§
Resolution 3 agreed to.
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,060, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments.
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. SEXTONThe Chief Secretary is also President of the Local Government Board, and no doubt the Local Government Board is cognisant of the affairs relating to Boards of Guardians, and probably could interfere and advise in this case. I take this opportunity of advising the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) to be sufficiently courteous to come to the Table and give a further explanation with regard to this question. If he does not, we shall have to take such 1112 steps as will secure the return to the House of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and ask him to use his influence with the Treasury. The Guardians have paid all the seed rates up to the present moment; but, by some reasoning which is absolutely bewildering, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any reply on a past transaction, whether or not the Treasury will pay legal costs for which the Guardians are not morally responsible, and mixes up with it a further question as to whether the Guardians will pay to the Treasury money which they do not owe now, but which they will owe in August next. I see no connection between the two transactions. I do not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his somewhat discourteous silence; but these tactics of evasion will not succeed with us. As the Chief Secretary has now come into the House, I ask that the two questions should be separated and dealt with on their own merits, or a contingent assurance be made that if the Guardians pay their seed rate for August next the Treasury will then liquidate these costs.
§ MR. KNOXI first mooted this matter rather more than a year ago, and since then I have been endeavouring to get a definite answer from somebody. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who met me with his usual courtesy. His reply by letter was that the matter was one with which the Irish Office had no power to deal, because they had no funds at their disposal which they could devote to the purpose. He added that he was far from saying that it was not a case which the Treasury should consider. While I was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, I submit that the Irish Office, although they had no money, might have gone so far as to recommend the Treasury to provide the money. The facts were these: Under the Seed Potatoes Act the Guardians were bound not to accept any potatoes which had not been previously inspected and approved by the Inspector appointed by the Land Commission. In this case the Guardians ordered potatoes in the ordinary course, and everything was approved by the officials of the Land 1113 Commission. The potatoes were delivered and the Guardians thought they were good enough; but as the Inspector of the Land Commission refused to allow them to accept these potatoes, they refused to accept them. The consequence was that the vendor of the potatoes brought an action, and that the verdict was against the Board of Guardians; who have paid the money. This misfortune was brought upon them by obedience to the law and to the ruling of an executive officer. The Guardians of the Enniskillen Union took the wiser course of refusing to obey the Inspector, and they heard nothing more of it. The right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any answers for certain reasons of State. I find that the seed rate is being duly collected, and, although not completed, is in a very advanced state. There is no doubt that the whole sum due to the Government will be paid in August when due. The Cavan Board of Guardians have never refused to meet their obligations, and I submit it is unfair to covertly charge them with intention not to perform their legal obligations in this matter. The case, I contend, is one requiring a definite answer.
*SIR JOHN GORSTThat I did not answer the hon. Member for West Belfast was not due to discourtesy on my part. The Rules prevented me making a second speech, and I did not feel justified in asking the indulgence of the House. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox) have both sketched their view of what the case is; and on the assumption that the facts are actually as stated by them I would undertake at once that the costs of the Cavan Guardians should be reimbursed. But my information is that the facts are not as stated by the hon. Members. It is stated that these gentlemen were practically coerced by the Inspector into refusing the potatoes and into entering the action. That is not consonant with the fact as represented to me by the officials in Ireland.
*SIR JOHN GORSTI have brought no charge against the hon. Member. I merely said the facts were not as stated by hon. Gentlemen, and did not make out so strong a case for the Cavan Guardians. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, the Cavan Board of Guardians have a moral right to be repaid. The hon. Member asked me to personally inquire into this matter, and I did so. I daresay the decision I came to was wrong—at least, no doubt the hon. Member thinks so; but if he were afraid of my decision, why did he ask me to make a personal inquiry? The decision I came to was that the reasons given by the Local Government Board were adequate and sufficient. The hon. Member asks what they are; but I do not feel disposed to tell him. I can only say I have done the best I could in the matter, and that I feel I came to a right conclusion. If we were to talk about this question another hour or two I do not think we could do any good, and I therefore suggest that hon. Members should allow it to drop.
§ (9.3.) MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)I think an official in the position of the right hon. Gentleman—although perhaps he does not expect to hold that position long—might endeavour to give hon. Members some satisfaction when, on behalf of their constituencies, they lay a case of this kind before the House. I cannot conceive of anything more unfair than the way in which he has dealt with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has made a sort of State secret of this question as to whether the costs of the Cavan Guardians in this case should be remitted to them or not. The Secretary to the Treasury has told us that if we discussed this question for another hour it will not do us the smallest good. I am afraid that is an invitation to discuss it, and I think we should not be doing our duty if we listened to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and did not endeavour to extort from the Treasury some more satisfactory answer. It has been said that my hon. Friend's facts are all wrong.
SIR JOHN GORSTWhat I said was that the facts, as represented to me by the officials in Ireland, differed from those put forward by the hon. Member.
§ MR. HEALYIf that is so, surely the right hon. Gentleman must expect that we should ask him in what respect the version of facts communicated by the Irish officials differs from those given to the House by my right hon. Friend. If this was the first occasion on which this question had been raised the right hon. Gentleman might plead that he was not in a position to give an answer, but over and over again this case has been brought to his notice. In face of the detailed narration of the facts by my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is enough to get up and say to him, "I learn from the Local Government Board in Ireland that your facts are wrong, but I am not going to say in what respect they are wrong." In what particular, I should like to ask, does the right hon. Gentleman impeach the accuracy of the statement of my hon. Friend? I am at a loss to know. And I will take this opportunity of pointing out the inconsistency of the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He contends that our version of the facts are wrong; but he says that if the rate is paid the Treasury will in twelve months re-imburse the money.
§ MR. SEXTONNo; he did not say that.
§ MR. HEALYAt any rate, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider it with that object. How is a promise of that kind consistent with the allegations that the facts of my hon. Friend are incorrect? If the statement made by him is erroneous now, it will be equally erroneous in twelve months' time. I must say that in all my experience in this House I do not recollect a more unsatisfactory reply than that which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. He gets up and says, "The hon. Member for Cavan asked me to look into this matter personally, and I went over to the Local Government Board in Ireland and investigated this trumpery question. I devoted my great mind to it, and I came to a certain conclusion. Here is my conclusion, and you may take it or 1116 leave it, but I am not going to give any reasons for it." I say that that is an unsatisfactory course to take, and it is an invitation to us to resist the passage of this Vote in order to mark our sense of the unfair way in which the right hon. Gentleman has-treated this matter. I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by £200.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£29,060," and insert "£28,860."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That '£29,060,' stand part of the Resolution."
§ MR. SEXTONI should like to submit the question whether the treatment of the Irish Members on this point by the Secretary to the Treasury has been either respectful or according to the usages of this House. I maintain that we are entitled to an answer. The right hon. Gentleman takes credit to-himself that in his high position he condescended to inquire personally into this question; but no matter what may be the position of a public official, the value of his intervention is to be determined by its results, and, judging the matter from that point of view, we should have been just as well off if the right hon. Gentleman had not gone into the matter at all. I wonder if there is any Member of this House who can recall to mind any case in which a Member of a Government, in reply to a challenge such as has been made to the Secretary to the Treasury to-night,, has stated that he refused to disclose the reasons which had induced him to deal with a matter like this in a particular manner? The right hon. Gentleman, I complain, has been most curt in the way he has answered us upon the subject, and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he concurs with the Secretary to the Treasury that the reasons we ask to be disclosed should be withheld from the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) is in his place, and I presume he knows that, according to the practice of the Land Commissioners, an Inspector is appointed for such a function as has been referred to. The potatoes were rejected by the Inspector, and upon his advice an action was entered and a 1117 verdict returned against the Cavan Guardians. These are the essential facts, and there is nothing material to be added to them. The Guardians were, upon the advice of this Inspector, driven into a legal liability which resulted in a heavy penalty, and they ask that that penalty shall be borne by those responsible for it—that is to say, the Treasury. I appeal to the Chief Secretary and to the Attorney General for Ireland to say if in the material particulars which have been laid before the House there is anything incorrect, and also whether in the event of the Guardians in August next discharging their engagements to the Treasury the Treasury will be prepared to meet them on this question?
*SIR JOHN GORSTI am very sorry if the attitude I have taken in this matter has hurt the feelings of the hon. Member. I can assure him that I had no intention of being at all disrespectful to Irish Members. The hon. Member has said that it was the action of the Government Inspector which induced the Cavan Board of Guardians to reject these potatoes; that the Board of Guardians were compelled by law, on the representation of the Government Inspector, to reject the potatoes; and that, in consequence of their obedience to the law, they were exposed to an action for damages and mulcted in costs. That, I am bound to confess, is a very much fuller and more precise statement than has ever been laid before me before, and I have not the slightest wish to impugn the accuracy of it. Hitherto I have understood the hon. Member to ask the Treasury to return to the Cavan Guardians the amount of these costs as a matter of grace, and not as something to which they had any moral or legal claim. But, as I now understand the matter differently, I will again inquire into it; and if I find the facts to be as they have been represented to this House, these costs shall be returned without delay.
§ MR. KNOXOf course I have no desire to impeach the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these facts have not been brought to his attention until now. I would point out, however, that they have been reiterated in this House time after time, and that 1118 they were also stated in a Memorial presented to the Treasury by the Cavan Guardians six months ago. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that if these facts are found by him to be correct, he will refund the money, I will accept his undertaking, and ask my hon. Friend not to press the matter further.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Resolution 5 agreed to.
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £103,792, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation.
§ (9.32.) MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)On this Vote I should like to call attention to a matter which has arisen between the Board of Guardians of Antrim and Colonel Spaight, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. Colonel Spaight in his Report—a copy of which has been transmitted by the Local Government Board to the Board of Guardians—says that the accommodation provided in the female idiot ward is insufficient, and adds—and this is the paragraph of which the Guardians complain—
The inmates of the ward have evidently been grossly neglected with regard both to their clothing and bedding.The moment the Guardians received that communication they appointed a Special Committee to inquire into the matter, with the result that a letter was sent to the Local Government Board asking them to institute a sworn inquiry as to whether there was any foundation for the allegations of Colonel Spaight. The Local Government Board declined to hold that inquiry, but said they would ask Colonel Spaight to make a fresh Report. That, however, is not satisfactory to the Board of Guardians, and I think they are justified in asking either that this very serious and very damaging paragraph should be practically withdrawn, or that the sworn inquiry shall be held. The last communication from the Local Government Board is under date 1st June, and in that occurs the phrase "Colonel Spaight adheres to his Report of the ap- 1119 parent neglect of the female idiot class." The introduction of the word "apparent" shows that there is some doubt in the mind of Colonel Spaight or of the Local Government Board. The communication further states that the Local Government Board cannot see how the Board of Guardians are in a position to contradict Colonel Spaight's statements. The Guardians, it is true, are not; but their officers, who were present when Colonel Spaight made his inspection, are prepared to contradict him. They are fully prepared to meet these statements, and only desire the opportunity to do so. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a specific answer to-night, but I hope before the end of the Session he will be able to give me some satisfaction on the point. I should also like to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a point with respect to the erection of labourers cottages. He told me some time ago that the Local Government Board had informed the Guardians of Ballymena that they were not entitled to decline to enter upon the erection of cottages that had been recommended by a Committee of the Union which had been appointed to consider the matter.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.The point was this: A scheme had been recommended and adopted. Subsequently, it was sought to amend the scheme by striking out portions, and this the Guardians were, I understand, advised could not be done.
§ MR. MACARTNEYI understand that a Committee was appointed for each of the separate electoral divisions of the Union, and that this Committee recommended a modification of the various schemes. When the Board met to consider the recommendations it in every single instance rejected the schemes as amended and recommended by its own Committee. I understand that the Board was wrong in taking that course, and that it has been so advised by the Local Government Board. I hope that some time next week the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some satisfactory assurance in regard to the position of these various schemes with respect to the erection of labourers' cottages. It 1120 is nearly ten months since the schemes were brought forward, and great dissatisfaction exists amongst the labourers at the delay.
§ (9.43.) MR. JACKSONMy hon. Friend has very fairly stated that he does not expect me to answer offhand a question of this kind. I will make inquiry about the Report to which he has referred by one of the Local Government Board Inspectors, and ascertain how the question stands. No doubt I shall be prepared to give him some information next week. With respect to the other matter, the last information I had was that the Local Government Board had advised the Board of Guardians that the action they had taken was not a proper action, nor action which they were capable of taking. I do not know without making inquiries what is the power of the Local Government Board to enforce any views they may hold, and I have given the hon. Member all the information that is at present in my possession.
§ (9.46.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)I am glad to have at last forced one of the Members for Antrim to take up the question of labourers' cottages. I have been working in this matter for a long time, and I have in my hand now letters from labourers in Antrim who complain that they are compelled to live in huts which are unfit for human habitation, and have been condemned by medical men. Many of the houses in which they live were used as stables twenty years ago. I have also a lettter from the Labourers' Association of Omagh complaining of the miserable hovels in which the labourers have to live; but what is the use pressing the matter now. The Government are not in a position to deal with it. It will have to be dealt with by a new Parliament. At the same time, it is satisfactory to have brought down one of the champions of the North, one of the gentlemen who is going to fight. But if they are going to raise an army they will want to recruit the labourers, and they will find the labourers of Antrim in line with the labourers of Cork. They know their interests and they know their friends, and they know that if their cause is to be triumphant the victory will not be won by fighting 1121 with the gentlemen of Ulster, who have only woke up to the importance of this question on the eve of an Election.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions 7 to 9 agreed to.