COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 21 July 1887)

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I wish to say a few words in regard to this matter. I have been desirous of having this Bill discussed in order that I might elicit from the Government some final and definite declaration as to what Amendments they are willing to make, or what concessions they are prepared to give, in order that we who represent constituencies in Ireland may know what is our real position in regard to the Bill. The more I have examined this Bill, and the more I have had the opportunity of communicating with the people of the West of Ireland with regard to it, the less I like it. I am convinced that it is the duty of Irish Members to oppose the Bill to the best of their ability. I must first of all direct attention to the Memorandum which was circulated with the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on which Memorandum the Bill is founded. This Memorandum, I take the liberty of saying, is one of the most extraordinary and reckless documents that was ever issued by a Minister of the Crown. It is the most slipshod document I ever 1737 read from a responsible Minister, and it bears on the face of it the most clear evidence that the Chief Secretary did not take the trouble to study the Blue Book of the Royal Commission which sat to consider the matter, and which, made a Report thereon. Let me now endeavour to substantiate this proposition. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman makes the following charge. He says— To meet the distress which in those Unions was expected to occur before harvest last year, Parliament sanctioned as a free grant from public funds the expenditure of a sum of £20,000 to be used in outdoor relief. The Guardians squandered the money so obtained in the most reckless fashion. They exercised no supervision themselves, and they took no precautions that supervision should be exercised by anybody else. That is a most serious charge to make, and whilst I admit that shocking and painful irregularities occurred in the administration of the relief, I say that for the making of a charge of so sweeping a character there is no justification to be found in the Blue Book. Let me point out how carelessly drawn is this Memorandum on the very face of it. I will not go beyond the Memorandum itself to show the carelessness of the Chief Secretary. Near the end of page 3, the following passage occurs: — In the case of Belmullet, in which, it may be observed, the Guardians were not guilty of the same maladministration as those of the other Unions. This is gravely stated, although, earlier on, it is alleged against all these Unions affected by the Bill, that they squandered the money obtained from the public funds in the most reckless fashion, and "exercised no supervision themselves." The Memorandum goes on to state— The result was what might have been anticipated. Parliament authorized the expenditure of £20,000 in charity. On the strength of this, the Unions in question spent £35,000; producing no other permanent effect whatever upon the district than to plunge it more deeply into debt, and to increase the demoralization of the population. That is a most exaggerated statement. What "permanent effect" did the Government hope to bring about? Why they hoped to save the people from starvation, and in. that effect they were successful. What on earth the Chief Secretary, therefore, means by "producing no other permanent effect whatever" than demoralization, I fail to understand. It is my belief, looking at this Memo- 1738 randum, that the Chief Secretary had not read the evidence which I shall call attention to presently—

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow rue to interrupt him for a moment. A short time ago a Question was addressed to us on these Benches by a right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether this Bill would be proceeded with to-night, and the answer was that it would not be taken. When the hon. Gentleman appealed to me a few moments back, I thought it was to be taken, as I was not aware of the previous arrangement made. Perhaps it would be fair, under the circumstances, if a Motion for the adjournment of the debate were taken. I do not know whether it will be an inconvenience to the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon); but after the representation made by us to the Front Bench opposite, it is most desirable that the Bill should not be proceeded with now.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
Take it on Monday.

§ MR. DILLON
I did not understand that the Question had been asked. I understood, on the contrary, that the stage was adjourned from Monday last to Thursday to suit my convenience.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to state what took place. A question was asked me across the Table by a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench—a right hon. Gentleman who has now gone away—as to whether the Bill was to be taken tonight? The answer I gave was "No;" and I understand that in consequence of that answer the right hon. Gentleman has gone away. I alone am responsible for what took place.

§ MR. DILLON
Under the circumstances, if I do not lose the right of speaking, I shall have no objection to the adjournment.

§ MR. JACKSON
Move the adjournment.

§ MR. DILLON
I move the adjournment.