§ 4. £2,000, Temporary Commissions.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)There is some doubt in the public mind as to the remuneration given to these Commissioners. I would be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would give some information as to what the Government intend to pay these Labour Commissioners, who may come from remote parts of England, Ireland, or Scotland, and say whether these expenses are included in this Vote.
SIR J. GORSTNo member of the Labour Commission receives any salary for his services as a Commissioner; all the members give their services gratuitously to the Commission. But all members of the Commission are entitled to be remunerated by the Government for 905 their expenses in coming from their homes to London and returning to their homes again. They are also entitled to receive the cost of their subsistence in London when they apply for it. No member of the Commission need be put to any expense or loss under those heads; on the other hand, no salaries are paid.
§ MR. FLYNNThe right hon. Gentleman tells us those Commissioners are entitled to their travelling expenses and the cost of their subsistence while in London. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware whether any of the Commissioners have suffered loss on these accounts?
§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to what he says about the gratuitous services of the Commissioners, does that apply also to the Sub-Commissioners?
§ MR. PICTONThe Sub-Commissioners are paid?
SIR J. GORSTThe Sub-Commissioners are paid. At present there are only three lady Sub-Commissioners, and these three ladies receive remuneration for their services; and it is in contemplation to appoint other Sub-Commissioners, but none have yet been appointed.
§ MR. MORTONI would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if this Commission on Labour is likely to report during the present year?
SIR J. GORSTI am afraid that question ought rather to be addressed to the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Commission, because I am not at all able to answer it. I am informed that a prelimininary Report will be immediately issued containing the evidence given up to the end of last year, but whether the Commissioners have it in contemplation to make a final Report I do not think anybody can tell.
§ MR. MORTONI hope the Royal Commissioners on Labour, as well as the Government, will endeavour to give us this Report before the General Election takes place.
§ Vote agreed to.
906§ 5. £30,486, Relief of Distress, Ireland.
§ MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)After the lapse of 15 days we have this Vote before us in Committee. Every consideration of honour should have induced the First Lord of the Treasury to have brought forward this Vote at an early stage, or even to have put in first on the Paper. The Vote for Irish Distress is the Vote which, above all others, should be furthest removed from Party feeling and acrimony. But the First Lord of the Treasury made a personal attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in connection with this matter. No opportunity has been given to reply to that attack, and the newspapers have been extolling the ex-Chief Secretary (Mr. Balfour) for over-riding the Irish Members. But the tide is ebbing, and it is our turn now. The First Lord of the Treasury did me the honour to make a very gross personal attack on myself. I did not resent it, because I wanted it to appear in print next day. If any other hon. Gentleman, except the First Lord of the Treasury, had dared to say what he said to me, I would have put myself at once under the protection of the Chairman, and would have claimed your ruling on the matter. The First Lord of the Treasury had the bad taste to say to me across the floor of the House that my memory was enfeebled. In the Standard and Morning Post that personal observation was inserted; but from the genteel columns of the Times it was excerpted entirely from what appeared to be a verbatim report of the speech. Now, I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman who corrected the Times' proof of that speech? Does the right hon. Gentleman subedit the Times, or does the Times subedit the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of an observation such as he made. I go to his attack on the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury poses as a benevolent gentleman, but his benevolence is undoubtedly mingled with a great deal of exasperation. I would like to know how, in a Debate concerning the relief of thousands of starving people, he found it necessary to introduce 907 such matter of exasperation? The Leader of the House ought not to be a Party fighting man, and, above all persons in the world, the hon. Member for East Mayo is the last man who should have been attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. On no occasion has the right hon. Gentleman spared the hon. Member for East Mayo; he has made that hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Brien) targets for his attacks. I am not going to oppose this Vote, but I shall have some words to say in reference to the way in which this relief is administered. This I can say; that, in the year 1892, it is a scandal and disgrace to any Administration that we should have to come to this House and implore a Vote from the public funds for the benefit of our people. As regards anything like charity for the Irish people, I repudiate the suggestion. We are not receiving charity; this money is our own. Eight millions of taxation are contributed from Ireland, and it has been found that of that £8,000,000 only £4,000,000 go back, even indirectly, to the Irish people. So, therefore, it is an insolent pretence to say that charity or benevolence is extended to us. If we were only allowed to have this back there would not be a hungry person in Ireland. There has been a great deal of talk about congested districts. Our meaning of congested districts is districts where the population is too large for the soil to support them. A congested district in Ireland is a barren district where the population is overcrowded. And we find larger populations in districts which are barren and poor than in districts which are fertile and rich. And that is because the landlords have driven the people from their fertile plains into districts which are sometimes uninhabitable. But, the worse the locality, the more barren and hungry the soil is, the greater population you have. The ex-Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) posed on what he has done to alleviate the distress, and I am glad to admit that he has done much. But why should this miserable theatrical exhibition be made day after day? It only shows the want of sympathy of the Irish Administration; it shows the perverse spirit of that Administration. If they were a sym- 908 pathetic Administration the first thing to be done would be to go at once and do everything possible for the poor people, to forget all miserable, mean, and petty personal ambitions in endeavouring to bring relief to a starving people. He went down to Donegal to relieve the starving people, but surely that is only the feeling that would actuate any humane person. Surely the ex-Chief Secretary deserves no laudation because, for £5,000 a year of salary, he once did go down to see the poor persons whose lives were committed into his hands. It only shows that kindness and sympathy seem to be inverted when a Castle official returns to Ireland, that such a thing should be the subject of any laudation whatever. I was amazed at the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the hon. Member for East Mayo, a gentleman who has gone into all hemispheres looking for relief for a starving people. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that he imprisoned Mr. Dillon and prevented his going to America in order to get relief for the distress? Beyond all doubt the imprisonment of the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork (Messrs. Dillon and William O'Brien) put a strong obstacle in the way of their going to obtain relief for the distress, and to do that out of sympathy with the people and not for the purpose of making political capital. From the time the ex-Chief Secretary went down to Donegal in 1889 up till the Rossendale election every gentleman who has spoken about the right horn Gentleman on his Irish tour has endeavoured to make political capital out of it. It appears as if Piggott's letter has been blotted out and Balfour's tour in Donegal substituted for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) said the ex-Chief Secretary went on a pilgrimage, and that a gentle lady was by his side; that there had been beneficent measures of legislation; and that, if not intimidated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the people of Ireland would accept the beneficial results which Mr. Balfour, during his reign as Chief Secretary, had secured for the Sister Isle. Well, the answer to all that is the Rossendale election. I say nothing 909 about the taste which dictated the speech of the hon. Member for Bury. The lady no doubt went for a good and benevolent purpose, but her presence was made a pretext for catching votes for Liberal Unionist purposes. Lord Salisbury also made political capital out of this Donegal tour. During the elections in May and June Lord Salisbury made speeches to influence the elections, and in every one referred to this tour as one for which votes ought to be given to the Unionist Party. He referred, in addition, to the fund for Irish distress started by Lady-Zetland, to which a subscription was sent by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, and which resulted in the raising of £1,200 from a meeting held in Liverpool, and by other means. This is how political capital is made out of benevolence. And yet the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) taunted the Irish Party with having done nothing for the relief of that distress. That is the third time he has made that accusation against the Irish Party. The next day the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) replied showing how many and what measures they had endeavoured to pass for the relief of Irish distress. And this is the third time. But the right hon. Gentleman simply repeats the statement that the Irish Members have done nothing. Every Act that has been passed by the English Parliament dealing with the question has simply been copied from some Irish measure. In 1880 a Bill for the relief of the congested districts was brought in from these Benches and actually adopted by Mr. Forster, but it was thrown out in the other House. It was introduced a second time, and again thrown out in the House of Lords. In 1881 the question of arrears of rent came up, and we brought in a Bill, which passed this House, but was thrown out in the Lords. Subsequently the Government introduced the Arrears Act, which was the first gleam of hope for the people. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that we have done nothing for the relief of distress, when we have expended health, strength, energy, and time to endeavour to relieve it? In the Tramways Act of 1883 Mr. Parnell inserted 910 clauses providing for the removal of the people from the congested districts to more fertile spots, but they were rendered inoperative by the opposition of the landlords. The very clauses dealing with the question in the great Land Purchase Act are taken from plans suggested by Mr. O'Connor Power in 1883 or 1884. Of course, we have not brought in any Bill, for a Bill dealing with money cannot be brought in by a private Member, but we have done all we could in the way of calling attention to the facts and making suggestions for their remedy. I have again and again put myself in a humiliating position towards the right hon. Gentleman, reading letters from the priests, and other notices, and beseeching him to look to the position of Donegal, and we have done that for four long years. To show that we are guiltless in this matter, I would point out that I and my hon. Friends moved the Adjournment of the House in 1889 to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the people were starving. In reply he said he would do nothing, but would critically watch their exertions. On the 12th April, when the matter was brought before the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. V. Harcourt) made a speech in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's doings in Donegal. He said—
Listening to the speech, and looking at it from end to end, I ask, what is the policy of the Government in reference to this population of Donegal? What are they going to do for it? What assistance are they going to render to the population, which all admit is a most miserable and most wretched reproach to the Government? What is the policy of the Government? It is, in one word, extermination.The elections were not then being won so rapidly as they are now.The Irish Secretary is going to destroy their hovels. He has invented a new machine—a machine which he says is to be the instrument of the law. It is not the instrument of the law, but of the police. The police have this defensive battering-ram, and the police are the servants of the Government. He says it makes no difference, and he objected when I said that it made a difference, that the people are in a state of misery and wretchedness. I am speaking in the presence of English Gentlemen opposite, many of whom are landlords. I ask them if they agree with the Irish Secretary on that point? Suppose there were an English village with a few wretched cottages where the people could hardly tolerate existence, 911 would it make no difference to them if the persons to be evicted were wretched cottiers or well-to-do farmers? In the one case I can imagine them saying: 'Here is a farmer who can pay his rent if he chooses, and against him I will invoke all the processes of the law.' But I know no English Gentleman who would say to the wretched cottiers, It makes no difference to these poor creatures who are just on the point of starvation. It makes no difference to them, and, therefore, I will have my battering-ram, and level their houses over their heads.'Now we see how he described the Leader of the House—The right hon. Gentleman, in almost passionate terms, sneered at the notion that a plea of poverty should be a plea for mercy. The right hon. Gentleman says, 'These men do not pay their rents; I will level their houses.' That is his first moderate repartee. There has been harsh treatment enough of the people of Ireland for generations before. But it was left to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to invent a new machine for getting rid of the population of the congested districts. That is the first policy of the Government—to level the houses of the people. We have not yet had the full development of the battering-ram.
MR. MAC NEILLI beg your pardon, Sir, for being led away by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will only quote one other sentence—
Eviction, then, is the first remedy the Government mean to apply, and the right hon. Gentleman stood up last night as the supporter of the evictions which are now going on in Donegal.That shows what the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was in reference to Donegal till 1890. And he reproaches us with doing nothing. What was his policy from October, 1890? At that time the right hon. Gentleman visited Ireland, and I went to him and asked whether he had come to protect the people. If he were going to do that I promised my help, but I pointed out that it was no good giving relief on one side and then evicting on the other. I found out that there was an eviction crusade preparing on the Olphert Estate, but a telegram was sent stopping it until the right hon. Gentleman had left. I asked what he was going to do, but he left the next day, and 350 families were evicted in circumstances of great poverty. From that day to this, Mr. Courtney, nothing has 912 been done for that district of West Donegal. A few months ago engineers were sent into the district with a view to making roads, but nothing further has been done. Referring to the parish of Gweedore, the right hon. Gentleman said that relief works were to be started immediately; but they have not been stated, and there is an estimate of £1,500 for salaries of surveyors and inspectors on these roads. In January, 1890, Father MacFadden, who is a good engineer, said if he could only get help from the Government he would make 20 miles of road and keep well employed and paid 300 families for six months. That district a generation ago was 14,000 acres, and the fathers and mothers of the present generation had it all to themselves at a rent of £600 a year. Now, they have only 24,000 acres, for which they pay £1,600 a year rent. The valuation is 7d. per acre, and it has been computed that of that 7d. the holders had contributed to raise the valuation by 5d. The valuation per head of the population is 3s. 6d., and the total valuation of the whole county is only £1,283. I have a letter in my pocket which says that there are only four holdings which have a value of above £4 per annum, and the right hon. Gentleman accuses the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) of telling the people not to pay their rent. They ought not to pay rent; the Times says so, and, of course the right hon. Gentleman will go by the Times. Sir James Caird, speaking of these people, said—Land in Ireland is held by two distinct classes of tenants: the small farmers who pay rent from £1 up to £20, and the comparatively large farmers who pay from £20 upwards.And he goes on to say that five-sixths of the Irish tenants pay one-third of the rent and the other sixth pay two-thirds of it. Everybody who has been into these districts knows the deplorable and hopeless poverty and misery of these people. I have seen their misery in all its forms, and I have also seen the houses of the lepers at Cape Colony; and I was not exaggerating when I wrote to the English papers and said that those lepers were better housed and looked after than these poor people in West Donegal, to whom the right hon. Gentleman re- 913 fuses any help at all. The right hon. Gentleman visited my constituency and promised many things, but nothing came of it; and early in January there was a meeting of all sections of the community—Protestants and Catholics alike—at which resolutions were passed imploring the right hon. Gentleman to do something. I forwarded the resolutions to the right hon. Gentleman and got a courteous reply from one of the secretaries, but beyond that nothing. On the 6th of last month large crowds of hungry men visited the police barracks and then the priest's house, begging for bread for their wives and children. I do not wish to talk any more about the congested districts, but I would call the attention of the Committee to this point. We have here a total sum of £20,000, which is to be expended, independently of surveying and road works, in Ireland, and out of that no less than £1,500 is to go in salaries. That sum ought not to be paid, and most of the men who get it are in the Police Force. It is about 6½ per cent. on the total sum. We have an interesting key to this in a Parliamentary Return, by which I find that in one case, where there is only £1,002 spent on relief works, £260 is spent on Inspectors of Police for surveying. That is a bribe to the police; it is not charity; and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to get this money from the taxpayers under pretence of relief and give it for bribes to the police. In another case, where £13,000 is to be spent, no less than £8,588 is expended on surveyors, clerks, and distributors of money; that is 70 per cent. of the whole sum. Though I should be the last man not to give credit to one who is honestly and conscientiously working for the relief of distress, I must say that a mere work of humanity ought not to be lauded for political purposes. When such benevolence is promised to the congested districts, and is trotted out at every Tory election to obtain votes to deprive people of their liberties, I can only say the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the funds has been inactive, and that many of his friends would have acted with greater propriety if they had not lauded him unduly simply for doing his duty in the 914 matter of Irish distress. I have done my best to alleviate the distress of these people by bringing their case again and again before the House, and I only ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson), who has visited Donegal, for a distinct promise that something shall be done for the Western Coast of Donegal. I have stated the case as well as I can, and I trust the English people may understand the ins and outs of the question, and that the Government will carry out its first and primary duty in relieving the distress.
§ (4.27.) MR. GILHOOLY (Cork Co., W.)The First Lord of the Treasury made a very interesting speech. But I should like to refer to the point as to these funds being placed in the hands of the landlords for doing the work promoted by the Government. In the constituency I represent there is a road being made, and the bailiff of the landlord, Mr. Bourke, is employed as ganger. Amongst those at work on the road was one Sullivan, who had a large family to support, and who had to pay £4 or £5 a year rent. This man was dismissed, and he walked 20 miles to Bantry to the relieving officer to state his case. The officer went to the landlord, and pointed out that it was too bad to discharge the man, who was in very poor circumstances. Subsequently the landlord promised if the man would pay one year's rent on the 18th of May he would get him re-instated, and on that promise being given the landlord gave the man a note to the corporal in charge of the relief works, and that note said, "Eugene Sullivan may be employed." Why, I ask, was Mr. Bourke placed in a position to act in such a cruel manner to this poor man, and to deprive his starving family of the means of subsistence during the very trying period when these works were started? I think the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was most mean and contemptible in connection with these works. He should never have made it possible for landlords to make rent-making machines of these relief works, and I should like some explanation on that point. I should like also to refer to the manner in which these relief works have been conducted, and 915 it would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the opinion of the people in the South of Ireland on the subject. I see that large sums have been spent on supervision, and I assert as a positive fact that while the poor men, in whose interest the Committee voted this money last year, were only paid 7s. and 8s. per week, the sergeants and corporals of the Irish Constabulary who did the supervision were paid as much as 7s. and 8s. per day above their ordinary pay. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, received with the respect that is due to a stranger in that part of the country, but had it been known how the relief works were to be administered he would have had no chance of the ovations which he pretends that he received in the West of Ireland. Many of the roads which were made were not of the slightest utility; they led to nowhere, but some of them would be a convenience to the district, and I appeal to the First Lord or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or whoever has the matter in hand, to push them on as far as possible. It might be said that they could make that appeal to the Grand Jury, but every Irish Member knew that they could expect no sympathy from the Grand Jury for the tenant farmers, or, indeed, for anyone who was not prepared to wink at and assist in their jobbery.
§ (4.35.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)These periods of distress in Ireland, unfortunately, recur, and if we do not accept these contributions a future House of Commons may not be so anxious to vote money for the relief of distress. I think we should view Votes of this kind by any Government dispassionately, criticise them very gently, and give credit where credit is due. I do not speak for any other Irish Member, but I know I express the opinions of hundreds and thousands of people in the West of Ireland when I say that the only fault I find with the policy pursued by the late Chief Secretary is that he concentrated his efforts too much on the mountainous parts of the country, and that he hardly did enough for what I may call the medium class land. Some of this land is worse 916 than the average of the higher districts, but with that exception I have no fault to find. I cannot speak of the whole of the West of Ireland, but of Connemara I can speak, both from observation and report, and I say that there the policy of the late Chief Seeretary in the matter of the relief of distress has been eminently successful and eminently useful. I look upon it that if you spend public money on relief works, you run a great risk of demoralising the people. If the people see that the money is being spent for doing nothing, they inevitably become demoralised. If the works are of a useless character, and still the people are made to work for the money they receive, it does not have a good effect; but if the money is spent to good purpose, and the people are paid for the work they do, and they see that the resources of the country are being developed in such a manner as to lessen the chances of a recurrence of the distress, I think, instead of the morale being injured, it is improved, and I think that is the way in which the public money has been spent in Connemara. No doubt, if you have any large system of relief works, abuses will crop up and all the administration can do is to keep them down. I do not think there were many abuses in Connemara. Perhaps some part of the money did go to the police, but the people for whom it was intended have had a very large portion of it. But at the same time I may say that we Irishmen do not consider the money spent on these relief works as charity. Ireland contributes £8,000,000 a year to the National Exchequer, and we do not get that sum back. And we consider that when any money is spent in Ireland in this way it is our own money. I thought it was well that one Irish Member should speak on this point without regard to Party feeling, and I should like to suggest before I sit down that the Government should consider the question of the acquisition of land for the purpose of forestry as another means of relieving distress. I see that the Chief Secretary has secured a large piece of ground at a very low price, and I would suggest, where land can be obtained on such very advantageous terms, that this system should be ex- 917 tended with a view of developing the resources of the country, and as a means of preventing these Votes for the relief of distress, which, however, are extremely useful as they do more to conciliate the people of Ireland than anything I know.
§ (4.42.) MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)The Vote for these surveys opens up a very important question, and I maintain that nearly the whole of this expenditure might be saved. We have in Ireland a large number of Royal Engineers and the corporals and sergeants of these regiments are well qualified to do the work. No man in Ireland is better qualified than they are, and I maintain that we might save this £2,000, and if we gave, say £500 to the Royal Engineers, they would be very well satisfied, and the work would be well done. They are well trained in work of this kind, but while they have been idle the Government have been employing policemen and other men who have had no training. In all these relief works we find a large sum for salaries, and the money which has been voted by this House for the relief of distress in Ireland has been used for the relief of the local supporters of the Government. I consider it is the duty of Members of this House to call the attention of the Government to the fact that this work can be done much more efficiently and cheaper, and I say that if we are to keep these Royal Engineers in Ireland, it does not matter in what part of the country they are employed, and I say it is a waste of money to pay bailiffs and rent collectors to assist in making roads—a subject on which they have no knowledge—when we have well qualified men who could do the work much better and cheaper on the spot. Under the present regime we do not get value for our money, and every year proposals of this kind will have to be submitted. One reason why these proposals will have to be brought forward is that the people are being constantly swept off their land, and turned into these congested districts, and the pressure of poverty therefore becomes greater. I see from a Return that in one year 163 square miles of country have been cleared of people. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the Government are compelled to bring forward proposals for 918 the relief of distress? Next year it will be the same story. The people are being driven into the congested districts, and they cannot be allowed to starve. Most of these people are able and willing to work, and I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to see that every penny that is voted by this House is devoted, as far as possible, strictly to the purposes for which it was intended.
§ (4.50.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I do not wish to criticise too sharply a Vote of this kind, but there has been a great amount of extravagance in its administration. I also desire to join my hon. Friend (Mr. MacNeill) in protesting that we are in any way opposed to the grants to relieve this distress, or that we were not anxious by every means in our power the mitigate the evils which the people suffered. As my hon. Friend pointed out, whatever suggestions we made we could not come down to this House and ask for money. That is the provence of the Government of the day, and all we could do was to bring the facts before the Government, and that I contend we did. We maintain that after the warnings which we gave to the Government—after the experience of former years, and after the Report of the Commissioners, it was the bounden duty of the Treasury to see that every £1 that was voted for the relief of distress, should be devoted strictly to that purpose, and should not be wasted in paying extravagant sums for clerical work. We find from this Return and from what the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) has stated that the amount spent on clerical work and work of that kind reached an alarming proportion of the entire sum. In Cork county the entire amount spent in relief, making roads, &c, was £28,000, including materials; and that no less than £3,012, or about 11 per cent. was spent in supervision and administration. In the County of Galway—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for that county, who has spoken (Colonel Nolan), is not in his place to hear the figures—the sum spent on relief works was £35,737, and £6,445 was expended in supervision, or 11 per cent.; exactly the same as in the case of County Cork. That is a state of things that the 919 Government should not have permitted, and the first consideration of the Government should be to see that the money is spent amongst the people who so sadly need it. The Committee will not be surprised that these expenses are so large when they know that when these works were first started the men who were first appointed as gangers were bailiffs' agents. Subsequently these men were replaced by sergeants of police and police constables, and we find that even in some very poor districts of the county, the sergeants of police were paid 8s. a day in addition to their ordinary pay; of this, 4s. was actually extra pay, and 4s. was what was called subsistence money; but even that was excessive. I contend that under the circumstances of terrible suffering which prevailed, the Government might have made a demand upon the Constabulary to do the work at the smallest possible cost and with a smaller amount for subsistence. The Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) mentioned a case that came under his own experience; and I say that proves that the landowners and their understrappers had a finger in the pie, and had a large share in the management and control of these works. The Committee, therefore, could not be disappointed, and the Government could not be surprised, that so much of this money has been spent in the way we describe. A question that I asked to-day will bring the question of the relief of distress and its connection with landlordism very prominently before the Committee. I must say it is a very curious commentary on the history of the country that, after 90 years of union, it should be necessary for the Government of the day to come year after year and ask for these relief grants. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is, undoubtedly, worth the serious consideration of the Government. I think it would be a very useful idea to suggest to the Congested Districts Boards that they should direct a portion of their work with a view to re-afforesting large portions of the West of Ireland. The congested districts have the first claim for relief on the Government of the day, and I trust the suggestion will receive 920 all the consideration it deserves. I will only say, in conclusion, that it is disappointing to find that in the voting of these large sums from year to year the lessons of the past have been utterly thrown away upon the Government, and that so high amounts as 10, 11, and 12 per cent. have been incurred in the expenses of administration.
§ (5.5.) MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)I think the course of this discussion ought to satisfy the First Lord of the Treasury that it is necessary for him to see that the giving out of this money is properly done. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have had before him the examples of the failures of 1846 and 1847. On these occasions the Representatives of Ireland in this House constantly warned the Government that the relief they were supposed to be giving to the people was going into the pockets of those who did not want relief. An unfair proportion of the money went into the pockets of the officials. The First Lord of the Treasury ought not to spoil the effect of his Act. He intended to prevent distress by giving employment and relief without the degradation of charity, and if he does not wish to spoil the effect of his measure he should see that the money does not go into the pockets of officials. I wish to bring under notice a certain point. A dispute arose in the County of Cork between the contractor who was engaged in carrying out one of these railways and the employés. The employés complained that they were not getting a fair wage. I think there is no reason why the men who are employed should not receive fair wages. In the dispute to which I refer the contractor dismissed the engineer, who was popular with the men, and put in another man who was willing to reduce the men's wages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that men who are employed by the Government in this way will get a fair wage. Sir, my attention was called the other day to an appeal in the public Press in London, made by a reverend gentleman well-known and well-beloved in the district where he lives—whose name has been associated for a great number of years with the district of Gweedore. It occurs to me that the Government might direct their atten- 921 tion to this particular locality. When this measure was introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury I was not here. I was sharing residence in one of those castellated mansions in Ireland, and, therefore, I am not able to say whether Gweedore was included in the measure. But if Gweedore is not included I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to apply some of this money in some way for the benefit of this district, either in the way of building a pier, to give facilities for the landing and catching of fish, or in some other way, whereby the people will not have to appeal for relief through the parish priest. This is degrading to the people themselves. I know that these people are anxious to live by their own industry. They travel from year to year to Scotland and other places to try to get work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to give employment to these people.
§ (5.10.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I do not propose on the present occasion to repeat the observations which I have often had occasion to make upon the general principles which have directed, and which ought to direct, the Government in dealing with the question of exceptional distress in Ireland. Nor shall I again travel over the controversial ground which we touched upon the first night on which this Vote was before us. I then said in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo all that I meant to say, and I see no object in repeating what I then said, or in again dragging into our discussions subjects rather heated. It is, perhaps, only necessary for me, in appealing to the House to bring this discussion to a close, to answer one or two of the questions which have been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. He called attention to the experiment that we made last year in the purchase of some land for the purpose of afforesting. That purchase, he rightly said, was made at a cheap rate, but it is by no means an easy matter to obtain land in the West of Ireland at a cheap rate, from the rights of way, the rights of pasturage, and other 922 rights, not usually known to the landlord, but which will seriously embarrass and, perhaps, entirely destroy any efforts that might be made to carry out afforesting on a large scale. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down called attention to a controversy that has apparently occurred between one of the contractors of a new railway line and his workmen. The Vote we are now discussing has nothing to do with railways, nor have the Government any control over the rates of wages to be paid by the contractors of these lines to the workmen whom they employ. This Vote simply refers to works we started ourselves, and in which we employed no contractor as an intermediary. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork called attention to the high percentage of the amount paid for superintendence in the total amount expended. Well, of course, it is very desirable to keep the percentage as low as possible. Supervision, however, and very careful supervision, is the great requisite of administration when you are dealing with funds of this kind. The taxpayers' money is an exhaustible resource, and unless you watch every item of expenditure with the most rigid scrutiny, and lay down the most careful rules for that expenditure, you will be furnished with the most extravagant outlay. What is far worse, you will demoralise the people whom you desire to benefit. It is only the very careful system of supervision which we have adopted which has enabled us, on the whole, successfully to cope with the enormous difficulties that necessarily attend relief works. One other gentleman complained of our not using the Royal Engineers. He said if we had used them we should have done engineering work much more cheaply. I can only say, so far as I know, we are the first Government who have ever used the Royal Engineers on a very large scale. The gentleman principally responsible for the engineering work connected with these relief operations was a Royal Engineer. His two immediate subordinates were both Royal Engineers. A large number of the superintendents whom we employed upon the works were drawn from that 923 distinguished corps. So that I thin we, of all previous Administrations, the least deserve the reproach which the hon. Gentleman has hurled at us. He refers also to the future. I will only say that no relief works are in contemplation in any part of Ireland in the future. If he refers to the past, the whole question of the North and North-West part of Donegal was very carefully gone into in this House on more than one occasion—once I recollect in consequence of an Adjournment of the Debate moved by the hon. Gentleman himself. We have seen no reason to regret the course we then took. The hon. Gentleman himself appears to be under the impression that nothing has been done for Donegal. I would remind him that two railways have been made in Donegal; that a great many roads have been started in that part of the country; and that everything has been done, as we believe, which was necessary to be done, in order to enable the people to get over the crisis caused by the potato failure. I am fortified in this conviction by the knowledge that the distress in the North: West of Donegal never reached the acute stage that some people were afraid of. Not only so, no deaths from starvation occurred there; nothing was threatened like deaths from starvation. As I say, this Vote applies to the past, not to the future. Doubtless any Government which has to deal with such a crisis as we have passed through—may it be many years before that occurs—will attempt to deal with a large part of the country as we attempted, after a real examination of the distress which they have to heal.
§ (5.20). MR. GILHOOLY (Cork Co., W.)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to one of the contractors. I wish to know how it came about that the contractor was in a position to give starvation wages?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman has given me no notice of this subject. If he puts a question on the Paper I will answer it.
§ MR. GILHOOLYI shall put a question to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ (5.21) MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)I have no intention to make any remarks with regard to the ques- 924 tion of the administration of this relief, because I have no special knowledge respecting it. I am not going to oppose the Vote either. I believe the distribution of relief has been managed with the best of intentions. But I must entirely object to the term "exceptional distress." There has been one distress after another. The famine of 1845, 1846, and 1847, is in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen. Ever since that time collections have had to be made at recurring intervals for Ireland in some of the most distant parts of the earth. We know there must be some reason for this constant and ever recurring distress. The cause of it does not lie in the nature, of the people; the unfortunate inhabitants of these Western districts were driven there against their will, and then when they got there they became subject to a system of land tenure that ground them down to the earth. My belief is, there will be no complete relief until land legislation brought about by the Irish Members themselves is applied. Apart from the distress the demoralisation arising from this system of relief is a bad feature of the Government policy. The present system of governing our country must fail, and then the responsibility will be thrown upon those who have always given warning of the difficulties that would arise.
§ (5.23.) MR. MACNEILLIn my short career as a Member of Parliament I have had to testify several times to the starving condition of the people in the district of Donegal. At the present moment there are no fewer than 558 families who are in a miserable condition—who cannot get work. They are being exterminated because they will not submit to a villainous landlord. Will the right hon. Gentleman go against what I say? I think I must really ask the Chief Secretary to reply. He has seen the condition of matters. He knows that this is not a matter of politics. I must ask that something should be done for the poor people. Their misery is intolerable. I appeal to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He has been in the district, and knows the wretched condition of these people. He says something must be done. He says, likewise, there are no potatoes. It is a mistake to talk about tubers, 925 because tubers do not exist. Even Mr. Olphert, their exterminator, said that some relief ought to be given. I do implore, in the House of Commons, that something should be done for these people. No one who has seen the depth of poverty of these people can ever forget it. The impressions of the scenes remain on my mind—the appearance of the starving children, the appearance of the men, with want stamped on their faces—their miserable, helpless look. It is really a sacred mission to do something. We have had political capital made out of these situations. I myself was accused of trying to obstruct the Government, because I went down and asked them whether for God's sake they were not going to do something. The right hon. Gentleman does not attempt to deny that these people are on the verge of want. In the interests of humanity I appeal, I make a last request, to the Chief Secretary to do something. Two years ago I brought the condition of these people before the House. A gentleman on the other side, a Tory, voted against the Adjournment of the House. He met me a minute afterwards, and he said, "Here, MacNeill, have you overstated your case?" I said, "No, my dear fellow, I understated it;" and he gave me a cheque for £100 for the poor starving people.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMight I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Vote we are discussing is for money which has been expended? If the hon. Gentleman desires to have new relief works, then I will respectfully say this is not the time to bring forward his proposals.
§ MR. MACNEILLThat is quite true. I accept that, but he has told me that no relief will be given to these people. I am horrified at the observation. It is an observation that will do little good to him and to his Government.
§ (5.27.) MR. P. O'BRIENI regret that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury is not at all satisfactory. Without taking shelter behind the Vote, I hope he will give some assurance that he will take steps to see that the condition of the people is relieved. The Rev. Father McFadden would be the last to make an appeal of this kind 926 without cause. He says the wolf is at the door. What is the position today? We have to appeal again, as we have often had to do before, to the charity of the British people. I think the British taxpayer has a right to complain that while he is giving money out of the Exchequer to relieve these people their Representatives are compelled to ask in the public Press for charity for these very same people. I notice that some money is being raised by the Government to supply high-class horses to certain districts in Ireland. We have had many a time in Ireland the cry of "Cattle before men." Here we have money being applied to improve the breed of horses, while the people are allowed to starve. I think we ought to get some assurance from the Government that they will not delay until the condition of these unfortunate people becomes worse. Relief should be given to them before they reach starvation. I think the Government ought to give some assurance that they will cause inquiry to be made into the condition of these people, and that if they find they are in danger of famine, as stated in the public Press, they will not wait until they are dying, but that they will apply some money to their aid, and give them relief in the way of employment without their having to suffer the degradation of charity.
§ (5.29.) MR. FLYNNI do not desire to detain the Committee much longer, but I wish to express the deep dissatisfaction I feel at the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury in connection with the distress in Donegal. I hope, at any rate in connection with this Vote, the attention of the Chief Secretary will be called to that portion of Donegal. It is true that a railway is being constructed in Donegal, but this railway does not run through the distressed district which my hon. Friend refers to.
§ MR. JACKSONIt does.
§ MR. FLYNNWith regard to the percentage paid out of this Vote for administration and supervision, constables and sergeants of constabulary are paid from 4s. to 8s. extra for this work—men who are in receipt of very good pay. You give 8s. a week to a sergeant for supervising a certain portion of road, and you only give 7s. a week to a man for 927 working the entire week on the road. This being so, the Committee must not be surprised if a large amount of this money has followed the fate of other money in connection with the relief of distress in Ireland, and has been squandered and misapplied.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 6. £15,000, Foot and Mouth Disease.
(5.33.) SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHIt is now some days since the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture announced in this House that some new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease had occurred in parts of England and Scotland. I desire that he should now have an opportunity of giving the House any further information on the subject in his possession. Within the last few days, judging from what has appeared in the newspapers, I fear that fresh outbreaks have occurred both in Scotland and in certain parts of England. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also inform the House what further measures the Board of Agriculture are taking to cope with the spread of this disease. I observe the Vote in this case is for £15,000, and is for compensation and expenses. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House whether, as, no doubt, this Estimate was framed in February, he has any reason to suppose that this money will be sufficient to meet all the expenses that have been incurred, foot-and-mouth disease having very largely spread since then. No doubt the slaughter has not been carried out in all cases by his Department, but at the expense of the ratepayers; but I am afraid there has been a good deal more slaughtering since some time in the month of February, and further expenses may have been incurred.
§ MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.)What regulations have been framed for markets and fairs?
§ (5.35.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, SleafordThe right hon. Gentleman commenced by putting a question to me as to what has occurred in connection with this unfortunate outbreak since the last occasion on which I have 928 spoken on the subject. And I regret to say it is true that in spite of every exertion that has been made by the Board of Agriculture and the officers who serve it, and whose efforts and whose work are deserving of the highest praise, there has been to some extent a spread of this disease, as the House will remember. It was discovered on the 4th February, at the Metropolitan Cattle Market at Islington. From that time, including the present outbreak, there has been 43 different outbreaks of the disease, and of these the greater number have occurred in the Metropolitan Police Districts, and in the Counties of Kent and Sussex. There has been 16 in the Metropolitan Police Districts, nine in Kent, and four in the County of Sussex, making 29 in all in that particular district of the country. But in addition to this I am sorry to say there has been one case in Surrey, and one in the County of Essex. But it is satisfactory to remember that in none of these districts has there been any case whatever since the 29th February, with two exceptions to which I will further call the attention of the House. One is a case that occurred in the Isle of Sheppey two or three days ago, but which is really merely an extension of an outbreak there, and upon a farm which was already affected. Another outbreak has occurred close to Brighton, of which I only heard at a very late hour last night. These exceptions certainly have been a source of great disappointment to me, but in other respects, so far as the other parts of the country are concerned, I do not think the report, generally speaking, can be considered as discouraging; because the House will remember that the period of incubation of this particular disease generally takes from five to six or seven days, and a period had elapsed up to last night of more than 14 days since the last outbreak in this part of England occurred. I am bound to add that unfortunately on the 27th of last month the disease appeared at Edinburgh. How it got there is one of those mysteries in the character of this disease which no human being has ever been able to solve. So far as I can gather, no animals from London or the South of 929 England were sent to Edinburgh since the first outbreak of the disease in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. It is supposed to have been conveyed by human agency, by some drover, or butcher, or dealer, or dairyman from one of the dairies here in England—in London—several of which are affected, and conveyed to the market in Edinburgh. Be that as it may, there have been two cases in Edinburgh; and from Edinburgh the disease spread very quickly to Midlothian and Glasgow, with the result that there are six cases in Midlothian and one in Glasgow. But this, I am sorry to say, is not all, because from Glasgow it appears that one cow found its way into Yorkshire, and into the Leeds market, and it was in that market nearly the whole of the day; and on its being taken to its destination, at Settle, in the Craven district, in the County of Yorkshire, the disease appeared in that animal; and either on that day or the day after it appeared on the premises of a Mr. Dugdale, a man very well known in that part of the country, and who has given every assistance in his power to prevent the disease from spreading. I have some hopes in the case of Yorkshire, at all events, that it may be possible that the disease may be checked. It is too early to speak with confidence; but it was on the 3rd March that the disease was discovered in Yorkshire, and, so far, it has not spread at all, excepting in one instance which has been reported, and which I have some reason to believe was not altogether well-founded. That was a case which was supposed to have occurred at Kirkby Lonsdale, in Westmoreland; and there is some reason to hope that that was a false alarm. And I am not altogether without hopes, so far as Yorkshire and that part of England is concerned, that the outbreaks there may possibly be checked. I cannot help thinking that the two cases to which I have last referred are instances which illustrate the fact that the spread of the disease might have been prevented if earlier action had been taken by the Local Authorities. I am not saying this for a single moment for the purpose of imputing any blame to the Local Authorities, from nearly all of 930 whom I have received the most loyal co-operation and support; but I took it upon myself, very shortly after the disease first appeared in the country, to communicate on three different occasions with all the Local Authorities of the country, reminding them of the powers they possess of closing their counties and preventing animals being brought into them, and warning them of the great danger which they would incur if steps in that direction were not taken. Undoubtedly, if that course had been adopted in this particular case in Yorkshire at an earlier period probably the outbreak which I speak of would have been spared. Many of the Local Authorities are now closing their counties. You may ask, very likely, why was it that the Board of Agriculture did not take this action of their own accord. My answer would be this: that it would be impossible for the Central Authority in London to be cognisant of all the circumstances of the different Local Authorities throughout the country, and it would be impossible for me to pass an Order closing every single district in the country without possessing that information which necessarily can only be possessed by those who are conversant on the spot with all the different circumstances and requirements of the different localities. I wish I could speak more hopefully than I can of the cases in Scotland at the present time. It appeared in Edinburgh, then spread to Glasgow and Midlothian, and now, I am sorry to say, the day before yesterday, or yesterday I think it was, I received the intelligence that a case had occurred in Perthshire. It is an unfortunate circumstance that it should have appeared in Glasgow as well as in Perth, and for this reason, that both Glasgow and Perth are two of the most considerable markets in the country; and it is through Glasgow, I wish to remind the House, that a very large number of animals come almost every week from Ireland for the purpose of being sent to the northern counties of Scotland as store stock, and have in their natural course to pass through the City of Glasgow. I am, therefore, obliged to take measures, for 931 the present, to put an end to this state of things, because, unless I did so, the disease would at once spread through the whole of the North of Scotland; and for the time being, at all events, I am compelled to impose very stringent restrictions upon cattle passing through Glasgow, and to prevent them from going to the North. I have now stated to the House pretty nearly all the information I have to put before them in my possession at the present time; and I can only express my great regret at the re-appearance of this disease after the measures we had taken for the purpose of stamping it out; and, secondly, that we have not been more successful in bringing it to a conclusion. But I may remind the House of this: that really it was almost a forlorn hope from the very commencement, from the first day that the disease appeared in the London market, and for this reason—as the House will clearly understand. So far as I have been able to estimate, on the morning when it was discovered, on Thursday, 4th February, at the market, and on the Monday previous—there had been 1,500 beasts, 2,000 sheep, and several hundreds of drovers, dealers, butchers, and others, and the majority of them all had dispersed before we became aware of the existence of the disease. Owing to the peculiar character of this disease, and the facility with which it can be transmitted, every one of these men and these animals was capable of transmitting it to the respective districts to which they went. The House will, therefore, see the enormous difficulty which we had before us, and with which we had to contend, and, consequently, it is not surprising that the disease has spread as it has done. I have referred to some of the figures recorded after the spread of the disease in 1880, and, so far, it is satisfactory to know that the number of cases up to the present date actually brought to my notice is considerably less than at the same date of that year. Still, the position now is far from being satisfactory, and, although we shall continue to make every effort to confine this attack and restrict it within the smallest possible limits, I should be deceiving the House if I 932 attempted to conceal the fact that we have not been successful up to the present in effectually coping with the disease. Wherever outbreaks have occurred we have taken immediate measures—firstly, by scheduling the infected districts; and, secondly, by scheduling the county or the districts around, to prevent the disease from spreading. As regards the amount of the estimate upon which my right hon. Friend opposite put some questions, I have no doubt the estimate will be amply sufficient, and for this reason: It is quite true that when the disease first appeared in London the Board of Agriculture, in order to stamp it out before it had further spread, did resort to the expedient of immediately slaughtering the animals. But that is an expedient that cannot be adopted for more than a few days, and only in the early days of the attack. In the case of foot-and-mouth disease the animals afflicted recover from it very rapidly, getting back not only their health, but their value, and it would cost the country an enormous amount of money and would be entirely out of the question to resor to slaughter in every case. The number of animals slaughtered by order of the Board of Agriculture is 295, and their cost £2,101. In addition, we have considerable expenses to meet, these having been incurred in respect of veterinary surgeons, the expenses of Travelling Inspectors, the burial of animals, the disinfection of the places where they were killed, and the payment of compensation for the destruction of fodder, &c, all of which amounted in round figures a few days ago to £1,000 or £1,100. Then, again, we have employed veterinary surgeons to inspect the dairies in London. It is within the metropolitan district that the disease is still lurking in a few isolated instances. There are in the metropolitan area something like 2,000 dairies, and it is in these that the danger lurks. I am sorry to say that there is an unfortunate disposition to conceal cases of disease as they arise. They are not always reported to us, although it is most important that at the very earliest possible moment we should receive information 933 of any and of every outbreak. For that reason I have employed as large a body of Inspectors as I could obtain of competent persons to inspect the London dairies, and to do nothing else. This will entail a further cost of from £1,400 to £1,500. Now, Sir, I am asked what we are doing in Scotland. Sir, with regard to Scotland, the first thing we did was to pass an Order which was automatic in its application, and which involved the closing of markets and of fairs in districts which had been declared to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease. I am painfully aware of the inconvenience of the losses caused to owners and to breeders of stock, to farmers, to dealers, and to butchers; but I wish to point out this, in the hope that it may convey some re-assurance to those whose interests are chiefly concerned. I imposed the most rigid restrictions in the first instance, in order, if possible, to prevent the disease from spreading, to any great extent, into the country. But I was also aware that restrictions were capable of being made so rigid that eventually the remedy might become worse than the disease. That, Sir, I have carefully borne in mind in the course that I have been adopting, and I have in preparation already a Code of Regulations which will very shortly take the place of those in existence, and which will I hope, without producing more than the minimum of inconvenience, will still be instrumental in checking the disease.
§ (5.55.) MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)I think that the House and the country have great reason to be satisfied with the determined manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has battled with this insidious disease. The success which has so far attended the efforts of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman so ably presides is greater far than he has himself indicated. Some little time must of necessity have arisen before the new centres of disease were discovered, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the cordial and energetic co-operation of all Local Authorities. This disease is so infectious and so difficult to deal with that it requires not only the action of the Central 934 Authorities, but the co-operation of the Local Authorities; and if there is such co-operation, I believe that within a comparatively few weeks the disease will be again exterminated from the country. In this hope, and with this view, I trust the Local Authorities will take drastic measures as regards the movement of cattle, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not relax any measures of precaution at least for the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman need not make the infected areas any larger than is absolutely necessary, but, at the same time, he ought to take the most effective means to prevent the infection being conveyed by cattle or drovers of cattle, dealers or others who come into contact with diseased cattle. I believe the present outbreak has been extended more by human agency than by the animals themselves.
§ (5.57.) SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)I am sure, Sir, that the whole of the agricultural community will view with the greatest satisfaction the energetic action taken by the Board of Agriculture in this matter. We have a very vivid recollection of a period, not many years ago, when this disease was a plague in the country, and it is impossible to over-estimate the injury which it caused. The country has been free from this scourge for many years, and but for the importation of live animals from abroad we should be free from it now. The amount of food provided by imported live stock is now so small that it may be well to consider, in view of the return of this disease, whether the importation of live animals should not be altogether prohibited. At the outbreak of this disease, the right hon. Gentleman resorted to many measures, including that of slaughter. When you get to the end of an outbreak, having reduced it to a few spots, the remedy of slaughter can be employed with great effect. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a right to expect, and I think he will receive the support not only of the Local Authorities, but of the farmers, in enforcing any regulations he may make, however stringent those regulations may be. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us 935 he has appointed skilled Inspectors to watch every one of those places where there is reason to suspect that the disease may be lurking, with the view of preventing any outbreak. If the right hon. Gentleman would circulate a Memorandum on the subject of isolation, it might be of great assistance in checking the spread of the disease. I venture to urge strongly the enormous advantage that would accrue if isolation were universally adopted, so that animals, whether believed to be safe and sound or coming from a market even beyond suspicion—if such animals were carefully isolated, in every case, on the farm into which they were introduced, this disease might be very materially reduced, or, at least, its spread prevented.
§ (6.2.) COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)It is important that for the next two months certain measures should be taken at the Port of Glasgow. Up till the month of May the whole stock of Irish cattle begins to come over from the North of Ireland to Scotland; and serious consequences might result, as well as serious difficulties arise, in a large part of Ireland, especially in the North, if proper precautions are not taken at Glasgow. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep up the necessary regulations in that part of Scotland, and, if possible, stamp out the disease before the importation of Irish cattle sets in.
§ (6.4.) MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of those I represent for all he has done, and I hope he will continue to do in the future as he has done in the past. I can only assure him that the farmers in my part of the world are most willing to assent to any regulations he may put upon them in the hope that he may succeed in stamping out the disease. But I wish to point out to him, and I am glad that he has acknowledged it in his speech, that it may be the case that the remedy may prove worse than the disease. I am convinced that when this thing is stamped out here, that the only way to prevent its return will be to put some check on the importation of live stock from abroad.
§ (6.6.) SIR WALTER BARTTELOT (Sussex, North West)I thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture for what he has done in endeavouring to prevent the importation of disease from, abroad, as well as for the regulations he has made to prevent the spread of the foot-and-mouth disease at home. I thank him, however, especially for so-far relaxing his rules as to allow lambs to be sent to London for immediate slaughter, and also in permitting Kent sheep to be moved out of Sussex to enable them to go to Romney Marsh. I would also impress upon him that he might now allow bullocks marked for slaughter to be sent to the London Market. This would be very much appreciated by farmers in all parts of the country. As to isolation, I should like all Local Authorities to endeavour to press most strongly upon those under their influence and control the necessity for isolation, and the good which is likely to result from it. Farmers are particularly negligent in regard to isolation. I have always made it a practice to isolate any fresh stock I have bought, and if my right hon. Friend would give a caution of that kind it would be of immense advantage to the country.
§ (6.8.) MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)I think it is only fair that a word should be said from this side of the House in support of the policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. As the Representative of a constituency which is largely agricultural, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents regard with approval the course he has pursued. This is sometimes represented as a producer's question. That is a very narrow point of view in which to regard it, for no one is more interested in the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease than the consumer. I only hope, from whatever quarter pressure comes upon the right, hon. Gentleman to relax the precautions and restrictions, he will, at all events for a time, in order to insure the stamping out of the disease, stand firm.
§ (6.10.) VISCOUNT GRIMSTON (Herts, St. Albans)Coining, as I do, from an agricultural community where the farmers accept with loyalty all necessary restrictions, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly give his careful consideration to the removal of manure from London to various parts of the country? Restrictions on this movement should be as far as possible removed, as at the present time of the year it is necessary that these farmers who make use of that manure from London should be able to cart it to the land, and so be able to prepare against the exigencies of the coming season. The farmers in my district would be ready to accept any necessary restriction, and so support the right hon. Gentleman in every possible way.
§ (6.12.) MR. FLYNNI can bear testimony to the patient interest with which all of us on this side of the House have listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. There is one point in which this question affects Ireland and the Port of Glasgow. Unquestionably there is a large cattle trade between the North of Ireland and Glasgow, and I am sure the parties engaged in it would submit with a bad grace to the closing of that port even for such a time as is required for necessitous cases. Taking into account the large trade that passes through Glasgow, I trust the restriction will not be continued any longer than is necessary. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture if he has any idea how long it will be necessary to continue a restriction of that kind?
§ (6.13.) MR. DARLING (Deptford)Whilst I admit that the measures taken to stamp out the import and sale of diseased animals in this country have been beneficial, yet the Minister of Agriculture will understand me when I say that the constituency I represent has for a long time suffered extremely from the measures which he has thought it necessary to impose for safeguarding the flocks. Those measures, no doubt, have had the support of those who have cattle to rear and sell in this country. It may be a consumer's 938 question, or it may be a producer's question, but it is something more. Under authority of the Legislature a certain policy was entered upon many years ago, and large cattle markets as well as houses for the slaughter of cattle were started in London and elsewhere. And I would press on the attention of the Minister for Agriculture that the policy he has pursued has occasioned great hardship to those connected with the great markets, such as at Deptford. Cattle and sheep are forbidden to come from the whole of Germany simply because foot-and-mouth disease has broken out in one of the Duchies. That course of action interferes with all persons who get their living by slaughtering cattle—it also interferes with the livelihood of those who earn their living about these markets. It is, however, a mere matter of imagination that disease can come from districts which are not known to be affected, and the requirements of the case would be met by ordering the slaughter of these animals on their arrival from these districts. There should be a more liberal use of the power of slaughtering, and a less liberal use of the power of prohibiting importation altogether, at the port of debarkation in those establishments which have been erected at such great public expense. I do not desire to delay the Vote or to hamper the Minister of Agriculture, who has very difficult duties to discharge; but I trust that he will take into consideration these remarks on behalf of what is really a great industry in this country.
§ (6.20.) MR. MORTONI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and am sure he is doing the best he can under the circumstances. I do not begrudge this or any money to stamp out disease, but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the consumer is the most important personage to be considered. While it is necessary to carry out these Orders, I hope he will bear in mind the needs and wants of the consumers, and make it as easy for them as he can.
§ (6.21.) MR. CHAPLINI have every reason to be satisfied with—indeed, to be grateful for—the references which have been made to the administration 939 of the Board of Agriculture in this unfortunate outbreak. I may say at once, in reply to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that the steps I have taken and am now taking are those which I am convinced are in the very best interests of the consumer. The great interest of the consumer of meat in this country lies in home produce. Since this Act was put in force, and since measures for the prevention or mitigation of foot-and-mouth disease were first carried out, the increase in the number of cattle in this country has been something like one million, as shown by the Annual Returns, and the number of sheep has increased by something like three millions. That is one side of the question, and of the policy which I have endeavoured to pursue. What is the other side? What is the interest of the consumer in the meat which still comes from the Continent of Europe? I pointed out, in answer to a question the other day, that if I were to stop the remaining imports from the Continent of Europe, which it may become necessary for me to do, all I should interfere with would be one quarter of 1 per cent. of the whole annual food supply. Is that worth considering in comparison with the risk we run of a re-introduction of this disease, which might ultimately diminish our home supplies by a million cattle and two or three million sheep? I hope I have been able to convince the hon. Gentleman that I am not oblivious to and do not disregard the interest of the consumer. I wish to say one word in reply to my hon. Friend behind me. With respect to the injury done to the markets, I sympathise with the unfortunate people who, to some extent, have been thrown out of work by the action which I have thought it necessary to take from time to time; but I think the hon. Gentleman somewhat exaggerated the case. The great bulk of the animals that come alive to this country come from America, where foot-and-mouth disease is unknown, at any rate for a great number of years. Nothing whatever is done to interfere with them, except to order their slaughter at the port of debarkation; and it is from that order, which is in force under the 940 powers of the Board of Agriculture, these people receive all their work and employment. The number of animals which has been prevented from coming from the Continent of Europe which would be slaughtered at the port of debarkation is so trifling that it is hardly worth consideration. I hope, on reconsideration of the matter, the hon. Gentleman will exonerate me from having inflicted injury on the people to whom he referred to the extent he supposes.
§ MR. MORTONWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us the effect on prices?
§ MR. CHAPLINAbsolutely none, I believe; but if anything, they have rather diminished.
§ MR. FLYNNWill the right hon. Gentleman tell me how long the restrictions on the trade between Glasgow and Ireland are likely to be continued?
§ MR. CHAPLINThat must depend on the success of the efforts of the Board of Agriculture to suppress the disease in Glasgow and the neighbourhood. It is now some eight or nine days since the disease first broke out there, and it has not extended in Glasgow, though it has reached Perth. If the efforts which are being made to stamp out the disease are successful, I hope the existing restrictions at Glasgow may not continue in force for any lengthened period of time.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.