on the Vote, he would say that if the Government intended seriously to promote emigration, no agency could, in his opinion, be less calculated to carry that system out effectually than that in whose hands it had been placed—namely, the Poor Law Guardians. When a clause was introduced into the Arrears of Rent Bill, somewhat late, it was thought, by some who had not had his painful experience, that the House was taking a very large step in the direction of promoting emigration; but, as he had remarked to some of his friends at the time, no practical step at all was taken. The Government had handed over the administration of the only good clause in that measure to an Executive body, who were bitterly hostile to the principles of that clause. Hon. Members spoke of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as having guaranteed his authority to the statement that the representatives of the ratepayers, the Guardians, were the proper persons to administer the money of the ratepayers; but the right hon. Gentleman had never gone much into the details of Irish affairs; he had only generalized upon them; and any person who knew anything of the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland knew perfectly well that the Guardians were representatives of those who paid a very infinitesimal fraction of the rates—they were the representatives of those who elected the Guardians; but they took very good care that the rates should come from the pockets of other people. The Guardians represented those who invited them to retard the operation of the Emigration Clauses; they were the nominees of agitators, sometimes agitators themselves. 1827 He trusted Her Majesty's Government, seeing that emigration was no longer a mere Tory "fad"—that it was no longer a panacea recommended exclusively from that Bench, but urged upon the Government by well-known philanthropists and practical men in all parts of the House—would devise some measure for carrying, out in a bonâ fide manner, the power already vested in the hands of the Government under several Acts of Parliament. Under an Act passed 40 years ago large powers were vested, not only in the local authority, but also, with the consent of the Treasury, in private individuals, for the promotion of emigration, by means of advances from the Consolidated Fund. These powers might wisely be called into operation. Why could not Mr. Tuke be multiplied—to use an Hibernicism—many times, and in every way great agencies be called into existence, private agencies or acting under Government control, to carry out the work which the Guardians did their utmost to defeat? So long as action was left to the hands of the Guardians there would be no practical result. Her Majesty's Government might now show that they had realized that emigration was the only true remedy for the state of things in Ireland; and he trusted they might use some efficient agency to carry out sections that already existed in Acts of Parliament. He, for one, was very glad that the Government had declined to listen to the demand for subsidies for relief works. He more especially desired to express his satisfaction at this, though, as was well known at the time when he was responsible for Irish affairs, the Government took an opposite course. But the Government then had to deal with a very different state of affairs. They were compelled to relax the rules as to outdoor relief, and to have recourse to those agencies; but he must own he would be sorry to see the experiment tried again. There were then no means of avoiding it. The circumstances were widely different to what they were now. There were no practical means at the moment for encouraging emigration. The Canadian Government, however, eventually acceded to a suggestion made during the late Government's tenure of Office. But he ought to observe that these proposals were never formally submitted by either the Home or Dominion Government, as 1828 they had not advanced at that time beyond the stage of communications between himself and the representatives of various Emigration Offices, and with those who acted for the Canadian Government, with a view to obtaining the assistance of that Government to a comprehensive system of emigration. He had always maintained that an ill-advised scheme of emigration was calculated to do immense harm. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other night, mentioned certain statistics showing that a large number of people had been exported from Ireland during a certain time. Now, that sort of emigration was most undesirable, inducing the able-bodied to leave the land, leaving the aged and helpless behind, a most unwise course, especially, also, when the emigrants left their native land without proper precautions for their comfort and safety in transition, and when they landed. Such exportation was calculated to do infinite harm. It was not only cruel and inhuman to the poor persons connected with it, but it not unnaturally engendered a feeling against even a wholesome scheme of well-considered emigration. Therefore, he had always felt that until, by the aid of our Colonies, some well thought out, duly-prepared scheme could be presented to the Irish people it would be unwise to raise the cry for emigration. He never, for a moment, advocated the wholesale exportation of Irish people without proper arrangements for their well-being; but since the Canadian Government had placed at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government their willing assistance and co-operation, without which emigration could not be safely conducted, he hoped the Government at home would not be slow to avail themselves of such co-operation; and, working in harmony with the Dominion Government, or other of our Colonies, would see their way to form a comprehensive scheme of State-aided emigration to relieve Ireland, and to confer an advantage on the British Empire at large.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was very glad that some views which were put forward in the debate on the Address, and which had reference to a permanent remedy for chronic Irish distress, had already gone so far in impressing themselves on opinion on the Opposition side of the House. He 1829 gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he was anxious, as well as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), that whatever emigration from Ireland was promoted by the Government should be promoted in a systematic manner, giving a large amount of comfort and expectations of prosperity to the people who left for another country. He addressed the House at length on this subject in the debate on the Address, and would, therefore, not dwell upon it; but he was thankful to the hon. Member for Liverpool that he advocated a plan that embraced a concurrent scheme of migration and emigration; and he could assure him, from intimate knowledge of many parts of the West of Ireland where the suffering from distress was great, that there were large tracts of land there the fee-simple of which was so small that it could be easily purchased by Government, under a scheme that would allow a tenant to be put on the land with advantage to himself and a guarantee for his permanent prosperity in his new home. He was glad that reference had been made to the offer of the Canadian Government in making proposals for the reception of Irish emigrants; and he would make only one observation upon it now, to contrast the generosity of the Canadian Government with the niggardliness of the Imperial Parliament. If it was true, as the hon. Member said, that various Acts of Parliament had been passed heretofore to promote emigration, and if it was equally true that they had not been effectual in carrying out that object, then it was perfectly plain that a new Act of Parliament was required to deal serviceably with this large, this grave, and important question. He trusted, notwithstanding the pressure of other Public Business, he might have an opportunity, on an early day after Easter, to invite the attention of the House to the subject; and he could promise the House that he should approach the consideration of the subject with a great sense of responsibility indeed; but, as claiming to represent a large section of the country, now in a state of great distress, he should give the House some practical suggestions on the point. But the real point to which the attention of the House ought to be directed was not the scheme of the hon. Member who 1830 recently addressed the Committee. This was not the time for it. The question was, whether it was in the power of the House, within the next few weeks, even supposing it put aside every other Business, to bring real relief to the distressed districts in Ireland by means of legislation? He believed that outdoor relief had a demoralizing tendency; but if precautions against coming distress were neglected until the last moment there was no other resource. If direct measures were taken beforehand, and the requisite machinery were provided for the relief of distress, then the Government would not be obliged to fall back on this resource. But, owing to the state of feeling in the West of Ireland, the Government were face to face with the fact that the people were not willing to be relieved in the workhouses; and if the intensity of the distress became extensive, as it was feared by many of the clergy and Bishops of the West it would become, it would be impossible for any machinery at the disposal of the Boards of Guardians alone to cope with the difficulty. Therefore, on the Local Government Board of Ireland rested the responsibility of taking adequate measures to meet the distress at the present time. The harsh periodical cry of famine which proceeded from Ireland was not only a source of shame and humiliation to the Irish people, but it was still more a matter of grave reproach to the Government responsible for their condition. He hoped, notwithstanding the temporary demoralization which must result from the application of outdoor relief, that it would not be forgotten by the Irish Local Government Board that the workhouse form of relief was equally demoralizing. Ample reasons had been given by those who had referred to the workhouse test, and the separation of families it involved, for the feeling of shame with which they afterwards moved about among their fellow-men after leaving these temporary abodes. It paralyzed their manliness, and deprived them of self-respect, the only sure basis of self-reliance. In putting these views before the Chief Secretary, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to be guided more by the assurances he gave to Parliament in the Autumn Session; and, in order to tide the people over the inevitable distress of the next six weeks or two months, 1831 would not be reluctant to relax the stringent rule laid down.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, a great deal had recently been heard of what was called the "workhouse test." The Chief Secretary dwelt a good deal on this phrase. The workhouse test, it had been repeated again and again, must be availed of in this emergency. The Irish Government were resolved on that; but he wanted to know, when a test was spoken of, did it not moan some means of finding out the truth in reference to some matter doubtful and dubious? Now, he would ask, was there not admitted distress in these districts in Ireland? Was it not matter of notoriety, and admitted by the Chief Secretary himself? If so, it was a misapplication of words to talk of the application of a test. That there was no need of a test he would call the right hon. Gentleman himself to witness. He had travelled through these very districts; he saw evidences of the distress, and he gave testimony to it; he saw the diet with which the people were staving off the pangs of hunger; he described their wretched, miserable condition. In addition to that, the Government Inspectors had told, in words that horrified every man of right feeling, the lamentably destitute condition of numberless families in the distressed districts. Children wasting with hunger; faces pinched with starvation, and bodies scarcely clad; with such a state of things, represented on official testimony and by the Bishops and clergy by letters in the Press, surely it was not to be supposed it was all fiction. What interest could anyone have in inventing and publishing such things? He appealed to this body of testimony as proof positive for the Committee and for the Government that there was distress, most grievous distress, in these districts; and, that being so, he contended that to talk of the workhouse test was misleading, heartless, and cruel. It was not to be wondered at that the poor people suffered to death's door, and even to death itself, rather than go into the workhouses. He would not expatiate upon it; it had been spoken of before; it was ruin to a family, absolute ruin, to have their home broken up by going into the workhouse. What was the fate of those who went into the workhouses in the terrible Famine years of 1847 and 1848? These houses 1832 were miscalled—they were slaughterhouses. Under circumstances such as these, the Government referred to workhouses as the test of destitution! Under ordinary circumstances, and when the country was in a fair condition—in its usual condition—when there was no crisis of destitution and misery, no impending famine, the workhouse might, in some sort, serve as a test of destitution; but he denied that in times like the present this test should be arbitrarily applied. But why was the Chief Secretary, or rather the English and Irish Governments, so anxious to apply this so-called test? It was in order not that the people might be relieved or saved from the pinch of hunger and death, but in order to work out a certain policy on which the Government had set their hearts, and that was to drive the people into the workhouse, to break up their families, and then force them, by way of escape, to take to the emigrant ship. That was not the use for which the workhouse was intended; that was not the use implied when it was called the test of destitution; it made the workhouse an engine of torture for the working out of a certain policy in Ireland. It was not as a relief agent the Government wanted to use it; but as an agent for the depopulation of the country. The Chief Secretary admitted that the people showed a disinclination to enter the workhouse; but, said ho, they would do so when they felt the pinch of starvation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had not duly considered these terrible words. It was a fact that they had shocked, not only Irish Members, but the Irish people; and it was well he should be told it in plain terms. They had created a thrill of horror in Ireland, because of the deliberately avowed confession of a cruel, cold-blooded policy. But he did not wish to attack the Chief Secretary personally; he never cared to attack individuals; he regarded them as merely part of the works of the machine that governed Ireland. One after another they were agents of a policy not in sympathy with the Irish people—a policy not to do what was best for the Irish people, but to carry on the old game of English rule—a policy of barbarism, to destroy the people in order to govern them. The pinch of starvation had long been felt in Ireland, and it was well known where it came from; Ireland 1833 would not be any considerable time without it, so long as she had the finger and thumb of the British Government to give it to them. As to emigration, for the moment it had nothing to do with the relief of the starving people. What were grand schemes for emigration to Canada, Manitoba, and elsewhere, while hundreds and thousands of starving people had to trust to the charity of neighbours to keep them alive? But it was the duty of Government to keep them alive, and not to abandon them to private charity. It had been said—"Why not relieve them with the Land League Funds;" but these funds ought not to be applied to the relief of the British Government. The British Government must do its duty. It was in consequence of their misrule that Ireland had these miseries; and they were bound before God and man to help the people, not to look for a rate-in-aid from the servant girls of America. Some of the money had been contributed for charitable purposes, and had been so employed; but the major portion was contributed for a different purpose; to effect such changes in Ireland as would not merely relieve the distress of to-day or to-morrow, but would put an end to the controlling cause of it—the disastrous system of landlordism and British misgovernment. The Government could not ride off on the plea that the earnings of hard-working men in America should be applied to the relief of Irish distress. Ireland stood to her claim on the British Government; they had Irish resources in their hands; and it was for them to do their duty to a starving people. If there were emigration schemes to be discussed, let them be discussed at the proper time. It was now a question of immediate relief; and he called upon the Government to do their duty, and cease discussion of schemes to come into operation a year or a month hence.
§ MR. LEAsaid, he was not aware that this subject would come before the Committee that night; but, since it had been raised, he desired to say a word or two. Distress existed at the moment in many parts of the West. The Chief Secretary admitted that; and in his view the distress was chronic, and a more effectual method was required to deal with it, or every two, three, or four years there would be a recurrence of distress in the West of Ireland. The Chief Secretary 1834 believed that the means adopted should not be for temporary relief. Three years ago a good deal of relief was given, but now there was practically the same state of things; and whenever there came a bad season, or the failure of crops, came this private distress. But he should like to ask, how far the Government had distinct information? His desire was that the Chief Secretary should not allow the distress to assume too serious a shape. If it was serious, then some temporary method of relief should be taken; but if the Chief Secretary thought that the crisis could be passed without disastrous results, then he hoped he would devote his energies to some means of permanently improving the position of the population. A good deal had been said of emigration and migration; and it was known that there was much land in Ireland not under cultivation, but which might be cultivated with advantage. He was not aware that any authentic information existed on this subject; and he would like to ask if the Government would issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the quantity of land that could be cultivated, and how far it would be likely to pay for cultivation? Again, there could be no doubt that poverty existed in the most remote districts of the West—in Donegal, Mayo, Galway, and other parts—districts where there were no railways, and which were completely isolated. Now, he believed that if some system of narrow-gauge railways were introduced it would introduce also some sort of civilization among the people, and possibly the poverty would be in a measure relieved. A good deal had been said about the workhouse test, and the objection to sending the people to the workhouse. He did not see that the workhouses in Ireland were very much worse than those in England; but the antagonism to them was even stronger in Ireland; and he had been told by Guardians that the workhouses in Ireland were regarded by the people as not only the type of poverty, but of immorality. How far that was true he did not know; but the people thought so. Whether by the adoption of emigration or migration, or by assisting public works without jobbery, he hoped the Chief Secretary would find some successful means of relieving the state of Ireland.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he could not help, after listening 1835 to the discussion, and having had some experience of the effect of distress in Ireland, asking the Chief Secretary if he would take the opportunity of making an authoritative statement to the Committee as to what was the condition and extent of the distress, for very strong statements had been made by Irish Members, and these statements had been supported to a certain extent by authorities like Dr. Ferguson, which were not to be set aside, and again by the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishops. This was strong testimony, and the Committee must not conclude that it was false or exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary under the late Government stated with some positiveness that there was a material difference between the present distress and that of 1879; but that was a point upon which he would like to have information, because, though there might not be such proofs as there were in 1879, it was quite possible that in Donegal, Mayo, and parts of Galway, very acute distress prevailed. On this point he would like to have an authoritative statement from the Chief Secretary upon the information supplied by Poor Law Inspectors, and it would be a relief to the Committee to have such a statement. Of course, the policy of the late Government in adopting outdoor relief was not only sanctioned by the late, but by the present Parliament; but the Chief Secretary had, no doubt for very good reasons of his own, chosen to take an entirely new departure, and was dealing with Irish distress, whatever its extent might be, by workhouse relief, making that the test of distress. While this was an interesting experiment, he rather envied the nerve of the Chief Secretary in being able to try it. If he had good authority for believing that a great deal of the distress was fictitious, then, of course, it was a safe method; but the experiment was attended with some risk. If the Local Government Board were to receive information that it had been mistaken, and that there had been deaths from starvation or from disease, from bad food, then, he thought, the Chief Secretary would never sufficiently regret having tied himself to this strict workhouse test. At the present moment there was irritation against the Government in Ireland on account of the Government being carried on in a more or less un- 1836 Constitutional manner. Did the Chief Secretary think it was altogether wise at such a time to run in other respects counter to the popular feeling? Would it not, on the other hand, render the work of Government in Ireland easier if the Government could see their way to being a little more in accord with the popular mind in Ireland on this question of outdoor relief? It would save the Government from a heavy responsibility; and he did not think it would have a permanently ill effect. He would press the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement, for really the Committee had not information enough.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had that evening received a document which might interest the Chief Secretary, and divert his meditations from undiluted reflections on the articles in United Ireland. This document was a telegram from the Most Rev. Dr. Logue, Bishop of Raphoe, Donegal, whose diocese included almost the whole of the distressed districts, and the telegram ran thus—
Please God we will save the people in spite of the Chief Secretary. He may give his emigration scheme to the winds. We appeal from him to the Irish race.Was there anything in any of the loading articles in any Irish newspaper containing a more emphatic condemnation of the policy of the Government than these words? It was from a Prelate responsible, in a high sense, for the lives of the people among whom his ministrations were cast. Several Members from that side of the House had appealed, and appealed in vain, to the Chief Secretary for some statement, some facts more relevant to this question before the Committee than his own sense of the injury he had received from the attacks on his administration made by the editor of United Ireland. Why, up to that moment, had the Government refrained from laying before the Committee the strong facts in the Reports from official sources relating to this very subject? The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had repeated the request—the entreaty almost—that at this grand and solemn time the Committee should be placed by the responsible Minister in possession of the official facts which were supposed to be within the reach of the Irish Government. The noble Lord stated that when the strict application of the work- 1837 house test had resulted in sickness and, perchance, in death, then a heavy responsibility would rest on the authority that allowed such a state of things to come to pass; and many Members of the Committee would agree with the noble Lord in admiration of the nerve of the Chief Secretary under the circumstances in which he insisted upon this test. At a recent meeting of the Swinford Local Board, it was reported that a great amount of distress prevailed, and that over 30 persons were in the poorhouse suffering from famine fever. Why was there not some statement from the Chief Secretary as to facts of this description? The hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk (Colonel Dawnay) was under the impression that the objection of the Irish Party to emigration—which, by the way, was not an absolute objection, not an objection to emigration at the right place and at the right time—was due to the desire of the Party to keep the means of agitation within their reach. The hon. and gallant Member professed to be unaware that these miserable distressed districts in Donegal were also the quietest districts throughout the agitation. They despaired even of agitation; and now the law-abiding people of these districts were to be subjected to the rigorous workhouse test of the Chief Secretary, or to the seaweed test which the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of observing with his own eyes. The right hon. Gentleman preferred smallholding and closely congested districts; but the right hon. Gentleman had already been informed that in the immediate neighbourhood of these small holdings there were large tracts to which the people could be transplanted, and on which they would find ample room for earning a prosperous livelihood; and even with regard to the existing congestion, if the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) chose to speak, he could inform the right hon. Gentleman that within the century—since the year 1800—the rents of Donegal had risen from a total of £47,000 to a total of £367,000, and that not a single penny of all that difference was accounted for or represented by any landlord contribution to the fertility of the soil, or to the proceeds thereof. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated that the responsibility for this 1838 distress—for the misery and for the probable loss of life that might result—would rest upon the Head of the Government. But how were Her Majesty's Government to be made to feel their responsibility? As to this House, Her Majesty's Government were not likely to be made to feel their responsibility in such a case; but he commended the matter to the consideration, and to the more and more serious attention, of the Irish Representatives. If it was impossible in this House to realize the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, it was for those who claimed to represent the Irish people, and who were responsible for the lives of those people, to endeavour to make Her Majesty's Government responsible to a wider tribunal—something beyond the tribunal of this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had appealed to this House in impassioned terms from the judgment of the people of Ireland. Unfortunately, this House was not trusting to the tender mercies of the Chief Secretary, but the people of Ireland were; and no amount of good opinion in this House, and no amount of Party applause, ought to compensate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the opinion which he was fast deserving, and which was growing around him more and more from one end of Ireland to the other. If there was one thing which was more remarkable even than the attitude of the Chief Secretary, it was the attitude of the Prime Minister on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had sat unmoved, without giving the slightest indication of his intention to take any steps to grapple with the misery in Ireland. He sat there unmoved, his attitude contrasting wonderfully with the interest which he took in Irish affairs in other days, when Ireland was a more certain stepping-stone to power. He sat there now, to all appearance, as calmly considering the distress in Ireland as he had considered the cause of nationality in Egypt.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose, and said he must request, on behalf of the Irish Members, that the Chief Secretary would make some reply to what had been said.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was rather difficult to avoid speaking after the appeals which had been made to him; but, at the same time, he had no desire to weary the Committee. But even in the few words which he had to offer, he must say that the Government had been put to considerable disadvantage in the debate, from the fact of the debate having been of an unexpected character. He came down here prepared to defend the appointment and salary of Mr. Jenkinson, and he found himself treated to a speech from the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), to which he had replied with a warmth which he must own was unusual with him; but which he thought, considering the unexpected nature of the discussion, and the unusual character of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman, was, to a certain extent, excusable. With the exception of the more serious questions which had been put in the course of the debate, he had, unfortunately, not come down prepared with the voluminous and carefully prepared answers to the special allegations of distress which had been so often made to the House at Question time, and which he had prepared against the chance of their being made in an anticipated debate on distress, by carefully reading the newspapers in every case that was cited. In answer to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), what he would say was this—that it was, indeed, the case that the Government had taken the most serious interest of the very highest kind in the distress, and were most carefully watching it. In the face of so much that had been said, it was rather difficult for him to do other than repeat the fact that the Government Inspectors, whom they had multiplied together with the relieving officers in great numbers in those places where the distress appeared to be making any headway—the Government Inspectors had told them that there was no reason at the present moment to believe that in order to meet that distress they need go outside the statutory provisions of the existing Poor Law. If the noble Lord, or any other hon. Gentleman who was at all interested in the welfare of the Irish people, but who could not be more deeply interested in their well-being than the noble Lord had always shown himself to be—if the noble Lord, or 1840 anyone else interested in the matter, would name any district about which he was anxious to have special information, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would procure a Report and lay it upon the Table of the House. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) gave Notice for today of a Question as to the nature of the information which the Government were willing to lay upon the Table, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) was quite prepared at the time to answer the Question; but as the hon. Member was not in his place, he (Mr. Trevelyan) was unable to say what he wished—namely, that the Government would be ready to produce any Memoranda or Memorials of Boards of Guardians which he chose to ask for. As for the Reports of the Inspectors, they were made for the private information of the Government; but he would see if there were any of them which the hon. Gentleman would like to ask for, and he would add to them General Reports as well as Reports on the distress in any particular district about which any hon. Gentleman desired to have any information. It was only reasonable that hon. Gentlemen should be supplied with such information. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had twice put to him two or three questions, and on the first occasion he was unable to answer them. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the Cabinet were consulted as to the policy which Lord Spencer thought it right to pursue? Lord Spencer acted with the full authority, and with the previously obtained authority, of Her Majesty's Government. Of that there was no question whatever, and he used these words exactly in the sense in which they applied. Then the hon. Member for the City of Cork had also asked whether it was not the case that during the Autumn Session he (Mr. Trevelyan) pledged himself to give outdoor relief? On that point he could satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and he must ask him to follow carefully what he was now about to read.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that what he asked was, whether the right hon. Gentleman knew of the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to direct the letter which he sent to the Boards of Guardians at the time that he (Mr. Trevelyan) did pledge himself to give outdoor relief?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he knew perfectly well of the intention of the Lord Lieutenant, not perhaps to write that exact letter, but to adopt the policy which he did adopt, and which, at that time, had obtained the sanction of the Government.
§ MR. PARNELLOf the English or the Irish Government?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, of the English Government. But the question was whether he (Mr. Trevelyan) pledged himself to give outdoor relief; and on this point he again asked the hon. Gentleman to follow his words carefully, construing them fairly, and not catching at any single word. In answer to a Question from the hon. Gentleman, asking generally whether the recommendations which the Government had received from the Irish Local Government Board had met the anticipated distress, and in answer also to a Question put by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) about the Ennis and West Clare Railway, he (Mr. Trevelyan) replied as follows—
The permanent officials of the Local Government Board have reported that at present the information before them respecting anticipated distress in certain districts in the West of Ireland where it is most apprehended is not of such a character as would lead them to believe that the relief which may be afforded under the existing Poor Law Acts will be found insufficient to provide for the wants of the destitute poor in the coming winter.He intended that passage to govern the next sentence.They have already issued a Circular to the Unions in the West of Ireland—that is, to all the Unions in Connaught, and to the Unions in the counties of Donegal, Clare, Kerry, and West Cork, calling their attention to the necessity of making every provision both for indoor and outdoor relief, and especially to see that the relieving officers' districts are not too largo, and that the relieving officers are within easy reach of the poor persons residing in every part thereof.Now, that outdoor relief he referred to as the relief which could be given under the existing Poor Laws—the relief, namely, for the infirm and the sick—and the Circular which was issued two days before he spoke on the occasion to which he now referred, and which was laid before the House, specially desired the Guardians to receive in the workhouses an unusual number of poor people. He (Mr. Trevelyan) went onto say— 1842In short, the Government have given every care to see that the normal machinery for the relief of distress is in proper order,—that was the normal statute machinery—and they expect to be able to meet the distress with the aid of that machinery. If exceptional pressure comes, it will be their duty to see that the administration of the required relief is not interfered with from want of sufficient funds. I may say that this is a subject which, of all others, is most engaging the attention of the Government.Then he was asked from the Front Bench opposite—From what source will these funds be provided?and to that he replied—Sir, distress amounting to famine in such a state of things has always been a subject for special treatment by the Government; and I conclude that in the event of such a misfortune they would adopt the example of the Governments which have preceded them, and provide funds to keep the people from starvation, trusting to Parliament to support them afterwards."—(3 Hansard, [274] 1711–12.)In exact accordance with what he stated on that occasion, the Government informed the Boards of Guardians, in that very Circular which had been so often quoted, that if the funds of the Guardians failed to support the poor, either in the workhouse, or in supplying outdoor relief, or, if the workhouses were full, in those cases the Government would go to their aid with a loan, and that was a plan which had been already in force on a very small scale in one Union; and the Government intended before long to lay on the Table of the House a Bill, which was, in truth, something like an Indemnity Bill, to justify them in taking that course.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked what was the name of the Union referred to?
§ MR. TREVELYANreplied, that it was Belmullet. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had asked him one other Question—namely, whether the Government intended still to rely upon the workhouse test, which the hon. Gentleman said they had adopted for the purpose of facilitating their scheme of emigration—a scheme which, on another occasion, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would be very glad to explain in order to interest hon. Gentlemen opposite in it, for it was a well-considered scheme, and he hoped it would extend itself. But it was not for the reasons which the hon. Member 1843 for the City of Cork had stated that the Government had been primarily guided in the enforcement of the workhouse test. They would be very glad if emigration were largely adopted by the inhabitants of the congested districts; but they had had two motives, and two motives only, in enforcing the workhouse test. One was, because they believed that it encouraged self-reliance, and weaned people from depending on the help of others. They believed that that was true in Ireland, as it was true in England. Ono hon. Member opposite had said that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had been "sucked into the vortex of Castle influence," and thus induced to believe in this system; but the fact was that, for several years past, he had been a subscriber to a Society which was carried on for the purpose of inducing Boards of Guardians to enforce the workhouse test more strictly in England; and as to the remark of the hon. Gentleman who said the Government would not apply this system to England, the fact was that it was being drawn tighter and tighter on this side of the Channel. It was because he believed it was good for England that he hoped it would be good for Ireland. The other motive was to save the pockets of the ratepayers, who, otherwise, would be ruined. Several Unions were rendered absolutely bankrupt in the course of the last distress, and they were only saved by the Government going to their aid and distributing, he thought from the Church Fund, a sum of £19,900 in order to keep them going. The Government could not find it within their duty to expose those Unions to the serious burdens which outdoor relief, given, as he was afraid it would be given, in the absence of the workhouse test, would involve.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, it was he who had made the remark which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, and he felt that it was due to himself that he should make this explanation. He had said that England would make the administration of the Poor Law elastic in times of very great famine and distress, as was done in the case of the Lancashire Cotton Famine. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the ordinary normal condition of the country, the Poor Law test should be enforced in order to avoid vagrancy and its effects; but, in times of famine, they should do 1844 in Ireland as they would do in England. He would also like to say this parting word. Let the Chief Secretary of the present remember a Chief Secretary of the past, if the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to win the love of the Irish people. What was the motto of a Chief Secretary who did win their love? In a sentence which ought to be written in letters of gold over the portals of the Castle, he said—
When the people of a country are obliged to leave it en masse, the Government of that country stands judged and condemned.[Several hon. MEMBERS: Name, name!] That was the language of Chief Secretary Drummond, and the principal figure in that condemnation should be he who had himself adopted the responsibility.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he should have to press his Amendment to a division. He had no intention of entering into an altercation with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, though, possibly, were he to do so, he might say as much as the right hon. Gentleman had done; but he was sorry to see that the debate was closing without anything like a satisfactory answer to the question as to what was to become of the unfortunate people whom the Chief Secretary found starving? Until that important question was answered, he thought the other question, of what was to become of the right hon. Gentleman or of himself, was a matter of comparatively trifling importance.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman has not moved any Amendment. He stated his intention of so doing, but he has not carried it out.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would be very pleased to move an Amendment in the form of a reduction of the Vote; and, if he could have his own way, he would be prepared to vote, not only against this Supplementary Charge, but against the whole Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office. He wanted no Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; he wanted no Lord Lieutenant. But the question now was as to the policy which the Chief Secretary represented in Ireland; and that policy would be hereafter known in Ireland as the "Pinch-of-hunger policy." That term would follow the name of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary as surely and as faithfully as the term "Buckshot" followed his Predecessor. The 1845 Government in Ireland now offered to the starving people not two alternatives, but three. They offered not only emigration or the workhouse; but, according to official information, they had offered recently, or were about to offer, a further alternative, and that alternative was the recruiting sergeant. He trusted that the expectations of the Government would be disappointed with regard to all three. But that which had the longest reach—that which was likely most permanently to injure the people of Ireland—was the proposal for emigration. No proposal for meeting the difficulties of the Government in Ireland had ever obtained such general endorsement and acceptance at the hands of Englishmen as that of emigration, and none had ever been received in Ireland with so much indignation and disgust. In all other countries, and in all other times, the increase of population had been looked upon as a sign of national well-being; and in the Estimates which were made from time to time of the comparative progress of the nations of the world, increase of population was always taken as a sure indication of national prosperity. But in Ireland, and in Ireland only, the aim of the Government was to depopulate the country, and in that they had been very successful. In the year 1841 there were 8,175,000 persons in Ireland; 10 years later there were but 6,500,000. They had been told that that decrease was due to a famine of unprecedented severity in 1846 and 1847; but long after the effects of that famine had gone by they found the same diminution going on. In 1861 the population had dropped below 6,000,000; in 1871 it was not 5,000,000; in 1881 it was only a little above 5,000,000, and the depletion was still going on. The Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) had just quoted a former Chief Secretary as being the author of the celebrated sentence pointing out that when the inhabitants of any country left it in great numbers, because they could no longer live in it, the Government of that country was thereby tried and condemned. It was not an Irish Chief Secretary who said that; it was a man who, as a writer and as a political economist, might, he thought, be considerably overrated; but it was perfectly fair to quote him to the present Government, 1846 and to hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. It was John Stuart Mill, and his words would receive very general acceptance in that House. While the population of Ireland had for 30 or 40 years been diminishing, and while it still continued to diminish, the stream of emigration went on increasing. In the year 1876, 37,000 persons emigrated; in the year 1877, 38,000; in 1878, 41,000; in 1879, 47,000; in 1880, 95,000; and in 1881, 78,000. From what he had heard, he was afraid that this year the figures would pass those of the year before last, and be about 100,000. But that was not enough. That decay of the population was not sufficient to satisfy this enlightened Government; they knew that of the men, women, and children who left Ireland as emigrants, 67 per cent, or more, were between the ages of 15 and 35 years; and of the emigrants from Ireland for the last year for which the statistics were complete—the year 1881—the proportion between the ages of 15 and 35 years was exactly 75 per cent. These people left behind them relatives who were generally old and infirm, and who were a drag upon, instead of an assistance to, the country; and these relatives so left behind went to increase the amount of misery and destitution which prevailed. Well, what did the Government do? They fell back upon the proposals of that abominable Committee of an unreformed Parliament, which in 1827 adopted the principles of Malthus, and advocated emigration; but, at the same time, advising that when a landlord cleared away 100 of his ancient tenantry, the holdings of those tenants should be consolidated, so that they could not be separately occupied again, forgetting that it was to the British Government that the mischief of continual subdivision was due, and that the congestion of which the Government now complained in Connaught was also due to the action of the British Government. It was the British who decreed, and, to a great extent, enforced their decree, that the native Celtic people should go beyond the Shannon, and they were driven to a great extent beyond the Shannon; and from that day to this Connaught had been, to a great extent, congested, especially in the poorer districts; and another English decree was made, providing that when an Irish 1847 occupier died his holding should be compulsorily subdivided among his children. The same spirit which prevailed in 1827 prevailed now, and the same principles which were advocated then were advocated now. The point was to get rid of the poorer portion of the people of Ireland. The Government proposed a system of emigration; but he wondered whether they had seriously considered all the difficulties which lay in their path—the difficulties of arranging the details, managing multiplied officials, and so forth. Supposing, however, that the elaborate machinery of the Government was perfect, and that they were prepared to deport a good number of the people, who were the people who were to be sent out of the country? Was it the dissolute and the worthless, or was it the industrious, intelligent, and self-reliant portion of the people? If the latter class were sent abroad, they would probably do well wherever they went; because the Irish people, when driven out of Ireland, had managed to push their way to the front in almost every country of the world go soon as they were free from English laws. If it was the ne'er-do-wells and the lawless who were to be sent away, how was it proposed to select them, in order that they might be deported? Then, what was the whole thing to cost?—for that was a point which had not been examined so far. If it was proposed to spend a large amount of public money in assisting emigration, that money would be spent unnecessarily and almost uselessly; because, as he had pointed out, there was already a continual stream of voluntary emigrants going out from Ireland to America. If a large sum of money was voted to assist people to America, the result would be—as they could never get any man to go to America at his own expense if he could go at the expense of the State—that there would be an enormous number of applications made for the money, applications by real intending emigrants, which would never have been made but for this policy; and, no doubt, Parliament would in the end discover that it had been freely voting money away without removing the difficulty. But again, he asked, what would the scheme cost? The Canadian Government issued a Circular some time ago giving instructions to those who proposed to emigrate, and 1848 from that Circular it might be gathered that the minimum amount necessary to support and establish an emigrant in Manitoba was about £35 a-head. To that must be added the cost of transit, which was about £8 more, including incidental expenses; and the average cost, therefore, was about £43 per head. But if the Government scheme of emigration was to effect anything tangible—anything appreciable—it was necessary that it should embrace a very much larger number of persons than voluntary emigration would remove; and, therefore, if the emigration scheme was to be effective at all, the smallest number whom the Government ought to count on removing was 150,000 persons. According to the figures he had quoted, it would cost to remove them a sum of £6,450,000; and now he would ask the Government, did they not think they could spend that money to much greater advantage in directions very different from emigration? If this scheme which the Government were now prepared to adopt was carried out, what would be the result? What was the result of a similar movement about 120 years ago, when the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, suffering from the Test Act, and from tithes, and from multiplied injustices and extortions under which they laboured in common with the Catholics, left Ireland for America in great numbers? A similar state of things was then produced to that which the Government wished now to produce; and at that time the fathers of Andrew Jackson, John C. Colquhoun, and J. C. Buchanan found new homes on the other side of the Atlantic. Those were the very men who formed the Pennsylvanian line, and had the satisfaction of destroying British rule there. If 150,000 persons were now removed from Ireland to America, the day would come when Manitoba would form another Irish line, fronting, and he trusted with equal success to the former, a second Red River Expedition. But that result would not, he thought, occur, because the designs of the Government would be frustrated, not merely with regard to emigration, but also with regard to the other alternatives in the programme. The people of Ireland would not go out from the country, and they would not go into the workhouses until it was absolutely impossible for them to live; and long before the great bulk of 1849 the people could be driven in by the pinch-of-hunger policy hundreds of thousands would be ruined throughout the country. The resources of the country in men would be materially diminished, and the Government would have an increase of pauperism and of the poor rates to deal with, which go far to countervail any advantages which they might hope at present to derive from their system of emigration. The third alternative offered to the Irish people was the recruiting sergeant. For some years the Irish Militia had not been embodied, and it was observed by the military authorities that recruiting in Ireland had very sensibly fallen off—a circumstance which was ascribed to the fact that the Irish Militia had not been called out for their annual training. Now, it was proposed to call out the Militia again, in order that the recruiting field might supply a larger crop; but he trusted that the Irish people would perfectly well understand the reason of this last move of the Government; and he trusted that that reason being appreciated, and thoroughly understood, the people of Ireland would know how to act under the circumstances, and how to disappoint the expectations that had been formed. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, though he did not support the hon. Member who had just moved the reduction of the Vote, thought there might be a few reasons for Irish discontent which escaped general observation, and which, in a few words, he would endeavour to make clear. There was the reason assigned by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the right hon. Members for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that "the Irish were idle, therefore they starved;" and that "the Irish starved, and therefore they rebelled." There was also the reason assigned by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), that the Go- 1850 vernment of Ireland was "as bad as it could possibly be, and one of the worst Governments in Europe." The hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken in language unfairly condemnatory of the recruiting sergeant. The average Irishman was never so happy as when he was fighting. He had a combative disposition, and it was far better for himself and for his country that he should be fighting the enemies of Great Britain and Ireland than that he should be struggling with the Government at home. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) disputed altogether the proposition of the hon. Member, that an increase of population was always considered a sign of the prosperity of a country. That was often theoretically and practically wrong, and was proved to be wrong by the case of India; for the political economists and the social economists of the day regarded the great increase of population in India as a serious evil. He was not at all sure that the decrease of population in Ireland had been a serious injury to the Irish people; and he wished to point out one great benefit which it had been to the hon. Members who represented the extreme Irish Party in that House. The decrease of population in Ireland had greatly increased the population of the United States and of Australia; and the increase of the Irish population in those parts had enabled them to send home large sums of money for the sustentation of the Land League and other amiable objects. Then he objected to another remark which had been made by the hon. Member—that Irishmen always came to the front whenever they went abroad. That was not quite an accurate statement. Irishmen had many admirable qualities, and they always came to the front in the matter of fighting; but in the matter of prosperity they did not always come to the front. It might not be their own fault altogether; but they sometimes adopted a strategic movement to the rear. The Chief Secretary had been endeavouring to do his duty in the Government of Ireland under great difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman had been in a very difficult and trying position, but he had done his work well; and he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) should certainly oppose any reduction of the Vote when moved upon such grounds as had been stated. The greatest benefit that could be conferred 1851 on the suffering population of the West of Ireland would be the development of a well-considered and economical scheme of emigration; and he hoped the theoretical objections of hon. Members from Ireland would not prevent the Government from considering the best means of removing, for their own interest as well as for the benefit of Ireland, a large number of these distressed people. No practical reasons had been given for the proposed reduction of the Vote; and, as he had already said, he should oppose the Motion. It had been said that the decrease of a population was necessarily a source of national danger; but he thought the reverse might occasionally be true, and he was not at all sure that the increase of the population in this country at the present time was not a very serious danger to England, just as the density of population in parts of Ireland had been a considerable difficulty to that country. He should oppose any reduction of the Vote.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 156: Majority 141.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (7.) £142, Record Office, Ireland.