HC Deb 27 July 1898 vol 63 cc94-100

Upon the Second Reading of Bill,

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I do not wish to detain the House, but I have tried to understand this Bill, but I have not been able to do so. I think the fact that such a Bill is introduced at such a late stage of the Session shows that there was more real distress in Ireland than some honourable Members of the Government were inclined to admit in the past; but I wish now to ask the precise effect of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

It is a precisely similar Bill to that which was passed in 1885 and 1886. First of all it indemnifies the boards of guardians for the outlay they have made for exceptional distress. It indemnifies them for the outlay to the extent which has taken place up to this date, and covers that which will be made up to the 1st September, 1898.

MR. DILLON

Does it in any way cover the labour test?

MR. ATKINSON

No; it merely indemnifies them, for what they have done, and authorises them to continue until the 1st September next.

MR. DILLON

Does it touch the question of the money which has been expended in the labour test?

MR. ATKINSON

Yes; but it refers to the expenditure of the loans, and enables them to borrow more money.

DR. CLARK

This is, unfortunately, one of the Bills not settled by two sides of the House, and I think it is too late, at half-past six in the evening, to settle it now. If we are going on with this it will take up to eight or nine o'clock. I think I must move the adjournment of the Debate with regard to this, because if it is proceeded with it will take some considerable time. It ought not to have been brought before us tonight under the usual arrangement which we agreed to, because it was only non-controversial matter which was to be taken on Wednesdays.

MR. ATKINSON

There is absolutely nothing controversial in this bill. It simply indemnifies the boards of guar- dians, who have been giving money for the distress for which they would otherwise be liable, and to enable them to continue to relieve distress until September. It is a general Measure to meet the distress, and cannot raise any controversy.

MR. DILLON

I now understand from the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that without this Bill makes some provision for these sums of money they are to be charged to the guardians, and I understand it covers the labour test. I understand that is the case, and if that be so it raises the entire question of the new departure which has been put in force by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland for the first time this year, which he describes as the labour test. It raises a most important question of policy as regards dealing with distress in Ireland, and it is, as I maintain, a very serious question of policy indeed; and I think it is preposterous to ask us to discuss it now. It opens up the entire question of the new system of dealing with the distress in Ireland, a question upon which I feel most bitterly, and one upon which I understand the bitterest feeling exists in Ireland. Now, Sir, the understanding which the House had with the Government was that this power of continuing the Wednesday sittings by the suspension of the rule was to be temporarily used, but I have noticed that since the 12 O'clock rule has been suspended we have been kept here until three o'clock every morning; and, of course, have plunged into the most exhaustive subjects in the most exhausting period of the year. It is now half-past six, and I submit that as this is a most contentious, subject, and opens up the whole question of the amount which is to be charged to the guardians of these unfortunate districts scourged by famine—

MR. ATKINSON

If the honourable Member will permit me, that question is not affected by this Bill; all this Bill does is to indemnify the guardians for past expenditure.

MR. DILLON

What is the amount?

MR. ATKINSON

I cannot state the exact amount; the accounts are not yet finished; but as soon as we can ascertain—the amount spent by the guardians is about £10,000, the amount spent by the Government is £50,000—it is to indemnify them, for that expenditure.

MR. DILLON

The Attorney General has not succeeded in making it clear; it may be that the Government have spent £50,000 and the guardians £10,000; we want to know how much is going to be charged in respect of the Government expenditure for the relief works. This is all a question of expense, and I do think we ought to have a reasonable opportunity of eliciting from the Government what the exact situation is, because I am entirely in the dark. I do not understand from either the Bill or the Attorney General what the policy is or what the effect of this Bill is.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I hope the honourable Gentleman will not insist upon the Motion which he has made for the adjournment. This Bill deals with an action of the past, and is not a Bill dealing with a policy of the future. It is not a Bill upon general questions upon which discussion could be raised, and under the circumstances I suggest to the honourable Gentleman that he will withdraw his Motion.

MR. DILLON

Will the right honourable Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any other Bills besides the two Bills before the House, upon which the question of policy can be raised?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I understand that the two Bills upon the Paper cover all that is to be done. The general question can be raised to a certain extent upon the point which the honourable Member wishes to discuss upon Supply.

MR. COURTENAY WARNERLichneld) (Stafford,

I think it is quite clear that in this Bill there is a new policy. The right honourable Gentleman opposite says "No"; but it is quite clear that there is a change of policy, and we have the Chief Secretary's word for it. This is the only opportunity of discussing that change. It has been stated by the Leader of the House that there will be no other opportunity except Supply, and Irish Supply is done for, so far as discussion in this House goes——

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I said the general policy of the country upon Irish distress. A discussion may be raised then.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

I never complained of the Government not introducing enough Bills, and I do not think that is the complaint now; but what is complained of now is that there is no opportunity given for discussing this subject. I hope, considering that we had the assurance that legislation would not be kept up late, and we have been kept up until the early hours of the morning ever since the 12 o'clock rule has been suspended, that the Government will not press upon us to continue the discussion now.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I might point out that the honourable Gentleman has no right to complain of the attitude of the Government today. The First Reading was immediately considered, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will feel that we do object to the Bill being gone on with without some opportunity being given for discussing it. I have had some conversation with my honourable Friend, and I find that his opinion is that this Bill raises very important questions of policy. The right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General has one opinion, and my honourable Friend holds another upon the question of policy. This Bill raises that particular question as to the districts where this labour test was applied, and the amount of expenditure which those unions will be expected to pay. Nobody can deny that those are important points, and a policy which ought to be discussed. Now, I understand that it is suggested that these questions ought to be raised upon Supply, but the right honourable Gentleman must know that we are in a peculiar position as to Supply, owing to the rapidly-running sands of time, and under the circumstances I appeal to the Government to reserve this question to a more convenient moment.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

The appeal which has been made by the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down is that we should adjourn this Debate to a more convenient time. I do not know how a more convenient time is to be found, but these Bills must pass, as I understand, because they are to relieve the guardians, who have done their duty, and whom nobody desires to leave under a possible threat of legal proceedings. That being so, I do not think there could be a more convenient opportunity for discussing it. If it is distinctly understood that it must pass, then I do not think it is worth while to resist the Motion.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I appeal to the honourable Member opposite not to obstruct these Bills. I do not wish to see the poor law guardians mulcted in the £10,000, and have to pay it out of their own pocket.

MR. DILLON

I was only going to say I made the appeal entirely upon the statement of the Attorney General, which I understood to be that this Bill covered the question of the labour test and the cost of the relief work of the guardians in Ireland. If that be so, I do claim a fair time for discussion.

MR. ATKINSON

I said this was a Bill for indemnifying the guardians for having expended money under the provisions of the Act of 1862, and also to enable them to continue to expend money up to September.

MR. DILLON

I think the best course would be to let this stand over until the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has expressed his views. I have no objection to your taking the next Bill.

* SIR J. COLOMB

Might I join my honourable Friend behind me, the honourable Member for Belfast, in appealing that there should be no obstruction with regard to this Bill? Might I also recall the transaction of a short time ago, when the First Lord of the Treasury was sketching to the House the course of business: he mentioned it would be necessary to introduce this Bill in order to indemnify those who had relieved the distress in the south and west of Ireland. I do hope there will be no obstruction.

The adjournment of the Debate was agreed to.