Sitting of 12 February 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Medical Appointments Qualifications*[71]; Epping Forest Act (1878) (Continuance)*[73]; Indian Salaries and Allowances*[72].
Second Reading—Relief of Distress (Ireland) [1].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Bankruptcy Law Amendment [3]; Chartered Banks (Colonial) [4]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3)*[67]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2)*[37].
Committee—Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act (1875) Amendment [5].

QUESTIONS.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, UNREFORMED—REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  508
  partment, Whether he proposes to take action on the Report of the Municipal Corporations Commission?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that he had only had the Report in his hands a week before Parliament reassembled; and, therefore, he had not had time to study it with the evidence. The Commission had bestowed pains upon this inquiry; and, no doubt, their more material recommendations would deserve considerable attention.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES—CITY OF LONDON—REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. W.H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Report of the Royal Commission on the Parochial Charities of the City of London has not been presented; and, if he can state when it will be presented?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the reason why the Report referred to had not been presented was because it had not yet been received. It was expected that the Report would be received by the Home Office at the end of the present month, shortly after which it would be laid upon the Table.

  CHARITY EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTS BILL.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to re-introduce the Charity Expenses and Accounts Bill of last Session; and, if not, what steps they intend to take to put into effect the assurance given last Session on the subject by the Government?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, that it was not the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Bill relating to Charity Expenses and Accounts, which he had laid upon the Table last Session, because the reception which that measure met with then was hardly encouraging. At present no decision had been come to with reference to any further steps being taken on the subject.

  THE TORRES STRAITS ISLANDS.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will inform the House what islands Her Majesty's Government have lately annexed in the Torres Straits, and what

  509
  stipulations have been made with the Colony of Queensland for the due protection of the Native inhabitants; and, whether it is in contemplation to extend British jurisdiction to the neighbouring mainland of New Guinea?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the boundaries of Queensland have, since the year 1872, comprised all islands within 60 miles of the mainland of that part of Australia. In 1878 the Queensland Government stated to Her Majesty's Government that if they had jurisdiction over certain small islets and reefs in Torres Straits beyond their existing boundaries, but quite distinct from New Guinea, they could take any steps necessary for the protection of the Natives against pearl-shell seekers or other persons resorting there. This request was complied with. The islets are described in The Queensland Gazette of July 19, 1879; and I believe that the necessary measures have been taken by the Queensland Government. There is no intention whatever of extending British jurisdiction over the mainland of New Guinea.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—BOMBARDMENT OF ONITSHA.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in the "Daily News" of 16th January, to the effect that Captain Easton, one of Her Majesty's Consuls, on returning from a visit to the Sultan of Nupé's dominions on the river Niger, had found that the natives of Onitsha, 200 miles from the mouth of the river, had been giving considerable trouble to the Europeans, whereupon he obtained the services of Her Majesty's ship "Pioneer," and bombarded the town and destroyed it; and, whether he can inform the House if this statement be correct; and, if so, whether British Consuls have authority to use Her Majesty's ships to bombard and destroy towns whenever the inhabitants are charged with giving trouble to Europeans?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I have not seen the statement in The Daily News;but we have official information with respect to the circumstances to which it alludes. The statement that the town of Onitsha, some 200 miles up the Niger river, has been bombarded by Her Majesty's ship
  510
  Pioneer is correct, and the following are the circumstances in which the bombardment took place:—British traders have been for some time past established at Onitsha; but in consequence of the outrages committed on their properties and persons by the Natives, for which no redress could be obtained from the Chiefs, the merchants determined to withdraw altogether from that station. When about to carry this determination into effect, the Chiefs and people refused to allow them to remove their goods, and plundered some of the stores. The traders thereupon appealed for protection to Mr. Easton, the acting British Consul at Fernando Po, who happened to be on his way down the Niger, and who laid the matter before the senior naval officer on the station, and the Pioneer gunboat was sent up the Niger for the protection of British interests. On arriving at Onitsha steps were taken to remove the British property, which was estimated at over £20,000 in value; but while arrangements were being made to embark the property, the sailors and others engaged in this work were attacked by the Natives, and in consequence of this unprovoked aggression the Commander attacked and burnt the town. In answer to the last part of the Question, I have to say British Consuls are not authorized to bombard and destroy towns whenever the inhabitants are charged with giving trouble to Europeans; but there are exceptional occasions when it is the duty of Commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers to act promptly upon their own judgment, and particularly in those cases where British lives and property are at stake. In the present case, the conduct of the Consular and naval officers has been approved.
  MR. RICHARD: Will there be any objection to produce the Papers relating to this transaction?
  MR. BOURKE: I do not suppose there will be; but I will give a formal answer to that Question, if the hon. Gentleman will ask me again on Monday.

  ARMY (INDIA)—KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table Copies of all unpublished Correspondence on the subject of the Kirwee Booty, between officers interested in the Prize Grant and the India Depart-

  511
  ment, subsequent to the presentation of the last Return of Papers relating to this matter, viz. No. 213, of 1876; and, of the Short-hand Notes of the Proceedings in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, including the Arguments of Counsel and Sir C. Hall's Judgment in the action "Kinloch v.The Secretary of State in Council," on the 4th November 1879?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, on the 28th of January, Mr. Kinloch applied to Vice Chancellor Hall to direct that he should be furnished with the documents bearing on the case which might be in the possession of the Secretary of State; but the Vice Chancellor refused to make the order on the ground that an appeal was pending against his decision. But I should be glad to confer with my hon. and gallant Friend about these Papers. We have at the India Office a copy of the recent Judgment, but not the arguments of counsel; but I hardly think these Papers of sufficient general interest to be printed at the public expense.

  GREECE—BRIGANDAGE IN ACARNANIA.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a "Notice to British Subjects" recently issued by Her Majesty's Consul at Corfu, in the following terms:—
  "Notice to British Subjects.—The undersigned has just received from Her Majesty's Consul for the Morea a despatch informing him That the authorities in Acarnania consider it dangerous for sportsmen and others landing from yachts on that coast, as there are several brigand chiefs on the frontier who might form plans for their capture, especially if they remain many days on the same spot.' Ali British subjects therefore leaving Corfu on shooting expeditions are hereby cautioned, as the Greek Government, after giving this notice, will not be answerable for any ransom that the brigands might exact.—Her Majesty's Consulate, Corfu, 11th November 1879. Signed, R. Reade, H.M.'s Consul;"
  and, whether the condition of Acarnania so described is exceptional, or may be taken as a fair specimen of the normal security for life and property which is enjoyed, throughout the Hellenic Kingdom?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, it is true that a notice to that effect was issued in November last by Her Majesty's Consul at Corfu. Her Majesty's Minister at Athens reported on the 27th of the same month
  512
  that some cases of brigandage having occurred in Greece, a very stringent law for its repression, which had been enacted in 1871 for a period of four years, and which had then proved effective, had been a second time put into force for a period of eight months. In respect to the effect of that law on the population, I am not in a position to say more at the present moment.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—CANADIAN AND NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the claim of the United States Government for 103,000 dollars for damages alleged to have been done by Newfoundland fishermen in Fortune Bay to the Massachusetts fishing fleet has been amicably arranged; what measures are being adopted for the purpose of abrogating or amending Clause 33 of the Treaty of Washington relative to the Canadian and Newfoundland inshore fisheries; and, whether steps are being taken for the purpose of ascertaining if the Proviso of the Convention of 1818, which admits American fishermen to enter British North American bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter, repairing damages, and purchase of wood and water, is intended to exclude them from going inshore to traffic, tranship, fish, purchase stores, mend nets, and hire seamen?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the claim of the United States Government for damages alleged to have been done by Newfoundland fishermen in Fortune Bay is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. No measures are being adopted for the purpose of abrogating or amending Clause 33 of the Treaty of Washington. The extent of the fishing privileges accorded to the United States on the shores of Canada and Newfoundland is laid down in the Convention of 1818, and in the Treaty of Washington of 1871. Her Majesty's Government have not at present found it necessary to make any communication to the United States Government with the view of defining more precisely the exact interpretation of the language of those Treaties.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, that on an early day he would call attention to the Convention of 1818 between this country and the United States relative to fisheries.

  BRAZIL—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the long pending claims of British subjects against Brazil, which on the 23rd of June last he said were on the eve of satisfactory arrangement, are yet arranged?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, last Session I said, in reply to the hon. Member, that the Commission to which these claims had been referred had made considerable progress, and that there was some hope that in a short time a satisfactory arrangement might be arrived at. Some delay in the negotiations has been occasioned by a change of Government in Brazil; but the present Government appears to be really anxious to come to a satisfactory arrangement. They have been furnished with a Report of the exact state of the claims of each country, and have expressed their desire to have the matter settled as speedily as possible. Her Majesty's Minister in Brazil trusts that before long he will be in a position to place before Her Majesty's Government the proposals of the Brazilian Government.

  SHORT SERVICE AND RECRUITING IN THE ARMY.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Report of the War Office Special Committee upon Short Service and Recruiting, of which Lord Airey is Chairman, may be expected to be presented; and, whether he will lay that Report upon the Table of the House in sufficient time to allow of its being fully considered by Members before the discussion on the Army Estimates?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, the Report of the Committee, of which Lord Airey was Chairman, had not yet been received. The Committee were still considering their Report; and, although they had given the most assiduous attention to it, it had not been yet sent in to the authorities. It was necessary to take a Vote of the number of men before the Mutiny Bill was brought in, and he could not promise to postpone the Estimates indefinitely.

  CHINA—DOMESTIC SERVITUDE AT HONG KONG.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it be the fact that Sir John Smale, the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, has declared that a system of slavery has grown up there and has been tolerated under British rule, while contrary to British Law; and what steps Government has taken, or proposes taking, to deal with the evil?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I learn from the Hong Kong Press that Sir John Smale has on two occasions made some remarks from the Bench on the existence and increase of a system of domestic servitude among the Chinese of Hong Kong which is contrary to the law of the Colony. I only learnt this from the newspapers, as the learned Chief Justice did not think it necessary to bring his remarks officially under my notice. He very properly stated his intention to punish severely any offences against the law that might be brought before him. I am quite satisfied that Mr. Pope Hennessy, the Governor of Hong Kong, will take any steps that may be required on the part of the Colonial Government, and I do not see that any action on our part is necessary. But, of course, I shall readily consider any suggestions that may be made to me on the subject.
  MR. ANDERSONasked if the Government would not communicate with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am expecting a despatch on the subject.

  POOR REMOVAL—LEGISLATION.
  MR. SYNANasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill this Session to carry out the Report of the Poor Removal Committee of last Session?
  MR. SCLATEE-BOOTH: Sir, a Bill is in preparation, and will certainly be introduced this Session, although I cannot name the day. It will deal—and, I hope, effectively deal—with the subject referred to—the Select Committee on Poor Removal in the last Session; but I cannot say that it will deal with it exactly in the mode recommended in the Report of that Committee.

  DISTRESS (IRELAND)—PRESENTMENT SESSIONS—LOANS FOR SANITARY WORKS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the same facilities will be given to Boards of Guardians in Ireland to obtain loans for other than sanitary works as were given to Boards of Guardians in Lancashire during the cotton famine?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the facilities given to the Boards of Guardians in Lancashire at the time referred to, so far as I can gather from the clauses of the Act of Parliament, consisted of the power to borrow money for the purpose of making roads and footpaths, and widening, deepening, and straightening sewers or brooks; and also for the drainage of common land. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the Government have issued a Notice enabling presentment sessions to be held for the purpose of carrying out works of that kind in Ireland; and, moreover, in addition to this, the Government has already offered liberal terms to Boards of Guardians enabling them to borrow for various purposes in their capacities as local sanitary authorities, and this at a lower rate of interest than is allowed in ordinary eases.
  MR. SHAWasked whether the deepening of rivers was included in the works that might be done by order of the presentment sessions?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: There is no reference to the deepening of rivers in the Notice; but the Proviso states that the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, may add works for special objects.

  FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes, either by provisions in the Army Discipline Bill, or by any other measure, to relieve British soldiers from punishment by flogging, and thus put Her Majesty's Army in this matter in the same position as the armies of other civilised powers?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, it was proposed to bring in an Army Discipline and Regulation Act Continuance Bill, as was proposed last year.

  LOCAL LOANS COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to move for the Committee which he promised on the 11th August 1879,
  "To consider the subject of local loans generally, and to go into other matters bearing upon the subject, such as the granting greater facilities to local authorities for obtaining loans?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he intended to make the Motion shortly; but he had not been able to do it yet owing to the pressure of other Business.

  ARMY—SECONDED OFFICERS.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the War Department, If he will lay upon the Table a List of all the appointments, duties, and employments which govern the seconding of officers under the Royal Warrant of February 1880, together with a numerical Return of the officers seconded for their several appointments, showing the ranks and corps?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Every regimental officer is seconded, if he be not altogether removed from the regimental roll, on appointment to any extra regimental position as soon as he has held such position for three months.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 23— EUROPEAN TURKEY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, For what Provinces of European Turkey Commissioners are appointed to give effect to the provisions of the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and, if he can state how those Commissions are composed?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have received Reports of such Commissions having been formed in the vilayets of Adrianople, Salonica, and Janina. In the vilayet of Adrianople the Commission is thus comprised—President, the Governor General; 12 representative members, of whom four are Greeks, three Mussulmans, two Armenians, one Bulgarian, one Jew; 11 ex-officio members, of whom nine are Mussulmans and two non-Mussulmans. This Commission has

  517
  completed its examination and sent up its Report to Constantinople. The Commission for the vilayet of Salonica, as finally constituted, contains 10 Mussulmans, eight Christians, and two Jews. Of these 20 members, 17 are natives of Macedonia and three of Asia Minor. Of the proceedings in the vilayet of Janina we only know that the Vali has constituted a Commission. It consists of 20 Mussulmans and six or seven Greeks, and it is now examining the Organic Law proposed to be applied to the Province.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE PAPERS.
  MR. COURTNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Papers relating to South Africa, promised in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, will be laid upon the Table of the House, and whether they will extend to cover the period of the arrests of Messrs. Kruger, Pretorius, and Bok; and, whether he can inform the House of the number of the forces of all arms now in the Transvaal, and will make a Return of the revenue and expenditure of the Government in the Transvaal from its annexation; also of the existing liabilities of the Government, showing how the deficiency of revenue to meet the expenditure has so far been supplied?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I hope to place upon the Table tomorrow Papers relating to South African affairs up to the end of 1879, and that they will be in the hands of hon. Members by Wednesday next. Further Papers up to the date of the meeting of Parliament will be published about a week later, and among them will be found a despatch received last week announcing the arrest of Messrs. Pretorius and Bok. I have not heard that Mr. Kruger has been arrested. I believe that there are at present about 3,900 troops of all arms in the Transvaal; but, of course, it must not be implied from this that this force will be permanently retained there. I have not, at the present moment, any statement of the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal Government up to a later date than the 31st of March, 1879; but I am anxious to give the House the fullest possible information upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman will remember that a great deal of in-
  518
  formation, up to a certain date, was supplied in the Report of Mr. Sergeaunt, which has already been published. I am informed, by telegram, that there are financial statements on their way to this country; and I hope, in a very short time, to give the House such information as will enable them to form an opinion both of the past and of the present condition as well as the future prospects of the Province with regard to finance. Perhaps I may say that the deficiency of revenue, which, of course, includes the interest on the heavy debt inherited from the late Government, has been supplied by the grant made by Parliament nearly three years ago, and by an overdraft on a local bank on the terms described in Mr. Sergeaunt's Report.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—CONSOLIDATION ACTS.
  MR. P. MARTINasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is not the fact that there are at present some three hundred Acts on the Statute Book which relate to the duties assigned to the Board of Works in Ireland; whether it has been represented to the Treasury by the Departmental Committee appointed in 1877 that it was necessary for the due and prompt discharge of the statutory duties of the Board in respect to loans that the work of the consolidation and amendment of these statutes should be at once taken in hand; if so, what steps have been taken in respect to this and the other recommendations made by the Committee in June 1878 with regard to the reconstruction and reorganization of the Board of Works; and, if it is the intention of the Government, and, if so, when, to submit any Bill or Bills to the House to give effect to the recommendations, or any or which of them so made by the Committee?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, the Committee of Inquiry of 1877–8 reckoned the number of Acts relating to the Irish Board of Works at 300, and recommended that they should be consolidated. In accordance with this recommendation, the Treasury have employed Mr. Brougham Leech, of the Irish Bar, to prepare a scheme of consolidation, and he has now been engaged for more than a year on the task. A Bill has been prepared, and will shortly

  519
  be introduced, for re-constructing the Board of Works and re-distributing its duties.

  DISTRESS (IRELAND)—LONGFORD UNION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can state the nature and source of the information on which the Irish Local Government Board acted when they declined to put Longford Union in the list of Scheduled Unions; and, whether there is any objection to produce the Report or Reports which affirmed that there was no exceptional distress in Longford Union?
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, that when an application was made by the Board of Guardians to have a Union included in the list of Scheduled Unions, it was referred by the Local Government Board to the Inspector of the district for his Report. On receiving that Report, the Local Government Board made a communication to the Irish Government, which then decided whether or not the Union should be added to the list of Scheduled Unions. In the case of the Longford Union, on the first application some time ago, the Report of the Inspector and the recommendation of the Local Government Board were unfavourable to its addition to the Schedule. The fact, however, of a Union having been in a position at one time which did not justify its being added to the Schedule was no reason why, later on, when circumstances rendered it desirable, it should not be so added. In regard to Longford Union, on the receipt of another application, the Inspector reported that the Union might with advantage be included in the Schedule, and it was now included accordingly. The Inspector's Reports were in many cases of a highly confidential nature, and it would be inexpedient to produce them.

  WATER SUPPLY OF LONDON—LEGISLATION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can inform the House when the Bill relating to the Water Supply of London will be introduced?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: On behalf of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Assheton Cross), I beg to state that the Bill in
  520
  question is in a forward state of preparation; but I am not at this moment in a position to say on what day it will be introduced.

  PERSIA AND HERAT.
  MR. W. HOLMSwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in The Daily News of this morning that a Treaty has been signed, or is in course of negotiation, between England and Persia by which, among other stipulations, the latter Power is released from the obligation not to occupy Herat?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no such Treaty has been signed. I can only repeat the statement which I made the other day in answer to the Question put by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), that it is impossible for me to make any further Statement on the subject at this moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  Order for Further Proceeding on Report of Address [11th February] read.
  Further Proceeding on the said Report resumed.

  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

    RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND.)
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, in his reply to the charges brought against the Home Rule Party, he had found himself much embarrassed by the fact that certain Ministerial journals had devoted long articles to misrepresentations of his observations, while they had suppressed the report of those observations. Those journals had not only represented his proceedings as mere obstruction, but had also represented the proceedings of Home Rule Members in the discharge of their duty to their constituents as disgraceful proceedings, for the purpose of obstruction alone—and he begged most respectfully to protest against the exceptional privileges of the Gallery of that House, which put thousands in the pockets of those journals, being used to falsify the reports of that House. The Home Secretary had stated that the reason why the Government refused to give a single

    521
    word of encouragement to the starving people down to the middle of November was because they were afraid that it would lead the Irish people to expect relief, and that the poor peasants would, in consequence, consume more rapidly their miserable stock of food. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not think a statement more unconsciously brutal could be uttered; and he quite agreed with the most Rev. Dr. M'Cormack that the authors of any disturbance which might ensue were the Government of the day, who, charged with the duty of providing for the people, persisted in an attitude of silence and did not utter a single word of encouragement to a starving people. During that time the people were left to themselves, and then the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) took the measures he did for the preservation of life and property in Ireland—for he contended that, looking to the experience of the scenes of bloodshed and disturbance which took place under a similar attitude of the Government in previous times, he could not but think that it was the manner in which the hon. Member for Meath taught the people to meet peacefully, and by constitutional organizations to bring their wretched condition to the notice of the public—it was to that action and that policy alone that the country had to be thankful for the total absence of crime which marked the whole period of agitation conducted by the hon. Member for Meath. He observed also with regret that the Government officials deserted their benches during the explanations of Irish Members, just as the Government organs suppressed the reports of their speeches. With regard to the condition of Cararoe, they had the authority of the Catholic priests of the district to prove that the population of that place were steeped in the utmost distress and destitute of both food and clothing. With one honourable exception the landlords were determined to evict, and it was in the midst of the sore need of this wretched population that a body of armed constabulary were sent to accompany the process-servers in order to eject 150 families from their miserable huts on the roadside. All the arms the poor creatures possessed were the arms of women and children, and the way in which they used them was to get in the way of the constabulary, clasping their
    522
    knees, and tearing their own hair in their desperation. Those women and children were repulsed with the utmost brutality by the armed constabulary—not with the gentle hand which would be used by the London constable, but by striking the women with the butts of their heavy rifles and prodding them with the bayonets—a scene which would disgrace the reign of a Turkish Pasha in Bulgaria. Those scenes were the result of the policy of the Government, and not the result of the agitation of the hon. Member for Meath. He saw with regret that the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who was very bold in his assertions, had not courage to stop and see them challenged. The statements of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had provoked a reply from the President of the Balla Branch of the National Land League in respect to the number of evictions which took place on the estate of Sir Robert Blosse, the number given being considerably more than was stated to be the case, and all the other allegations referred to in respect to Sir Robert Blosse were similarly contradicted. But what was a still more serious matter on the part of the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) was his attack on the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), whom he accused of having openly rejoiced over the misery of the people, because that misery would tend to advance the land movement. In the whole history of political animosity and rancour, was there ever such a charge brought by one man against another! It was as false as it was atrocious. The hon. Member for Meath was doing a good work thousands of miles away and could not defend himself; but his Colleagues, from their seats in that House, would, and that victoriously and easily. Before he went to America the hon. Member for Meath told the people of Ireland, in the darkest hour of their misery, not to despair, and that from the justice of their cause it must provoke the attention of the Legislature. The hon. Member for Meath had endeavoured to console the people by reminding them that the very extremity of their suffering must soon provoke a reform of their miserable condition; and this, forsooth, was the pretext for the abominable accu-

    523
    sation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University; this was the paltry and odious foundation for imputing to an illustrious patriot the vilest motives which could actuate the basest of demagogues. The hon. Member for Dungannon (Mr. Dickson) had similarly reminded the tenantry of Antrim that the evident breakdown of the land system must provoke reform. Nay, the great Tribune of the English people, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), had used similar language, and at the inauguration of the Cobden Memorial, a couple of years ago, had stated how, in the struggle for the repeal of the Corn Laws, the time came when the artificial dearness of the people's food at length produced its predicted results, that they had warred against the famine, and that now the famine had declared itself upon their side. The hon. Member for Meath went to America to obtain aid at the solicitations of the tenant farmers in Ireland, as a delegate of the National Land League in Ireland and of the Tenants' Defence Association. His was no private mission of personal ambition or personal agitation. He was the authorized ambassador of the tenant organizations of Ireland. Whether the charge came from Ministerial politicians, or from certain quarters in Ireland, the pretence that the hon. Member for Meath's visit to the United States was anything less than a public and national undertaking was utterly unfounded and misleading, and every attempt to weaken his authority or injure his influence in the American Republic was directed not only against him individually, but against the Tenant Association and League of which he was the President at home and the representative beyond the Atlantic. He (Mr. O'Donnell) and his Colleagues were in favour of fixity of tenure, which would before long secure the prosperity not only of the tenant but of the landlord; but they utterly denied that they were, in the reform of the Land Laws, seeking anything else but to benefit the numerous classes in Ireland. They said that in raising the status of the tenantry they were improving the position of the landlord, and they were all in favour of the creation of a peasant proprietary. Criticisms might be directed against this or that proposal; but it was utterly mon-
    524
    strous, on the ground of some difference of detail, to denounce the authors of schemes which had their parallels in so many of the Conservative States in Europe. In spite of the representations of Boards of Guardians and others, which placed beyond doubt that the Irish people were on the verge of starvation, the Government maintained a contemptuous silence; and then only the hon. Member for Meath told the people that if they were dealing with good landlords let them pay them to the best of their ability; but if they were bad landlords, and they demanded all that the tenants got and afterwards served them with ejectment writs, he told them to resist such action as far as was advisable. It had been falsely represented in some of the Government organs that it was an anti-rent agitation. On the contrary, it was purely an exceptional remedy, and they utterly repudiated the idea of urging the abolition of rent. Let rent be paid to the utmost, and with the utmost punctuality; but the duty a father owed to his famished children was far beyond that of a rent-contract. "When the Government were appealed to in the matter they only answered in insulting mockery, and did not give one word of hope. At the Mansion House banquet Lord Beaconsfield, on the 9th of November last, denied that there was any serious distress in Ireland, and made the question of Irish distress the subject of some of his most elegant badinage and jest. The noble Lord, the Head of the Government, agreeably chaffed the Irish people for the amusement of the assembled guests of the Lord Mayor of London. The Irish were his "brilliant brethren," whose only misfortune was that they were not "logical" as well as brilliant. While Lord Beaconsfield was expending his after-dinner gibes at the Mansion House feast, his "brilliant brethren" were starving around fireless hearths in a hundred mountain valleys, were wasting in the slow agonies of hunger, while the head of the Government was making a mock of their misery amid the loaded dishes and flowing wines of the banquet at Guildhall. That was how the Government understood their duties to Ireland. The joyous speech of the Premier took place on the 9th of November. Within 10 days afterwards four of the most prominent friends of the people were arrested under a warrant from

    525
    Dublin Castle; and still the Government had not expended a single sixpence in relief. This was their policy, a policy of neglect and insult, of outrage and provocation. They seemed to have calculated on driving the people to despair; and but for the calm counsels of the hon. Member for Meath, who used the authority which he held from the affection and confidence of the people in order to lead them safely through the provocations of the Government, who knew but that the calculations of the Government might have succeeded? He (Mr. O'Donnell) had now abundantly proved the character of the Government policy towards the distress in Ireland. He would next meet the misrepresentations of the Ministerial orators on the subject of Irish self-government. The claim for Home Rule in Ireland was perfectly constitutional, and it was a deliberate slander to assert that it implied the disintegration of the Empire. On the contrary, it was the policy of the Ministry which was disintegrating the Empire, by setting nation against nation, and sacrificing the friendly co-operation of the British and Irish peoples to the detestable suggestions of a factious electioneering. Home Rule meant national legislation for national concerns, and Imperial legislation for common Imperial affairs. The men who pretended to misunderstand Home Rule had plenty of examples of the success of Home Rule systems before their eyes. He would not refer merely to the self-governing Colonies of Britain. What was the great German Empire but a complete example of a strictly Home Rule Constitution? Bavaria, Saxony, Baden, Wurtemberg, Prussia, all had their Home Rule Parliaments. Did that prevent the Imperial Parliament of Germany from being a true Imperial Parliament? If Lord Beaconsfield thought that Home Rule meant weakness and disintegration, let him venture to act on such a supposition in his dealings with Prince Bismarck. Jingo Imperialism would, however, take good care to avoid such a test, and none knew better than the Tory Premier that it was German Home Rule which made German unity so formidable and so strong. In the vast Republic of the United States we had again a strictly Home Rule Constitution, which conduced, as no other Constitution could, to the
    526
    power and majesty of that more than Imperial Commonwealth. Lord Beacons-field had a soul above national distinctions. This Imperial leveller had no ideal of Government beyond a servile horde of the subjects crouching beneath the irresponsible supremacy of the State. A Byzantine Cæsarism or an Oriental Sultanate were the models of his predilections to which he appeared to be drawn by his very nature and genius. He had no sympathy with the ordered freedom of European civilization. No responsive chord within him answered to the instinct of home and native land. The strong ties of birthplace and national tradition were undervalued and unexperienced. He apparently could not conceive that anything could be wanting in a State than somebody at the top who should rule and a multitude at the bottom who should be ruled. He (Mr. O'Donnell) found a great difficulty in taking account of such ideas and such a system as seemed to be embodied in the political theories and practice of the present Chief of the Ministry. He could understand them at Constantinople or Bagdad; but how came they here? They would have nothing foreign or unnatural among Turks or Moors; but they were at once repulsive and ridiculous in the midst of the free traditions of the West. If some cosmopolitan refugee, some flotsam and jetsam of historical revolutions, had been cast upon our shores, as he might have been cast upon the shores of Tunis or Tripoli; if some being without a country or a home had become domiciled by some freak of fortune amongst us; if some creature of abject arts and tortuous ability had flattered, and intrigued, and finessed his way to power among us, as some pipe-bearer or slipper-bearer might flatter, and intrigue, and finesse his way to the post of favourite or Vizier in some Eastern despotism—he could indeed comprehend, he could indeed frame to himself some explanation of the growth and propagation of servile and astounding ideas more fit for the Courts of a Bajazet or an Amurath than for the least free of Western Kingdoms. He could understand that such a stranger and interloper, however dexterous, would be unable to practise a liberty which neither he nor his had ever known by any natural title; that, satisfied with the position which he had succeeded in acquiring, he would be unable even to conceive how

    527
    other men could be moved by a less ignoble ambition; and having himself arrived at the summit of the State without patriotism, consistency, or nationality, he would naturally despise as weakness and folly the influence of national and patriotic sentiments among the peoples whom he had so subtly secured the power to insult, to outrage, and to oppress. To be the master, no matter by what means, of a vast Empire; to see his outlandish name accompanying or preceding that of the Sovereign in magniloquent decrees and Imperial proclamations; to set in motion, as from the operator's chamber of a puppet-show, the cranks and wires which pulled and directed the mechanical regularity of a blind and organized majority, would, doubtless, to such as he (Mr. O'Donnell) had supposed, be the perfection of Constitutional order, as it would assuredly be the utmost gratification of personal inclinations. This transplanted Vizier would not be able always to contain the scorn which vulgar honesty and an unfelt patriotism excited in his fine Orientalism. On occasion even he would voluntarily confess, unconscious of the degradation of the avowal, that the art of government was only one of the arts of self-advancement; and he would rule and be proud to uphold his rule by the same tricks of show and petty dealing by which at some former epoch of his vagrant family history his ancestors had passed off dubious silks of Egypt on the dames of Venice, or extolled to voluptuous Signori the fine points of contraband slave-girls from the Levant. Irishmen declined to be led away from their national traditions. They declined to accept the cosmopolitan example of an Imperial Bohemian. They did not respect, far less could they follow, the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. That policy was not respected, however it might be utilized, in the ranks of the Conservative Party itself. Ask any Member of the Conservative Party, and he would say that Lord Beaconsfield was clever, was able to dish the Whigs, and always was ready with some sly move, and always able to out-manoeuvre the other side. Lord Beaconsfield was a great electioneering agent—he was no Premier of England. His rule might yet last some time longer, and, speaking as a Member of an advanced section of Irish politicians, he looked without the slightest dismay upon
    528
    the prospect of another seven years of Tory rule. Another such lease of power would consolidate the forces of the Irish popular Party, and it would make them certain of their triumph at some future day. The Members of the front Opposition Bench were often found playing the game of the Government, as was shown by the goody-goody speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and others, who, upon the faith of the bigoted Tory writer who was the Dublin Correspondent of The Times,had retailed to English constituencies during the Recess every infamous fable invented against the hon. Member for Meath. These silly Liberals had blindly done their best to discredit the Irish Party and the darling Leader of the Irish people; and now they were discovering, at Liverpool and elsewhere, that they had only been doing the work of the Tories. This great electioneering confederacy, at the head of which Lord Beaconsfield was, had not a single scruple in the attainment of its ends. He impeached them as a Government without political honour, reckless of the peace of the country, and prepared to stick to place by any means, however nefarious. They were the Party of public intoxication, the Party of bigotry and national discord. There motto was "Place! place! place!" That was their conscience. The true translation of Imperium et libertas had not yet been given, just as the quotation itself was not to be found in any classical author. It meant "Place by any means!" That was a free translation; but he denied that the most learned pundit of the British Museum could find a truer translation of the principle which ruled the policy of the Government. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice, declaring that every word which it contained was true.
    MR. BIGGAR,in seconding the Amendment, said, he should not detain the House long, as he had a prior engagement to address the Irish electors of a Metropolitan borough. He complained that the statements of Irish Members had been replied to by English Members who knew nothing of the facts, and who had, therefore, based unsound arguments on insecure foundations. The London morning papers had charged the Irish Members with obstruction; but those

    529
    Members had acted entirely within their province and in the discharge of their duty to the Irish people, who would have been very dissatisfied if their Members had not brought their grievances before the House of Commons. He said this, in order to show the difficult position in which the Irish Members were placed. He did not himself care for the English papers; but they were used for the very unfair purpose of setting a very stupid class of half-hearted and unprincipled section of the Liberal Party against the Irish Members. The Irish Members did not appeal at all to the public opinion of the English morning papers; but they appealed to the public opinion of the Irish people, and they were thoroughly content if they satisfied their own constituencies. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had made out a wonderfully strong case. When the South Africa Bill was before the House the opposition to it was called obstruction, and the House now saw what had been the result of the tyrannical manner in which the Bill was forced through. His hon. Friend was undoubtedly right in his references to the land agitation. The Irish Members had never charged all the Irish landlords with being bad landlords. The hon. and gallant Member for Sligo (Colonel King-Harman) had been pointed out as one of the best of landlords, and he (Mr. Biggar) would say that if all the landlords of Ireland were equal to the best there would be no land agitation. But many of the landlords were bad ones, and in some parts of Ireland the tenants were actually paying four times the amount of the valuation. The result was that, in bad times, the unfortunate tenants of bad landlords had no reserve, and must either pay his exorbitant rent or be turned out. If unable to pay his rent, a tenant had no claim for compensation under the Land Act. He had heard of a case in which a tenant had sunk £1,000 in improvements, and was now unable to pay his rent, and he was told that the landlord was going to turn the man out without any compensation for his improvements. He (Mr. Biggar) contended that no landlord ought to have the power to turn a tenant out without compensation, and that the State should say that nothing more than a fair and reasonable rent should be paid, and that an attempt should be made
    530
    to establish what was called a peasant proprietary. That was the programme for which his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) contended. It had never been pretended that the vested interests of the landlord should be taken away from him without full and fair compensation. The Government had prosecuted three or four friends of his for having recommended the clearing away of the landlords; but they advocated the clearing away of the landlords with compensation. That was no offence against morals, and it ought not to be one against law. The result of the present system was that the people were driven into the mountains, and that the good land was being used in the most wasteful manner for grazing. If it were used for the raising of crops, the production of the country would be increased, and all the interests of the country would be improved. But the rights of property were considered to be more valuable than the rights of the community. "With regard to the distress, he believed that the average land of Ireland was worth literally nothing last year. He held that the landlord who asked a tenant to pay an unfair rent was more to blame than the unfortunate tenant who refused to pay it.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Address, to add the words "We humbly represent to Tour Majesty that, while 'wasting the resources and straining the honour of the State in unjust aggressions abroad, the Ministry have endangered the peace and neglected the interests of the Country at home:
    "That when the attention of Your Majesty's advisers was called during last Parliament to the approaching distress in Ireland, they only replied with insulting mockery, and that when the distress deepened, and the inhabitants of the afflicted districts sought to move public opinion by peaceable meetings, the Government adopted an attitude of provocation, and answered the Petitions of the starving cultivators by arbitrary arrests and displays of military force:
    "That the Ministry seek to stir up evil passions and prejudices between the English and Irish peoples:
    "That they sedulously describe as seditious and disloyal the Constitutional endeavours of the Irish representatives to establish improved relations between Ireland and the other portions of Your Majesty's Dominions and to bring about a better distribution of the legislative work which now overburthens the Imperial Parliament:
    "That when any English Party or English politicians seek to promote the removal of Irish grievances, they are denounced by the present Ministry to the prejudices of the unthinking and unreflecting as the bad patriots and enemies

    531
    of England, and that there can no longer be a doubt that this policy hag been adopted for the purpose of obtaining a factious and, calamitous success at the approaching General Elections:
    "And that, therefore, in face of such misconduct, we have no alternative but to beseech Your Majesty to dismiss from Your Councils Your present advisers, in order to prevent the further practice of abuses more dangerous than open, treason to the State."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. FINIGANsaid, he should briefly go through the several points of the Amendment. He contended that Her Majesty's Government had, as his hon. Friend alleged, disturbed the peace, not only of this country, but of Europe, by their foreign policy. By rejecting the Berlin Memorandum they had separated England from the Councils of the other European Powers, and had thus led to the Russo-Turkish War; and as long as they pursued their present policy of threatening Russia they would render it impossible for Russia to disarm. "While Russia remained armed Germany would not disarm, and the armaments of Germany involved the armaments of France. Thus the Government prevented the disarmament of the European Powers. He believed it was too late to convert the Government to a peace policy; but he hoped the Opposition would take warning, and turn their attention to questions at home. The paragraph in the Amendment relative to the Irish distress was warranted by the facts. He complained that the Government, although very early warned last year by Irish Members of the calamity which then threatened the South and West of their country, had turned a deaf ear to all such appeals. They never did anything for Ireland until they were shamed into it by the public opinion, not only of this Kingdom, but of Europe and the world. He doubted whether they would have moved to save the perishing peasantry unless they had been compelled by that very strong and just public opinion. From the speech of the Home Secretary, it would appear still to be the intention of the Government only to do so much for the starving people as would keep them from the grave, forgetting that the want of proper clothing and other comforts would engender disease among large numbers, while others would be obliged to fly to this country, where they would increase the competition in an already over-stocked labour market. Instead of having another exodus of the poor pea-
    532
    santry from Ireland, it was time that they had an exodus of landlords. It would be a good thing both for Ireland and for England if the House could frame and pass such a measure as would give an equitable compensation to the landlords, and the lands were handed over to the tillers of the soil for the creation of a peasant proprietary. Instead of offering to Ireland some beneficial measure, Her Majesty's Government, as the distress deepened and the people peaceably assembled to agitate their grievances, proceeded to put into force the old policy of police and bailiffs which it was hoped had long ago been abandoned. At the meeting held in Dublin on the 24th of November, those called Irish agitators had used language such as was to be found in the writings of no less a political economist than John Stuart Mill, and yet they found the Government stepping in and menacing the right of public meeting and free speech by a display of military force. He had been informed, though he was open to subsequent correction, that the officer in charge of the constabulary on that occasion had private orders to shoot the illustrious Member for Meath in case any disturbance arose. He had no doubt this might sound very pleasant to some Tory Gentlemen; but if this were the policy which Her Majesty's Government approved, it was time to bid adieu to all hope of a pacific understanding between Ireland and England. He took it that on the part of men who professed anxiety that the Empire should be cemented by the ties of equality and justice such a policy met with their reprobation and condemnation. It was stated in the 3rd paragraph of the Amendment that the Ministry sought to stir up evil passions and prejudices between the English and Irish peoples, and having recently been in Liverpool he must say that the supporters of the Government used every ignoble and vile device which it was in the ingenuity of man to conceive to stir up ill-will and prejudice between the people of that town. Was it worthy of the Party who professed to govern the country in the interests of the Empire that they should renew that spirit which formerly reigned to the detriment of England and Ireland, and which everybody thought had been buried by the Catholic Emancipation Act? As an Irish Representative, it was immaterial

    533
    to him at what altar a man might kneel so long as he found him on the platform of common humanity. So long as he found a man endeavouring to do justice to Ireland without injustice to England, so long was he ready to grasp his hand and strike with him in a battle for their common humanity. He hoped the Liberal Party would expose the ignoble policy of the Government, and lay a nobler policy before the country. The Government stood condemned before the country for their foreign policy, and they stood condemned in the eyes of all thinking men by their policy on the present question, by which they fostered bigotry and prejudice among the people and were really severing the links which united the Irish people to the Constitution in a spirit of loyalty. With respect to the last paragraph of the Amendment, he had no doubt that in a short time the present Advisers of Her Majesty would be dismissed; and when the claims of Ireland were laid before 60 or 70 English constituencies, he felt sure that neither the chicanery of the Tory Party nor the weakness of the Liberal Party would induce them to disregard those claims.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 128: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
    Address agreed to:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved,That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved,That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. James Lowther, Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 1] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. SYNAN,in rising to move his Amendment, said, he was sorry to interpose himself between the House and the Second Reading of the Bill, and delay its progress for an hour or two, and it was probable that the motives of his Colleagues and himself would be misunderstood and misrepresented in that House and out of it, as their motives had been misrepresented by some of the public newspapers of the country as to the Amendment to the Address moved by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw). He did not expect that their conduct and their actions, as the Irish independent Party in this House, would be ascribed by the public Press to any high motive of duty; but he had to ask the House not to be parties to such a misunderstanding. He hoped their arguments on this Bill and on the Resolution he had to propose would receive consideration from the Government. The Bill before the House dealing with Irish distress proposed as a measure for relief to lend out money to different parties as well as to different individuals, so as to give employment to the distressed poor of Ireland. It proposed, in the first instance, to give those loans to Guardians of the poor for the purpose of relief, and it proposed to pay those loans by a mortgage on the rates; secondly, it proposed to give similar loans to the sanitary authorities for executing works; but it proposed, thirdly, to give loans under peculiar circumstances to the landlords for the purpose of employing the labourers on their estates to improve their property. To those provisions he had no personal objection. Then the baronial presentment sessions were also to execute works and to charge the rates with the re-payment of those loans. He was not so much in favour of the latter proposal as he was of the others. It was a proposal fraught with great danger. The experience of 36 years ago, which he was old enough to remember, was not very encouraging as to the character of those works or as to the effect they would have. It would require great caution, and prudence, and limitation to make them useful, for they might throw away money in useless works as they did before. He must also qualify his approval of lending money to landlords, because the money lent for them to improve their estates would probably, in some instances, be em-

  535
  ployed to raise their rents. The money should be lent also to the tenants for the improvement of their farms under the supervision of the Board of Works, and which improvement would do much to prevent future famines. His Amendment called the attention of the House to the 17th clause of the Bill, which said that all the loans to be given to the sanitary authorities were to be with the consent of the Irish Local Government Board. The landlords were to have the loans by the sanction of the Board of Works; and whereas the Commissioners of Works had advanced money to the landowners, the 17th clause threw the whole cost of the relief on the Irish Church Fund, and thus relieved the English Treasury. The rate of interest under the Bill was to be 1 per cent, and the rate of borrowing money, under ordinary circumstances, was from 4 to 5½ per cent. The only difference was the rate of interest; and instead of throwing that low interest on the Consolidated Fund, it threw it on to the Irish Church Fund. The possible loss would fall on the Irish Church Fund instead of on the Imperial Fund. Therefore, they thought that they were bound to bring this matter before the House. He should move—
  "That it is inexpedient that any portion of the property accruing to the Commissioners of the Church Temporalities Fund under The Irish Church Act, 1869,' shall he applied towards the relief of the distress in Ireland, and that the provisions of the Bill authorizing such advances out of such property cannot be satisfactory, and this House is of opinion that all advances to be made for the purpose of relieving distress in Ireland shall be made from Imperial resources."
  It could not be denied that, if there wore no Irish Church Fund, the loans would have to come out of the Imperial Fund. Now, what was the Irish Church Surplus Fund; under what circumstances did it arise? Was it intended to be applied in loans to landlords, or to Boards of Guardians, or to the sanitary authorities? It was the surplus of a fund which was national, and which belonged to the poor. The tithes of the Church were the property of the people; and if the Church was disestablished and disendowed, the funds naturally reverted to the people, to whom they belonged, and to be employed for their purposes. Why, then, should this Fund be taken to save
  536
  the Imperial Exchequer and allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to patch up his Budget? This Bill violated the 68th clause of the Irish Church Act. It was to relieve the National Treasury of this country in meeting the great calamity which had fallen on a portion of this great Empire, and which ought to be dealt with by the Imperial funds. He denied that the spirit of the Act had been violated in drawing upon the fund for Intermediate Education and to provide pensions for teachers, because in these cases other funds were not applicable; and Parliament was not bound to draw upon the Imperial Exchequer for these purposes, which were of special interest to all Ireland. Although these two applications did not actually follow the words of the section, they were acy pres and an equitable application of the Fund. There were national purposes for which it was desirable to retain the Church Fund. As the churches and residences handed over to the Disestablished Church were valued at £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, it was once proposed, and it might be again, to use the Fund in building residences and churches for the ministers and people of other denominations. But there was another and more paramount application of the money, a purpose for which the Government ought to maintain the Fund. There were many who thought a great experiment should be tried in the way of attempting to establish a peasant proprietary. The objection urged against such a scheme was that the Government would not get their rent-charges. Let the experiment be made to see if peasant proprietors would pay the rent-charges, and if it was successful the Government would be able to carry it out on a larger scale. On the other hand, if the experiment he suggested should be tried, the Irish people would bear the loss for the sake of such an experiment. The Government, if they chose, could force them to pass the Bill in its present form; but he maintained that the Irish people would be unanimously in favour of the application of the Fund in the manner he he had referred to, and it should be adopted for the solving of the Irish Land Question. He thought if there was a statesman in this country who was thoroughly acquainted with the state of things in Ireland and of the opinions of the Irish people, he would

  537
  see the necessity of this sacred right being adopted for the purpose of settling the question. He was sorry to say that it had been looked upon by the Government as a delusion and a mockery, and that it was proposed in Ireland by agitators for their own purpose; but he was satisfied that the establishment of a peasant proprietary in Ireland would be a most conservative power, and would have the effect of doing away with many difficulties, and be the means of removing the discord and the hostility to the Government which at present existed. Seventeen years ago a great calamity fell upon this country. They all, no doubt, remembered the Lancashire Cotton Famine in the year 1863, and admired the way the people then bore the calamity. The Government, upon that occasion, brought in a Bill in order that an advance might be made out of the Public Treasury of the country to the extent of £1,200,000 to give loans to the local bodies, Boards of Guardians, and other representative bodies, for the purpose of forming a special fund, providing that money should be supplied for useful works, and that the money should be paid back at £3 10 s.per cent. The Bill provided 30 years for the re-payment, with power to the Government to prolong the payment. The calamity in Ireland, however, was far greater than that of Lancashire, for the reason that it had fallen upon poor people who could not help themselves. In Lancashire the famine fell upon a rich country, where there were plenty of wealthy men to come forward; but in Ireland, unfortunately, they were driven to seek public charity from Europe and Australia and America. Considering the pauperized state of the country, he thought it would look well for the Treasury of England to advance a sum of money by way of loan, or otherwise, in order to relieve the terrible distress in Ireland. "Were the present Government willing to let it go forth that, while they were ready to give millions to save Turkey, South Africa, and Afghanistan, they would refuse to give a shilling to Ireland, though it would save millions of starving people? If the sentiment of the House was what it ought to be, the great object all hon. Members should have in view was contained in his Amendment, and its adoption would lead to the conciliation of Ireland. It
  538
  was in this spirit he proposed the Amendment, and in this spirit he hoped it would, be received. Such a measure would act as a means of binding the two nations together; and he hoped that if it were accepted it would have the effect of binding the hearts of the Irish people to the English people with "hooks of steel." In conclusion, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient that any portion of the property accruing to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities under 'The Irish Church Act, 1869,' shall be applied towards the temporary relief of distress in Ireland, and that the provisions of the Bill authorising such advances out of such property cannot he satisfactory; and this House is of opinion that all advances to be made for the purpose of relieving distress in Ireland shall be made from Imperial resources,"—[Mr. Synan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYremarked, that while the main question before them was the necessity of giving adequate relief, the source from which the money was to be taken was a very important consideration. So far as he understood, the proposal of the Government was that a sum of £500,000 should be advanced for several purposes. Advances to landlords for purposes of improvement, advances to Boards of Guardians for sanitary purposes, advances to baronial sessions, the making and improving of roads, and, finally, what might turn out to be the largest and most important item of all—for the purposes of out-door relief. It was proposed that the greater proportion of this sum should be advanced at 1 per cent; and, so far as he understood, the portion to be advanced for purposes of out-door relief was to be at a larger rate of interest. The re-payment of the money was to be guaranteed by the various parties to whom it was advanced at certain rates of interest; but, so far as he understood, where the rate of interest payable was less than 3½ per cent, the difference was to be recouped from the Irish Church Fund. That would involve a charge on the Fund of some

  539
  £12,700 a-year, which would seriously retard the payment by the Commissioners of the Irish Church Temporalities of the debt which they owed to the Treasury, and would delay the time at which the Fund could really be turned to account and made available for such purposes as Parliament might think fit to apply it to. The security for the principal money advanced would, be security on land and security on sanitary rates and poor rates. There was no fear whatever as to the payment of the principal fund to be advanced; and in these circumstances, and 1 per cent being perfectly secure, he should like to know whether it was unfair on their part to ask that the difference between 1 per cent and 3½ per cent should be borne by the Imperial Treasury? "Was it fair to throw a charge of £12,700 a-year on the Irish Church Fund? It might be said that this looked a very small sum to make any complaint about. It was certainly a small sum, coming from the Imperial Exchequer; but it represented a very large sum indeed, when thrown on the annual income which came into the hands of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission. The Irish Church Fund had been so completely excluded by the Act of 1869 from any operation of the kind, that the Government could not have sufficiently regarded it in making their present proposal. He did not think there was anything in connection with advances already made from the Fund which formed anything like a precedent for, or analogy to, the attempt now made to make use of the Fund for the purpose of relief. Out-door relief to a deplorable extent would have to be met and dealt with during the next two or three months; but they had not yet an adequate idea of the amount of suffering which would have to be faced, or of the suddenness with which it might come. It was only by endeavouring to recall what occurred in 1847 that they could form an adequate idea of the suddenness with which relief might be rendered imperative and necessary. Was there an existing organization, or was there a prospect of being called into existence any organization which would cope with that distress in the various localities over the Island? Had practical steps been taken, had adequate provision been made, to guard against loss of life? He thought not. Taking
  540
  into consideration the bad seasons which Ireland had encountered, the absence of seed for next year, and the complete destitution which existed in many places, it was not too much to ask that there should be something in the shape of a grant to meet the expenditure for outdoor relief. If it were necessary that out-door relief should be given in money, he should certainly make such a proposal with great diffidence. But if it were considered that it might be unsafe to give money for such relief on the broad lines which must be acted on in this case there was another way of giving it, and that was by the distribution of fuel and food. But they could not distribute food and fuel adequately and in time amongst the people unless they prepared an organization beforehand; and, therefore, he hoped that in the course of the progress of the Bill such Amendments would be introduced as would tend to the formation of an organization for the distribution of food and fuel in every district which was likely to be the scene of distress and suffering. When such organizations were formed he believed they would be able to economize the money to be expended, and considerably lessen the amount which it would be necessary or fair to accept as a grant from the Imperial Treasury. There was one other point to which he might allude without saying one word against baronial sessions. He trusted that certain Unions and Boards of Guardians would have facilities for giving labour similar to those proposed to be given to such sessions when it was necessary. There were many Unions not scheduled under the Act which were still in great distress. "Where organization was necessary, and where it did not exist, the people would fall a prey to famine during the coming months. Something must be done beyond the ordinary scope and operation of the Poor Law, otherwise misery would come upon men, women, and children with this additional horror—that whereas in other quarters it had given premonitory symptoms and gradually increased in force, in these parishes and localities it would not come with such symptoms, but suddenly. Everything would be loft to the ordinary remedy of the Poor Law, and in those districts famine would do its work.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTthought that, in the present emergency, it would be at least necessary for the Local Government Board to issue a Circular calling upon Boards of Guardians to give outdoor relief, and stating that the able-bodied had a right either to work or to such relief. This was done in Lancashire in 1863. Boards of Guardians, too, should have power to give relief in money as well as in fuel. He would leave it to their discretion; but he would also authorize them to exact work. As to the mode of re-payment, the Bill provided that the money was to be borrowed for 10 years at 3½ per cent interest. That, after all, was only staving off the evil day, and the Boards of Guardians would have before them the prospect that the rates in 10 years would have to bear a burthen amounting to 7s.,8s.,or 10 s.extra in the pound. How was a similar case met in Lancashire? The Boards were authorized that whenever the rates exceeded 5s.in the pound a rate in aid should be struck in the rest of the country not affected by the famine. In addition to that, power was given to Boards of Guardians in Lancashire to undertake works other than sanitary works, to deepen rivers, to improve ports, to widen roads, and so on—why should not similar power be given in Ireland? There would be another advantage in thus using the Boards of Guardians, and that was that it would do away at once with the cumbrous and inadequate procedure of baronial sessions. He hoped the Government would favourably consider the suggestions he had indicated. If they did so they might confidently answer the critics who feared, which he did not, that the presentment sessions would be extravagant, for then they would be for all practical purposes non-existent.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a great deal of practical wisdom in what had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. The Government derived great advantage from many of the observations which had been made in the course of the last few days by hon. Gentlemen who were acquainted with the real state of affairs in Ireland. The Government were anxious, as far as possible, to avail themselves of that experience; and he hoped that in the discussions in Committee they would
  542
  have the advantage of it. With regard to one or two of the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member, he did not think that the cases of Lancashire and of Ireland were exactly parallel; in fact, there were several points of divergence, which made it impossible for the Government to follow the precise course that was taken in the case of Lancashire. In that case there was no public money voted, though a considerable extension was given to the Poor Law system; but he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in what he said about special works. They should be very careful that there would be no indiscriminate or careless application of money which was intended to give employment to the poor, and to keep the people from starvation; and they should see that it would not be available possibly—to use a common phrase—for jobbing. With the deepest attention and the most earnest application, the Government in 1846–7 fell into great errors, and undertook a task which was beyond the power of any Government properly to fulfil. They got into a position in which they had many hundreds of thousands of persons employed on public works which were of no use whatever; the work was not performed with any energy or zeal, and kept people away from what was much more useful. It had been with reluctance and some apprehension that the Government had gone into the question of baronial sessions. They felt it was just one of those matters on which it was necessary to keep a vigilant eye. At the same time, they thought it better to err on the side of giving rather too much than too little; and they believed on the whole that, subject to proper restrictions and control, and to the inspection of the Government, the works of the kind baronial sessions were likely to present might be profitably undertaken. The works would be not only those mentioned in the Bill—namely, road making and improving; but would include operations such as the deepening of rivers, the construction of railways, and so forth. The hon. and gallant Member would see that the advantage of committing those works to the baronial sessions was that they could borrow money for such purposes as roads, and other works that the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, might direct. He might men-

  543
  tion that he had that day authorized the Irish Government to undertake, besides roads, other works that might seem desirable; and he trusted that that course would meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It might be necessary, perhaps, not only to authorize, but also to press the Boards of Guardians to use their powers. For some time past, it had been the desire of the Government, wherever the Boards wished to extend the assistance given, to offer them facilities for doing so; but, undoubtedly, they might have to put some pressure on them to do their duty. Of course, the immediate responsibility rested with the Boards of Guardians. A system of poor relief was established in Ireland; and it was the duty of the Boards, if they found that the law did not permit them to do it, to come to the Government for additional assistance. Undoubtedly, the effect of their doing so would be to add to the charges of the Union; and it was just possible there might be cases in which the Guardians, having too great a desire to spare the rates, might be too slack in coming forward for the relief of exceptional distress. The Government had had that point before them, and they had desired the Local Government Board strongly to impress on Boards of Guardians the responsibility which was imposed upon them. In addition to the three Inspectors, of whose appointment notice had already been given, the Government had authorized, yesterday or to-day, the appointment of three additional Inspectors; and they had impressed on the Local Government Board the importance of causing those Inspectors to be as much as possible in their districts, in order to see what was really going on, and to report every case of distress or destitution which seemed to call for remark, and to exercise their influence in inducing Boards of Guardians to do their duty. In two or three cases the Local Government Board had offered to Boards of Guardians advances by way of loan, to enable them to procure fuel for distribution; but those offers had been declined. Of course, the responsibility of declining those offers rested on the Boards of Guardians; but he thought some power should be vested in the Inspectors and the Local Government Board to compel action even if the Boards of Guardians were slow to pro-
  544
  ceed. All these points had been and were continually under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and they had been in constant communication with the Irish Government on the subject. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that they would continue earnestly to press these matters. By the Amendment, a question was raised as to whether any portion of the property accruing to the Commissioners of the Church. Temporalities should be applied to the temporary relief of distress in Ireland; and the House was invited to express an opinion that all advances made for the purpose of relieving distress in Ireland should be made from Imperial resources. It was a very popular thing to say that all advances should come out of the Imperial Exchequer; but it must be borne in mind that, though there was very severe distress in parts of Ireland, there was also a good deal of distress in England. The Exchequer was supplied by contributions from all parts of the United Kingdom; and there might be, and, in fact, had been, a great many applications which the Government had felt it their duty to decline from distressed persons in England, and he thought from Scotland also, for assistance from the Exchequer. They had felt that it was impossible to attend to those applications with justice to the country at large. They desired to continue in a fair and liberal way the assistance by way of, advances which was given to the improvement of land, and to various other purposes which were of national and general importance. They had established a system which had been carefully elaborated for making advances on terms which would involve no loss to the Exchequer, and which yet would be of advantage to the localities to which they were advanced. They were always met, even by gentlemen who in public matters were of a very economical turn of mind, with great objections to the stinginess or illiberality of the terms on which those advances were offered, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Government were able to maintain the system which they were satisfied was necessary for the protection of the interests of the general public. If they were, in the case of exceptional distress in a portion of the United Kingdom, to allow advances to be made on much

  545
  more liberal and lavish terms than they were in the habit of giving, the system would break down, and very great confusion would arise. They admitted, however, that in the present case it was desirable that advances should be made on much more liberal terms than usual, not for the purpose of promoting particular works of improvement, but for actually giving employment to the people and keeping them from starving. These were advances much more in the nature of relief works than in the nature of improvement works. If they were to make the advances out of the general fund at the disposal of the Board of Works, they felt they would be introducing a precedent exceedingly embarrassing to them in all their future dealings. On the other hand, they had to bear in mind that there did exist in Ireland a fund of a peculiarly Irish character. It was a fund which belonged to Ireland, and which it was the duty of Parliament to administer for the general benefit of Ireland. It appeared to the Government that the case which had now arisen was one which might be very fairly met by the Church Surplus Fund. They did not propose to exhaust any considerable portion of that Fund. They proposed to make, not grants, but advances out of it; and they understood that those advances would be repaid. That was the principle on which they went; and he assumed that the re-payments would, in due course, be made. It was true, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), that there would be a sacrifice of a small portion of the Fund. That would be measured by the difference between the interest on the amount advanced and the amount they would receive in re-payment from those to whom the advances were made. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put the amount at £12,000. It might be that, or perhaps a little more; but he did not think the Fund could be considered to be unfairly charged with an expenditure which was distinctly for the purpose of meeting an unavoidable and sudden calamity. The visitation which had fallen upon that part of the country was a visitation which distinctly needed, and ought to be met to some extent, by charitable efforts. It was impossible to lay down the doctrine that in cases of this kind the whole of the burden should
  546
  fall on the Imperial Exchequer, and that recourse should not be had to the aid of charity. He did not think that in the case of Lancashire, to which reference had been made, there were public contributions, but that the distress was met chiefly by private subscriptions, and in part by advances from the poor rates and the neighbouring Unions. The present was one of those cases in which they might fairly take advantage of the charity of individuals, and fairly have recourse to a fund applicable to charitable uses. With regard to future measures which might be adopted in order to prevent the recurrence of such evils, that was a question which demanded the most careful consideration on the part of Parliament. He quite agreed with those who said that the lessons they had received now and in former times ought to make Parliament exceedingly careful in considering what could be done to prevent the recurrence of evils of this kind. But at this moment the Government were pressed to meet the danger and the misery which were actually upon us; and he thought they might fairly have recourse to a fund which was of a peculiarly Irish character, and which was available for Irish purposes. But whatever view the House might take upon this subject, he hoped they would not delay the present stage of the Bill. The question of the application of the Church Surplus might very properly and conveniently arise on the discussion of the clauses; but with regard to the progress of the Bill, he might remind the House that the Government were now acting outside the law on their own responsibility. Although they were not at all afraid to take that responsibility, still Parliament ought to take it upon itself, and had no right to leave the matter entirely on the shoulders of the Government. He hoped, therefore, that they would be favoured with the advice and supported by the authority of Parliament as soon as possible. The House, he trusted, would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill; and, in that case, he should propose to fix the Committee for the earliest possible day, in order that the discussion of the clauses might be proceeded with.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYdid not think it was important whether that Bill were passed now or deferred for a month. He certainly should not do any-

  547
  thing to delay the Second Reading of the Bill; but he wished to remind the House that there was another Bill before them which was of the utmost importance, and with regard to which delay would be very serious. He referred to the measure for providing seeds of various kinds for the people to sow their ground with during the present spring. If that Bill did not pass into law immediately, so that the seed could be distributed within the next five or six weeks, they would next year have another famine twice as bad as that which raged now. It therefore seemed to him that the Government was labouring at an oar in the boat which was of the least importance to help them over the surf with which they were surrounded. He did not object so much to resorting to the Irish Church Surplus as he objected to resorting to it for the purpose and in the manner mentioned in the Bill. If they were to take out of the Surplus a certain amount for the purpose of restocking the ground during the approaching five or six weeks, he should consider that was a very fair way of disposing of it; but at present the Bill appeared to him to be framed under a complete misconception of the position. As a fact, the measures proposed in the Government Bill ought to have been in operation weeks and months ago. If that had been done, the people would not now have been pauperized and demoralized by the lavish distribution of charity which, coming as it did now, had unfitted them for work or for any exertion in behalf of themselves. The Government should long ago have made arrangements through some of the large houses which dealt in seed for having a stock ready to distribute among the people at the present crisis. When the seed came to be distributed he hoped it would be bestowed as a free gift and not as a loan; otherwise, the result would be to plunge the people still further into debt. It was a pure chimera to suppose that the people would eat the seed potatoes they might receive. They would do nothing of the kind; they would regard the seed as a sacred possession, the purpose of which was to avert famine next year. At any rate, the Government might rest assured that in providing adequate seed for next year lay the only chance of averting another and more terrible calamity.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that he objected to the Bill in toto,and for the reason that it proposed to place increased burdens upon the already over-taxed ratepayers in Ireland. The principle of the Government Bill was to make the Irish distress a local question. The principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was to make it an Imperial question; and there could be no doubt as to the choice which the Representatives from Ireland should make between the two. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, had intimated that the local Boards of Guardians required pressure to induce them to act. No doubt they did, for the leading spirits of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland were the landlords, and they were perfectly aware that the ratepayers of Ireland were already rented, rated, and taxed up to the utmost amount they could bear. His only object in giving Notice that he should move that the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed until the 19th of February was to give time for the Boards of Guardians, the members of baronial sessions, and others who were interested in the matter, to express their opinions upon it. The title of the Bill was so taking that one was apt to forget its principle. He could not believe, however, that the Liberal Party would ever assent to legislation which was contrary to their policy, and would throw greater obstacles than had ever yet been thrown in the way of the peasantry of Ireland getting that position on the soil which they were determined to obtain. It appeared to him that the main object of the Bill was to enable landlords to dispense with their tenants altogether. He considered that it was an extraordinary thing for the Government to mix up two things together which were totally distinct, one to relieve the distress in Ireland, and the other to assist the landlords. He would, at a future stage, take the opportunity of expressing the objections he felt to the Bill in detail.
  MR. P. MARTINobjected to the way in which this question had been dealt with by the Government. The Bill ought to be termed, not a measure for the general benefit of Ireland, but a Bill for the relief of landlords in certain distressed districts in that country. The present state of affairs ought to be met

  549
  by Her Majesty's Ministers in a noble and statesmanlike manner, worthy of a great nation. He submitted that the Church Surplus Fund was not one out of which British generosity should supply money for the purpose; because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, and as it was expressed in the Church Disendowment Act, the Fund was to be administered for the general benefit of Ireland, and not for the benefit of particular districts. Because there was loud-voiced clamour in the West, the Government seemed to think that only that portion of the country was distressed. Such was not the case. He did not know what authority the Chief Secretary for Ireland had for stating that there was no distress in the county of Kilkenny. On the contrary, the privations endured by both labourers and small farmers had in that county increased and were every day increasing. The labouring class might, perchance, soon get employment in assisting in the spring work; but for the farming class this prospect was most alarming. In many districts, he believed, many of the farmers were without money and already deeply in debt to the shopkeepers, not only for supplies of food, but for the seed which cropped their lands last year. They would find much difficulty in obtaining the seed to crop their farms this year. The Government measure appeared to him to provide no adequate means for the relief of distress amongst the farming class. The system which should have been adopted was one which would have set the tenant to work on his own land. The Government had misconceived the extent and proportions of the distress. He had hoped they would have introduced a fair and generous measure to meet the necessities, not only of the Western districts, but of the whole of Ireland. If his hon. Friend who had moved an Amendment to the Bill (Mr. Synan) went to a division he should accompany him to the Lobby.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEcontended that the Bill was not of a nature likely to give satisfaction in Ireland. He held that the only way to meet the distress was either to give a free grant of money or to undertake the prosecution of public works, especially such works as the drainage of the Shannon, the prosecution of which would, in his opinion, be of great national advantage.
  MR. D. TAYLORexpressed his satisfaction that the Government had taken up the question of supplying seed potatoes to the people; but he hoped the Bill would not be limited to potatoes. In some of the distressed districts in Donegal which he had visited, the people were in great dread that they would not have any seed, and the question was one to which the Government could not devote too much attention. He was surprised that there should be any objection to using the Church Surplus Fund for the relief of distress, more especially as the money would be advanced as a loan, and the only loss the Fund would sustain would be a small deficiency in interest. The object of the Bill was to enable the Guardians to give out-door relief, and anything that could be done to tide the people over the distress, without compelling them to enter the workhouses, would be a great boon. Owing to last year's winter, they had more work than they had last year; but it was not sufficient to stop the famine they were now suffering from. He hoped this Bill would proceed concurrently with the Seed Bill; but something more must be done if they would avoid the recurrence of this distress. Railways must be made with a view to cheap transit; harbours must be built and improved, and trade must be developed, if they would permanently remove the evils under which the country was suffering. He trusted the Government would give that subject their most earnest consideration.
  MR. O'CLERY,in opposing the Bill, said, that the Government ought to look to the Consolidated Fund, and not to the Irish Church Fund, for the means of relieving the existing distress. He wished particularly to call attention to the case of the fishermen on the West coast of Ireland, who were at the present time suffering great distress, and hoped that, from whatever source the relief funds might come, something would be done to encourage the fisheries along the Irish coasts generally.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had expressed his views on this subject at some length the other night, when there did not seem to be much interest felt in it; in fact, there were only four or five hon. Members in the House. The Government proposed this scheme as a remedy for admitted distress; but they

  551
  were acting in a somewhat Irish fashion, for, under the baronial sessions, they would be raising money from a class who themselves required relief—he meant the ratepayers. He regretted that there should have been any appeal to the charity of foreign nations for that relief which the Government should have afforded, and thought the question ought not to be complicated by reference to the Irish Church Surplus Fund. In his opinion, the principle laid down in the case of the distress in Lancashire during the Cotton Famine should be followed in that of Ireland, and that the funds for relieving the distress, unfortunately prevalent in that country, should be obtained from Imperial and not from local sources. It would be unwise to treat the distress in Ireland as a small matter compared with that of a distant English county, and he should like to hear from the Bench opposite whether they would deny that the present distress was not as great as during the Cotton Famine; and, as one of the Irish Members, he would ask why the same course should not be pursued in each case?
  THE CHANCELLOROF THE EXCHEQUER: They were not given anything from the Imperial Funds.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENmust insist, however, that a loan of £1,200,000 was granted to Lancashire on Imperial security. It was admitted that relief to a large extent must be given by the Boards of Guardians; and he called upon the Government to grant out of the Imperial Exchequer a sum in aid of outdoor relief in Ireland equal to that appropriated by the Guardians for that purpose. The sum requisite for the purpose would be much less than the money which would have to be paid to Crown solicitors, Queen's counsel, and others employed to put the law in force in bloody arrangements, perhaps, before the year was out. The adoption of his suggestion would at once prevent the famine which many people anticipated, and for which, if it did occur, the Government would, after the warnings they had had, be solely responsible. He hoped that in whatever they did the Government would rise superior to Party.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONsaid, that the favourable manner in which the Bill had been received was a proof of the
  552
  sympathy which hon. Members on both sides of the House felt for Ireland in her distress, and of the approval with which the Government proposals had been received. It was undoubted that the measure before the House would be most beneficial for Ireland, as it would enable the Guardians to make ample provision of food and fuel for issue in case of necessity. It would also enable baronial presentments to be made. It was advisable, however, with respect to these presentments in aid, that due care should be taken to prevent waste of money or the perpetration of jobs. It was most advisable that railways should be promoted in every way in Ireland; and he was, therefore, glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the various propositions in the Bill were likely to be extended in that respect. With regard to the county with which he was connected, there were no less than three railways in course of construction. Under the present distress the proprietors had not sufficient money for carrying out the purposes they had in view, and the result was that the works were at a standstill. If aid were given to enable the construction of local railways and branch lines to be proceeded with, it would considerably benefit the particular localities, and would not lead to that influx of labour from elsewhere which large railway works would be certain to create. Local labour would be employed, and that upon reproductive works. Irish Members on both sides of the House, he believed, would agree with him, when he said that they did not want so much the formation of roads, or the making of fences to improve those roads, but they wanted something of general and practical utility, and that which might hereafter be of permanent benefit to Ireland. He might also mention the formation of piers and harbours. It was a matter of regret that the Irish fisheries were not in a satisfactory state. The fishermen of Ireland were poor; but they were industrious and brave. They had no means of buying boats, nor the means of buying sufficient gear to carry on their occupation. If the Government, during the present crisis, which he was sorry to say was likely to increase on the "West coast of Ireland, would grant loans for the purpose of erecting permanent small fishery piers, it would be of vast benefit to the fishing

  553
  community of that country. He trusted that before this Bill passed they might find that some satisfactory means had been adopted not only to promote reproductive labour throughout the internal districts of Ireland, but also to promote the formation of railways and fishery harbours.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that a serious question was raised as to whether the Irish Church Surplus was prohibited by the section of the Act of 1869 which dealt with it from being appropriated to such a purpose as was now in view; the section contained a special provision that the Fund was not to be employed in any way to cancel or impair the obligations now attached to property under the Acts for the relief of the poor. Under the present Bill, however, it was intended to apply the money in relief and in aid of the poor rates of Ireland. Besides being a possible misappropriation of the Fund, it would make inroads into the capital, which had already been very seriously diminished. As a matter of fact, there was no such fund in existence as the Irish Church Surplus. The Irish Commissioners, he believed, had not the command of a single 6d.of capital, and they had been indebted to the savings banks for the money which they had been able to place at the disposal of Parliament up to the present time. What the Bill did was to propose that the Commissioners, who had no capital, should borrow money to lend it again to the Board of Works, which in itself was an absurd proceeding. It was improper to fritter away the Surplus Fund. A national demand had been made that it should be applied to the purpose of creating a peasant proprietary in Ireland; and he thought that until that question was settled no further inroad should be made into that Fund. In the face of these considerations, the Government actually proposed to hand a large portion of the money over, not to the tenants, but to the landlords, who would thus receive exceptional facilities for improving their land. He thought that money advanced to the owners of land for the improvement of their property was most just and useful; but the question now was whether landlords should have exceptional advantages granted to them which might as usefully be granted to the tenants, and whether these exceptional advantages should be granted at the
  554
  cost of the tenants. If the land were improved, the consequence would be that the tenants, at no distant time, would have to pay increased rents. He (Mr. Meldon) had suggested, in the debate on the Address, that the money should be given, if at all, to the tenants, for the purpose of improving the land, and he had been met with some representation about the rights of property. Yet the tenants would be improving the land; and if they paid all the instalments, they ought to be enabled to claim compensation for the improvements, as under the Land Act of 1870 it had been admitted they were entitled to. Was it fair that when a national calamity overtook Ireland it should be dealt with in a different way from that in which the distress in Lancashire in 1863 was met? Lancashire was then treated as an integral part of this Kingdom, and the question became an Imperial one. Why was famine in Ireland, dealt with as a local question? In the case of the Lancashire Cotton Famine, £1,200,000 was advanced directly to the local authorities for the execution of permanent works. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: At what rate of interest?] He would come to that presently. They extended the period of re-payment to 30 years. In regard to Ireland, they now proposed to make the advance of £500,000 out of a purely Irish fund re-payable, in some cases, in 10 years. [The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER: In 37 years.] The money which was to be advanced to the landlords was not to be repaid in 10 years; but some of the advances to public bodies were to be repaid in 10 years instead of in 30, as was the case with the Lancashire loan. The difference between the periods allowed made up for the difference in the rate of interest, which was 3½ per cent in the Lancashire instance. Moreover, in the Lancashire ease there were provisions for extending the time of re-payment. The advances during the Lancashire distress were made directly to the local authorities for the purpose of works of a permanent character, whereas no such advances in the case of Ireland were to be made to the Boards of Guardians. The Government treated Ireland differently from Lancashire; and he protested againt making the relief of distress in Ireland a merely local question when the Imperial funds were without objection applied to the

  555
  relief of the distress in Lancashire. He appealed to the Government to deal with the distress in Ireland in as just and fair a spirit as the distress in Lancashire had been dealt with, and to provide for the emergency out of Imperial resources. They had no right to take the Church Surplus, for it already belonged to the people for other purposes.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTON, referring to the allusions which had been made to the Lancashire distress, said, he was in a position to inform the House that on that occasion the relief had been mainly by very large private subscriptions. In London £520,000 had been raised, and every penny of it distributed; and by the Central Belief Committee in Lancashire, of which the late Earl of Derby was Chairman, £1,250,000 or more had, been raised, not all of it being distributed. For his own part, he could not understand how hon. Members opposite could believe for a moment that the Government would be indifferent to this great calamity, or could believe that Ireland was not almost an eternal worry to them. Knowing that hon. Member after hon. Member would rise in his place and denounce the Government when Parliament met, they were not likely, even apart from any other consideration, to withhold their most serious consideration from the calamity impending in Ireland. The Irish Members seemed to him to take the bread that was offered, to them and to throw it over their heads, instead of putting it in the mouths of a famishing people. He called upon Irish Members to desist from using epithets in reference to the Government, and from expressing sentiments calculated to produce a false impression on the minds of the Irish people, which might not be eradicated for years, and which he could not believe the Irish Members themselves could believe in, except as sentiments useful for political purposes.
  MR. COGANsaid, the question before the House was simply whether the funds to be charged for partially relieving the existing distress should be purely Irish funds, or whether they should be Imperial funds, as was the case in 1863 in the Lancashire Cotton Famine. He trusted the debate would not conclude until they heard in some intelligible and conclusive manner why the Government purposed taking, with regard to a national calamity in one part of the
  556
  United Kingdom, a course different from that which they had pursued on a previous occasion of the kind. He had heard no good reason yet given for subjecting Ireland to the exceptional treatment now proposed, and should therefore support the Amendment, believing that this national calamity in Ireland ought to be met out of the National Exchequer. Attempts had been made from time to time to fritter away the Irish Church Surplus Fund, which the Act of Parliament had intended should be appropriated for the permanent benefit of the whole of Ireland; whereas the object of the present Bill was to meet an exigency now existing in parts of that country, and not in the whole of it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Cogan), that in the proposal now submitted to the House there was anything which ran counter to the Act of Parliament which dealt with the Irish Church property. The right hon. Member said it was never contemplated by that Act that the money should be expended on local matters, but only for purposes which could benefit the whole of Ireland. He would find, however, if he referred to the words of the Act, that it stated that the Church Surplus should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering, and there was nothing in it which said that the calamity and suffering must equally prevail at the same moment in all parts of Ireland. He maintained, therefore, that the Government wore fully justified in proposing to use a portion of that Fund for a purpose like the present one. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had compared the treatment Lancashire received in a great emergency with that received by Ireland, and appeared to think—and, no doubt, did so with perfect sincerity—that the comparison was unfavourable to the latter country. Now, the money advanced to Lancashire was advanced at 3½ per cent. But it was said the period of re-payment was easier and more advantageous to the borrower in the case of Lancashire. [Mr. SYNAN: In some cases.] Well, the principle on which they had gone in regard to these repayments was that the payments should be regulated according to the operation of the ordinary law, with certain excep-

  557
  tions. The period for re-payment was to extend as long as the benefit to be derived from the contemplated works should last. For example, in regard to advances for paving, it was impossible that loans for works of such an ephemeral description should be allowed to burden the ratepayers for SO or 40 years. The loans under the Public Health Act varied in the times of re-payment from two years up to 50, according as the work was of a permanent or a temporary character. With regard to advances to Irish landowners, the Government had relaxed the ordinary rules as to re-payment, and they had done it on that principle. It had been represented on authority given in evidence that the benefit arising from draining would extend over a longer period than 22 years; and they had, therefore, extended the time for repayment. Anyone who chose to study what was done in Lancashire would find that the terms offered to Ireland were more liberal than those imposed in Lancashire. He was not referring to the large amount of local contributions raised in Lancashire; but the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had spoken of benefits conferred on the landowners as if they were a national injury to Ireland. That notion seemed to underlie a great many of the fallacies to which they had listened for several nights. But to say that advances made to persons in possession of the soil for the purpose of improving the soil could be considered as a national injury appeared to him a proposition which did not require an answer in that House. The ground on which the Government had selected the landowners as the medium for giving employment and wages to the people was one which he thought must commend itself to the common sense of every hon. Member. The Government had felt itself bound to adopt exceptional measures to meet the extraordinary distress which prevailed in certain parts of Ireland. They might have had recourse to the system which broke down before—namely, that of public relief works conducted by the State; but it seemed better to allow employment to find its way to the people through the ordinary sources. They had, therefore, enabled owners of land to apply large sums of money, amounting already, he believed, to something like £500,000, upon the express condition that the works upon
  558
  which they were to be expended should be confined to such occupations as would afford immediate employment to unskilled labour. Buildings and other works, however profitable, which did not fulfil this condition, were not to enjoy the facilities they granted. If there was one thing more than another for which the Government deserved credit, he thought it was for avoiding any unnecessary disturbance of the ordinary relations between employer and employed, and for having in no way set aside the ordinary sources of employment of labour in the country. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had spoken of lavish distribution of charitable funds. It was a pity that such an expression should go forth from the House of Commons. There was no reason to believe that those excellent organizations which, fortunately, had come to the aid of distress in Ireland had been distributed upon a lavish scale. No doubt, it was the intention of those who distributed those funds to meet every case of need which came before them; but it would be a great injury to the good cause of charity if it went forth from that House that the distribution of those funds had been in any manner extravagant. The hon. and learned Member had also spoken of the largo inroads which had been already made in the Irish Church Surplus Fund, as though he would have liked every penny of it to be embarked in the speculation of endeavouring by artificial means to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland. But his hon. and learned Friend was himself, perhaps as much as anyone, responsible for a very considerable inroad into that Fund, an inroad which had commended itself to the general opinion of Ireland and of every portion of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member seemed to proceed upon the assumption that any sum advanced out of that Church Surplus Fund would be lost, and some hon. Members had appeared to think that the Government were unfairly protecting the Consolidated Fund at its expense. But this would imply that the Unions of Ireland were not capable of maintaining their credit. The Government proposed to lend money, in the first place, upon the security of the landed property; and he supposed the hon. and learned Member would admit that to be good enough

  559
  They also proposed to lend upon the security of the rates; and this, he presumed, the hon. and learned Member did not think good enough. But he hoped his prognostications of ill would not be fulfilled, and that, as had been the case up to the present time in Lancashire, not one penny would be lost. He thought the House must have seen that the Government had, in the present crisis, exerted themselves to meet everything that could be reasonably urged upon the Executive, and that, without discouraging local effort or charitable organization, they had in no way failed in their duty. And lie further believed that the House and the country would not for a moment believe they had neglected their duty.
  MR. SHAWhoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) would not divide the House that evening upon his Amendment, as there would be another opportunity of discussing its principle upon the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair. The Government had already taken action on the lines of the Bill, and he was sure they would all be willing to pass a measure of indemnity to the Government for what they had already done; all the Irish Members complained of being that they had not acted with sufficient promptness. It was certainly not his opinion that any benefit conferred upon the landlords must be a public injury, and he did not know from what hon. Member's speeches the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have gathered such an idea. He thought the drainage of land was one of the best things that could be done, and the lending of money at a low rate of interest for that purpose would be not only an immense advantage to the community, but would also bring labour nearer than any other way to the workmen. Every provision in this direction deserved great praise. What they blamed the Government for was for not issuing the Circular of the 12th of January on the 12th of October. They also feared lest the landlords, after getting this £500,000 of public money at 1 per cent, by means of which the land would be increased in value, should thereafter raise the rents. He was sure the Government did not wish that; but it was hardly in human nature to do otherwise. Foreseeing that such a result would be sure to raise unpleasant relations between landlord and tenant,
  560
  he hoped the Government would insert some words to prevent the raising of rents on account of the improvements effected by means of public money. It would be a great hardship that public money given at such a crisis, freely and generously, should be followed by a burden which, in some cases, the people would not be able to bear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced what was a matter of great importance—namely, that the proposed works should not be confined to mere road-making and road-fencing. He hoped that the Government proposals were not all that Ministers intended to do. He did not ask them to answer him at once; but if the Bill embodied the whole of their scheme he did not think it would be worth taking. He thought that they ought to make a grant to Ireland, and he thought that Ireland had a right to expect such a grant as had been made in 1847. The Irish people were unfairly taxed, and that was an additional reason for a grant. No doubt, there was a great outflow of charity; but charity would not help the small farmers, and would not be a permanent benefit. He hoped the Government would give another opportunity of considering the measure, and would not press it forward too hastily.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would not ask the House to take the trouble of a useless division, but repeat his Motion on going into Committee. He was determined that the Treasury Bench and the Opposition Bench should speak out further on the subject.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.Main Question put, and agreed to.Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 37.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that, although the Bill had only been in their hands 36 hours, yet, as it was substantially the same as that brought before the House last Session, he

  561
  should not delay the Second Reading by asking for time to consider it. The only material alteration in the Bill, as compared with that of last Session, was that a debtor was not allowed to be made a bankrupt on his own petition, which he regarded as a great improvement. As he understood it to be the intention of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee, he did not think it desirable to enter into a discussion of its provisions in detail on the present occasion. He should give his hon. and learned Friend all the assistance in his power to pass this measure and the Criminal Code Bill, because the character, not so much of the Government, as of the House, was at stake, and he hoped they would do something to redeem their character during the present Session.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he should have been inclined, on an ordinary occasion, to ask for further time; but the matter was so urgent and time had become so precious that he did not think he would be justified in doing so. He agreed with the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend, and said that by the Controller's Report it appeared that £25,000,000 was lost annually in this country by bad debts in bankruptcy alone, a sum nearly equal to the interest on the National Debt. Such a state of affairs was a disgrace, he would not say to the Government, but to Parliament, and he looked upon the Bill as a step towards a better state of affairs. He contemplated with satisfaction the fact that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDbelieved that the best way of getting some measure on bankruptcy passed in the present Session was to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as the Government proposed to do. He was of opinion that it would be useless to attempt to introduce any very ambitious innovations in Bankruptcy Law, and believed that the fundamental principle of the Act of 1869 was a right one. What was wanted by business men was not to sweep the Act of 1869 away, but to amend its blots, and he believed that these could be amended by a very short Statute. The principal evils from which they suffered under the existing law were, after all,
  562
  but few. They suffered, in the first place, from an absolute want of control over liquidations; and, in the second place, it would be well if the costs of all officers connected with liquidations were officially taxed. Then they wanted what the Government Bill did not provide for—namely, the Scotch system of making trustees pay dividends periodically, and he trusted the Select Committee would come to that conclusion. He should also like to see some provision to prevent fraudulent men who had failed disgracefully three or four times from going into business again and underselling the honest tradesmen; and he hoped some of the legal Members of the House would be able to provide some that would be found effectual in preventing that evil. He concluded by expressing his satisfaction that the Bill was going to a Select Committee.
  MR. GOSCHENexpressed a hope that the Bill might be taken in hand without any delay. He could say, on behalf of his constituents, that they took a deep interest in the matter, and were most anxious that there should be some legislation in reference to it this Session. He agreed that it would be unwise to enter into a discussion of the details at the present time, but thought it might be convenient to hon. Members if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would point out in what important particulars, if in any, the Bill differed from that of last year.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had looked through the Bill, and could say that it differed from the Bill of last year in being a supplementary Bill, instead of a consolidating one; but that, like the Bill of last year, it provided that all liquidations should be by deed of arrangement, instead of resolutions of shareholders. Of this he very much approved; the execution of a deed being a deliberate act and giving a man time for reflection; whilst, generally speaking, at a meeting of creditors, the resolutions to be passed and the appointment of the trustee were a foregone conclusion. He was glad that the Bill was to be referred for consideration to a Select Committee, as some of its details required attention; for instance, those referring to the discharge of the bankrupt. He also thought it was a defect in the Bill as it stood that the onus of showing the cause of failure

  563
  should be thrown on the creditors. It ought, in his opinion, to be thrown on the Court. There were several other points that would require serious consideration; but he did not think it necessary to enlarge on them, as it was intended to refer the measure to a Select Committee.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had shown himself anxious that the country should possess a really good Law of Bankruptcy. He fully approved the course which had been accepted by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It was just the kind of measure the country wanted, being not a reversal or change of the law, but an amendment of the law, and he trusted it would soon become the law of the land.
  MR. MUNTZexpressed a hope that no time would be lost in appointing the Committee, whose duty it would be to consider the details of the measure. There were several clauses of the Bill which would require special consideration; but he would refrain from discussing them until they had been dealt with in the manner proposed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he felt that the appeal which had. been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London (Mr. Goschen) was a perfectly reasonable one, and he should briefly explain the leading provisions of the measure. The Bill of last Session was not designed to sweep away the Act of 1869, but rather to amend it, at the same time repealing the Act and consolidating the law upon the subject—a more ambitious design than that of the present Bill. On reflection, and considering the difficulty of passing through the House of Commons—at all events of this day—a Bill consisting of 150 or 160 clauses, upon every one of which a discussion might be raised, if any hon. Member thought proper to raise it, he thought it best to bring in a Bill not to amend and consolidate the law, but to attempt merely to amend the law, leaving its consolidation for some future period. The Bill of last year proposed to amend the Act of 1869 in several respects—in the first place as to liquidation by arrangement, in the next as to compositions under the Act, and to substitute for liquidation by ar-
  564
  rangement, deeds to be entered into between the debtor and a majority in number and three-fourths in value of his creditors. After providing certain minor amendments, especially with regard to the audit of accounts and the action which the Controller might take in regard to the accounts of trustees, last year's Bill provided that a debtor should not, in the first instance, be absolutely declared a bankrupt, but that there should be made against him a provisional order, and that he should not be made a bankrupt until the creditors had been called together and had decided that he should be made one. The present was an amending Bill; but not a consolidating and an amending Bill. It did not adopt provisional orders; but it allowed adjudication in bankruptcy to be declared at once, as under the present system. The Bill of last Session enabled a debtor to petition against himself and to cause himself to be declared a bankrupt. Upon consideration it had been determined that that provision should not now be inserted, as it would be taken too much advantage of by debtors. What this Bill did was to provide certain amendments in the Act of 1869. One of these was the entire abolition of liquidations by arrangement. There were provisions for compelling trustees to pay all monies they might receive from time to time into the bank, and to provide for the taxation of all costs and, the audit of all accounts, not only in bankruptcy, but under deeds of arrangement as well. There were a variety of smaller provisions designed to protect estates from waste and to preserve them for the benefit of the creditors. He was not at all inclined to differ from the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd), when he said that the Act of 1869 was founded on a right principle. At all events, it was one which was perfectly intelligible, because it did away with the system of officialism which had existed to a considerable extent before, and it vested the administration or management of a debtor's estate and the dealing with the debtor in the creditor. He dared say the Act of 1869 would have worked well but for two circumstances. One was that the creditors would not let the Act work well; they would not look after their own affairs. In Scotland it was different; creditors were more canny than in England, where they were apathetic, put the pen through

  565
  au account as a bad debt, and would not trouble themselves to look after their own interests. It was difficult to legislate for people who would not exert themselves on behalf of themselves; but it must be done. Creditors must be protected against their own apathy and supineness, and this might almost be called a Bill to protect creditors in spite of themselves. There were restraints proposed by the Bill for the purpose of rendering it difficult that an estate should be wasted, notwithstanding that the creditors would not look after a debtor's estate. Another reason why the Act of 1869 had not worked well was that it provided what might be called a gentlemanly way of getting rid of a man's liability. It was then thought desirable that every case should not go into Court; that, in certain circumstances, a man should not be exposed to the stigma of bankruptcy; and that he should not be subjected to the disagreeable ordeal of a public examination. It was therefore enacted that a man might liquidate by arrangement and offer to make a composition with his creditors. For some reason, Parliament forgot that it was necessary to have checks and restraints in these cases as well as in ordinary bankruptcies. There was no provision for taxing bills or auditing accounts. So if the debtor and his friends could get a sufficient number of proxies, they did pretty much what they liked. The Report of the Controller showed the disastrous working of this system. There could be no doubt that liquidations had worked badly, and that there had been enormous waste in dealing with estates. He proposed to do away altogether with these liquidations and with compositions as well, and to substitute for them arrangements by deed. His opinion was that, as a rule, a man who was not able to pay his debts ought to go through the Bankruptcy Courts, and be subjected to a public examination as to the mode in which he spent his money, and how it had happened that he had fallen into embarrassment. There were many oases in which it was desirable that there should be no adjudications in bankruptcy, but that men who were unable to fulfil their engagements should be allowed to proceed in business in order that they might subsequently pay their debts without the stigma attached to them of having been adjudicated bank-
  566
  rupts and passed examinations as bankrupts in public Courts. In order to meet cases of this kind, it was proposed by the Bill to allow debtors in such circumstances to compound with their creditors; but it also provided that this should only be done with the consent of a large proportion of such creditors, both with regard to number and value. Furthermore, it was proposed that this consent should be given personally, and not by means of proxies. He, for one, thought it important that the system of proxies in bankruptcy proceedings should be abolished as far as possible. This was most important as far as arrangements by deed were concerned; and the proposal in reference to it contained in the Bill would, he thought, have a satisfactory result as far as the commercial world was concerned. As far as compositions were concerned, it was proposed to enact that they should not be accepted unless the debtors offered 5s.in the pound, or any similar sum was accepted by four-fifths in number and value of the creditors. His intention was—when the Bill got before a Select Committee, to take such steps and to secure the calling of such witnesses, mercantile as well as legal, as would enable the Government in the course of the present Session to pass an Act which would amend the Bankruptcy Law in a satisfactory manner, and a manner superior to the Scotch system, of which they had heard so much.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, there was almost an unanimity of opinion that the Government had shown great judgment in introducing an amendment Bill instead of a consolidation of the law. The Act of 1869 was a consolidating Act; and under the existing Act the trustee was invested with too much power, being practically the master of the creditors, instead of their servant. Speaking for the other commercial Members of the House, he would say that they would endeavour to associate themselves thoroughly with the legal Members, and would endeavour to turn out, as soon as they possibly could, an amendment of the Bill satisfactory to the whole House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on February 23, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. MEREWETHER, Mr. HERSCHELL, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. GORST, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. WILLIAM BECKETT DENISON, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. Alderman COTTON, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. HERMON, Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, Mr. BATES, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Mr. KNOWLES, and Mr. WHITWELL; Five to be the quorum.

CHARTERED BANKS (COLONIAL) BILL.
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
CHARTERED BANKS (COLONIAL) BILL.

  [BILL 4.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. RAMSAY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he must be allowed to express his surprise that, when introducing a Bill involving principles so important, Her Majesty's Ministers, who had charge of the measure, had not given some explanation as to its provisions and intended effect. He need not occupy much of the time of the House in stating the reasons why he objected to its passing. He had opposed the Bill when it was before the House last Session, and he had hitherto heard neither explanation nor justification of it. What was proposed by the Bill was to grant certain powers, privileges, and immunities to particular institutions specified in the Schedule, and he could see no special reason for granting such powers and privileges. He did not desire to say anything against the institutions in question. He had no doubt that they were perfectly respectable; but he could see no reason for granting to them special powers and privileges which were not conferred upon other bodies carrying on the same business in the same localities, and which did not enjoy such special advantages. That was the chief ground upon which he urged his objection. He would not feel disposed, seeing that these Charters were terminable, to object to a proposal to extend their provisions for a certain period, say five years; but when asked to perpetuate indefinitely those powers and privileges on some in-
  568
  stitutions which others did not enjoy, all he could say was, rather than sanction a proposal so exceptional, it would be better that the Charters should be swept away at once, and that all who carried on the business of banking should be placed on the same footing. Certain institutions had obtained by Charter powers which, in fact, constituted a sort of monopoly, and that by the Bill Parliament was asked to sanction for ever. To such a proposal he had serious objection. He thought it detrimental to the public interest in the Colonies and in the United Kingdom. As he had already said, if the proposal was for a limited period, he would not offer opposition; and probably within five years the whole subject of banking would have to be dealt with by Parliament. In Scotland they had an analogous state of things to that which it was proposed to institute by the Bill. Three of the leading banks had certain powers and privileges which other institutions did not enjoy, one by Act of Parliament and two by Charters, and the Bill proposed to establish a similar inequality in the respective Colonies. To that system might be traced a great deal of the evils which had attended the operations of some of those institutions which were not so favoured. Further, as an inducement to the House to pause before going on with the Bill, they had not got the Charters before them, in order to judge of what they were doing; but they were really being asked to legislate entirely in the dark. It was not reasonable to ask the House to sanction a proposal to confer exceptional powers and privileges, of the nature and extent of which neither the Members of that House nor the public had any knowledge. Let the Charters be produced and explained that they might know what they were doing. He did not say that he had any objection to the institutions sought to be favoured by this measure. They were, no doubt, as was said, highly respectable. He felt sure of that, and when waited on himself last year to try to pursuade him to withdraw his opposition to the Bill, he said that if a Bill were introduced to confer on all banking institutions having offices in the respective localities the same privileges, he would not hesitate to give such a measure most favourable consideration, and, at least, it might pass without his oppo-

  569
  sition. But he did decidedly object to confirm a monopoly of this character—if not a monopoly, at least an exceptional advantage—for if it was not an advantage, why were they asked to legislate on the subject? Those were the grounds upon which he opposed the Bill at first; they were now equally strong, and he should, accordingly move its rejection.
  DR. CAMERON, in rising to second the Amendment, said, that if any hon. Member of the House desired to inform himself on the subject of chartered banks, he would find great difficulty in doing so. He had asked the Treasury and the Board of Trade to lay before the House a Return on the subject, and he was told that the Charters were public documents, and that they could Be obtained. He had found that statement correct; but on examination he found that these Charters were preserved in the Record Office in such a form as rendered them practically unavailable for reference. They were often extremely voluminous and complicated documents. Yet they were asked, without a word of inquiry, to renew all the Charters of the colonial banks by a stroke of the pen. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) had referred to the banks scheduled as being the only banks dealt with by the Bill; but that appeared not to be the case. So far as he could make out, it was proposed in the case of the banks scheduled that they should be able to do some things, which at present they required the sanction of the Treasury to do, without any sanction at all; but as far as other banks were concerned—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Those are the only banks.] The words of the Bill were—
  "Nothing in this Act shall authorize any Banking Companies mentioned under the Schedule of this Act to exercise any power in relation to the issue or otherwise in respect of notes, or in relation to the establishment of branches in the Colony that is not exercised at the time of the passing of this Act."
  That did not refer to all the chartered banks. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] On what grounds, then, were they to deal with the chartered banks in the Colonies without dealing with those at home? The Government did not, and never had, carried out the investigations with regard
  570
  to these banks, for which they were responsible. For instance, banks were compelled to hold gold against notes, and the Treasury had the power of seeing that they did so; but, as was shown after the City of Glasgow Bank failure, they never performed that duty. There were two privileges conferred on these chartered banks by the Charter which it was proposed to perpetuate. These were the limitation of liability, and the power of issuing notes. The power of issuing notes was a matter which did not so much interest the public in this country; but the matter of limitation of liability undoubtedly did. Now, they would find in the banks scheduled that in some cases the liability was limited to the amount of shares; in other cases it was limited to twice that amount; in the case of the Ionian Bank, it was limited, in respect of the shares held in Greece, to the amount paid up; while in respect of those held in England, it was double that amount. Again, in the case of the Egyptian Bank it was twice the amount of shares, and the liability ceased at the time of transfer. That was quite a different liability to any contemplated under the Companies Acts. Why were they to give these banks perpetual Charters? Even the Bank of England had no such Charter. Its privileges were terminable one year after the payment of the Public Debt. Under this Bill they proposed to give perpetuity to all the anomalies existing in chartered banks—a power and privilege which they did not consider necessary in the case of the Bank of England. He would also point out that it was not easy to arrive at what the limitations of the liabilities of these banks were. All his information was gathered from the Stock Exchange year Book;but the compiler of that work was compelled to rely for his information on the officials of the various Chartered Companies. There was practically no means of obtaining independent information as to the liabilities of these banks, and the subject was pre-eminently one which, before being dealt with, should be investigated by a Committee. He should have no objection to what was proposed, if the Bill limited the privileges of the Charters to two, three, or five years; but he most decidedly objected to their being made perpetual. He, therefore, seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he would not have moved the Second Reading of the Bill in silence had it not been identical with that which was introduced last Session, but did not pass into law. The reasons for the introduction of the Bill were very simple. The House was aware that, before the passing of the Limited Companies Liability Acts, there had existed for more than 30 or 40 years certain banks which possessed Royal Charters. For any alteration or extension of their branches, or for the renewal of a term upon which their Charters were originally granted, those banks had to come to the Treasury for such renewal or increase of their powers. A responsibility was thus thrown upon the Treasury in regard to matters on which it was not very well able to form an opinion or to exercise a sound judgment. It was, therefore, thought at one time that it might be possible to let the Charters expire; but the disadvantages of placing those banks under the Limited Companies Acts were found to be so great that the Charters were renewed for a short period, in order that a Bill might be submitted to the House for the purpose of relieving the Treasury from a responsibility which it could not properly exercise. Under the present Bill the banks would simply have the same powers which they now possessed, subject to the legislation of the countries in which they existed. The only object of the Bill, therefore, was to relieve the Treasury from the responsibility of renewing the Charters, and to place the banks under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they carried on business.
  MR. MUNTZunderstood the object of the Bill to be the perpetual renewal of the Charters under which these banks existed. The House had had no time to look into the matter, for this Bill was not introduced until the end of last Session, and was withdrawn without being fully discussed. He should like to know whether it was proposed to give the
  572
  Legislatures of all the countries in which the banks carried on business power to alter their constitutions? For instance, was the Bank of Egypt to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Khedive? Then, with regard to Canada, he doubted very much whether the House had power to make laws with regard to banks in the Dominion. Before a measure of this kind was passed they ought to have time to consider the subject fully. There must be some object in view with regard to the Bill; and if that object were only to relieve the Treasury from an unpleasant duty, he should suggest that the Charters should be renewed for five, seven, or 10 years, and not in perpetuity.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that one of the greatest objections to continuing these Charters for a limited time was that one of the banks held a perpetual Charter. He would endeavour to explain how the matter stood. A good many years ago, before the establishment of joint stock banks was authorized by law, banks could not exist without some kind of Charter. About 1840, and in later years, the promoters of banks in the Colonies were in the habit of asking the Crown for Charters to enable them to exist. In no other way could they be established, and the Crown usually granted the Charters. Almost all those Charters contained a proviso that the actions of the banks should be regulated by the consent of the Treasury. Subsequently, joint stock banks were founded under the sanction of Parliament. The 11 banks referred to in the Bill had, however, remained in the condition of chartered banks, and as such had, no doubt, certain advantages, both as regarded their standing and also as being, to a certain extent, independent of the legislation of the Colonies. They were under the regulation of the Treasury; but, as time went on, the Treasury found it exceedingly awkward to exercise the power confided to it. Matters requiring alterations of the Charters, either by the establishment of branch banks or by changes in the system of issuing notes, had to be decided in Downing Street by officers of the Treasury, who had no great knowledge of the matter. The Treasury would have been glad to renew the Charters for a limited time, and then

  573
  allowed them to cease. But that would have thrown the banks out of gear, and it would have been exceedingly difficult for them to register themselves as joint stock hanks, and there was the further difficulty that one of the banks had a perpetual Charter. The banks had carried on their business exceedingly well, and there was no reason for wishing to put an end to their existence. The difficulties in the way of altering their constitution by bringing them under the Companies Acts were very great, owing to numbers of the shares being in the names of trustees, and other matters of that kind. Moreover, the effect of that measure would have been still to leave one chartered bank, and one only, in existence. The Government, therefore, thought it best to get rid of the responsibility of having to revise and correct the proceedings of these banks, and to establish, in the first place, certain general principles as to the mode in which they were to act in matters affecting their constitution; and, in the second place, to leave to the Colonial Governments such power of regulating their proceedings as might prevent their having any unfair advantages in comparison with other banks. They, therefore, proposed in this Bill to make Charters perpetual, and to leave to the bank itself, under proper conditions, the power of increasing its capital, altering the amount of its shares, and other such matters—in fact, to apply to them similar provisions to those by which other joint stock banks were regulated. Clause 6 was very important, for it was the clause which put the bank under the regulation of the Government of the Colony in which it existed. First of all, with regard to the issue of notes, it was provided that nothing in the Act should authorize the banks to exercise any power which they were not exercising at the passing of the Act, save with the consent of the Governor of the Colony. Further, the banks were to do nothing at any time or place which might, at that time, be illegal according to the law in force in the Colony. If the Legislature of any Colony passed a law regulating banks, then these banks would be as much subject to it as other banks in the Colony. The Treasury had considered whether it would be best for it to take the responsibility of extin-
  574
  guishing the Charters of the banks, or introducing new restrictions. They had found that they would not be able to extinguish the Charter of one of the largest and most important of these banks; and they had, therefore, thought it best to introduce the present measure. If the House rejected the Bill their present difficulties would continue. He, therefore, hoped the House would see that there was nothing in it which should cause anxiety, and would allow it to proceed.
  MR. RATHBONEdid not see that there was any objection to relieving the Treasury from its present responsibility; but he thought they should know exactly what they were doing. No doubt, if the House had everything before it, it would agree with the proposal of the Government; but it had not at present the materials before it upon which to form an opinion. He should like to know what the provision of the Charters in question were? He would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay the Charters before the House prior to asking it to come to a conclusion. He did not mean to suggest that the Charters should be printed and circulated, but that hon. Members should have access to them. No doubt it would be found that the banks had been well conducted, and that their Charters were good; but at present they had no means of knowing whether the banks were complying with their Charters or not. It seemed to him to be very important, for the safety of the public and of the proprietors of the banks, that they should have every information before them before passing this Act.
  MR. RYLANDSdid not object to the Bill, but, on the contrary, was entirely in its favour. The Bill appeared to him to be not only a reasonable but a necessary measure. He was aware that the gentlemen connected with the chartered banks had found great difficulties in developing their business in consequence of the restrictions imposed by the Treasury. His hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) looked with very great suspicion upon the proposal to place these chartered banks upon a permanent footing. The possession of a Charter was a considerable advantage to a bank, and the public had a right to know that the powers and privileges

  575
  given to the chartered banks were of such a nature as not to be injurious to the public at large, or to be an interference with the fair prosecution of business by similar institutions. With every disposition to support the Second Reading of the Bill, he was very much inclined to think that, before the Bill was absolutely passed into law, it would be desirable that an opportunity should be given, by referring the matter to a Select Committee, to ascertain the exact position now occupied by the chartered banks. It did appear to him that, without the publication of Charters, it might be possible for a Committee to which the Bill could be referred to ascertain the nature of the Charters and the way in which business was now carried on. If it were found that the nature of the Charters was unobjectionable, then he did not think there was any right to refuse to grant the holders a permanent interest in them. He observed that there was a provision in the Bill which met some of the objections raised. It was provided that nothing in the Act should prevent Her Majesty revoking the Charters if necessity should arise. There was another provision—namely, in the event of insolvency the Charters and supplemental Charters issued to the bank should be revoked and become void. That was necessary to prevent some arrangement being made by which, in the case of insolvency, the bank could pass its Charter over to another institution. He presumed that, had there been any legal means of establishing joint stock banks in former days, these Charters would never have been granted; and, undoubtedly, no further Charters would be issued, because banks would be established under the Acts now in operation. But they were dealing with property which did exist, and which ought not to be interfered with unless good cause could be shown to the contrary. Before legislating on the subject, it would be, however, only reasonable that the House should know exactly, through a Committee, or otherwise, the position of the banks under the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to say a few words upon the Bill from more than one point of view. In the Colony with which he had been many years ago connected, they had some banks chartered by the Imperial Government, and others
  576
  by the local Legislature under special Acts. The question was more than once raised in the Colony of a general Banking Act, especially in connection with the issue of paper money; and it became his duty as a Minister of the Colony to look carefully into the question whether these anomalies could be removed, and especially that Charters should be made uniform. He was bound to say that the result of his consideration was that something like the present Bill would be an improvement. He did not think that the Treasury or the Board of Trade should be allowed to retain the power of granting Charters in Her Majesty's name; but he thought that the banks that now existed might be allowed to retain their Charters permanently if they were adapted to the present condition of things. He quite agreed with the general scope of the Bill which was now brought forward. From an Imperial point of view, he was strongly impressed with the necessity of taking the conduct of this business from the Treasury and the Board of Trade, by passing some general Act which would relieve them from functions which they could not satisfactorily perform. From both points of view, therefore, he could not but give his support to the Bill. The only question that presented itself was whether the Charters were well adapted to the state of things which now existed; and it struck him that the words of the Act did not make it sufficiently clear that it was absolutely left to every Colony to make its own general laws with respect to banks and to deal with the privileges of the chartered banks provided the Acts referred to all other banks in the Colony. On the other hand, it was necessary to remember that many of these banks did not carry on business in one Colony, only but in several, and thus could not, without complication, rest on local Charters only. In providing, therefore, that the Colonial Legislature should be at liberty to take away the privileges of these banks they must be careful to make them also subject to Imperial legislation, where they existed in more than one Colony. He thought it very desirable that the Bill should pass into law, subject to such minute inquiry as would be made before a Select Committee. He could hardly support the suggestion that all they required to know was the nature of the Charters. Al-

  577
  though, from one point of view, this was a public measure, yet it was also essentially a Private Bill, because it endowed certain private companies with various powers and privileges. It partook, therefore, both of the nature of a public and a Private Bill, and he did not think the House should pass it without careful examination; and he would propose that it should be referred to a Select Committee. If the Government would consent to that course being taken, he thought the objections of his hon. Friends would be very fairly met. The Bill could be referred to a Select Committee, with power to make the fullest investigations into each Charter, and when their Report had been received the Bill would again come before the House.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKentirely concurred with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He thought that if Her Majesty's Government would modify Clause 2 by allowing the Treasury, after the expiry of the Charters, to terminate them at any time on giving reasonable notice, and that until this was done, they should continue in force, the proposal, he believed, would meet a great many of the objections raised.
  MR. RAMSAYwould ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the Bill went before a Select Committee, with power to have the Charters before it. He hoped that the question, in all its bearings, would be fully gone into before the Committee. He only required investigation of the subject, and fully approved of the proposal in the Bill to relieve the Treasury of the responsibility of dealing with these Charters.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.Main Question put, and agreed to.Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on February 20, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. LOWE, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Mr. SHAW, Mr. FRESHFIELD, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBRETSON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Advocate, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 5.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  DR. CAMERONdid not think that this Bill should be proceeded with at so late an hour. The measure interfered considerably with the rights at present enjoyed by owners of property in Scotland. He did not wish at the present moment to express any opinion concerning the measure; but he considered that it ought not to be brought on without those interested—landlords, tenants, and municipal authorities in the various towns in Scotland—having some opportunity of making their views known on the subject.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, it was with very considerable surprise that he had heard a borough Member from Scotland object to this Bill. The object of the measure was to enable municipal authorities in Scotland to carry out more effectively the provisions of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. The whole purpose of the Bill was to extend to Scotland the provisions of the amending Act with regard to artizans' and labourers' dwellings which passed through Parliament last year, but which was only made applicable to England and Ireland. Certain Scotch boroughs had not taken it very kindly that they were left under disadvantages from which England and Ireland were freed by the Act of last Session. It was at their instigation that he had introduced the present Bill, the sole purpose of which was to place local authorities in Scotland in the same position as those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Member would not throw obstacles in the way of the Bill.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Bill reported,without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved,That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by par-

  579
  liament, of all Expenses which may become payable by the Commissioners, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session, to provide for the better protection of Ancient Monuments.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS QUALIFICATIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ERRINGTON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Qualifications required for holding certain Medical Appointments,ordered to be brought in by Mr. ERRINGTON and Mr. BLENNERHASSETT.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 71.]

  EPPING FOREST ACT (1878) (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IRRETSON, Bill to continue for a limited period the powers of the Arbitrator under "The Epping Forest Act, 1878,"ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IRRETSON and Mr. GERARD NOEL.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 73.]

  INDIAN SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Salaries and Allowances of certain Officers in India; and for other purposes relating thereto,ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE and Lord GEORGE HAMILTON.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 72.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Durham, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Workmen's Compensation*(5),discharged.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Employers Liability (4).

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Friday the 12th day of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Monday the 3rd day of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Monday the 3rd day of May next:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published,and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.(No. 6.)

PERSIA AND HERAT.

  EXPLANATION OF STATEMENT.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, a misconception has arisen with respect to an answer which I gave the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) a
  486
  few evenings ago in reference to communications which have been going on with Persia. I do not think there was any foundation for that misconception; but it is a subject on which there ought to be no error. I therefore wish to say now that what I desired to communicate to your Lordships—and which I believe I did communicate—was this—that during the measures which we have for some time been taking to effect the settlement of Afghanistan we received communications from the Persian Government, that the se communications have been not infrequent, but that they have hitherto led to no conclusion. With regard to the specific statement that we had released the Persian Government from their engagement not to occupy Herat, that is an entire misconception.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY BILL.

  (NO. 4.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that before the measure was carried through its present stage he wished to say a word with reference to further proceedings in regard to it. He had stated a few nights ago that the Government hoped his noble Friend (Earl De La Warr), who had another Bill—an alternative measure—on the same subject down for Second Reading to-night, would be satisfied with giving his valuable assistance in the labours of the Select Committee to which he hoped the Government Bill would be referred, and would not ask the House to come to a determination on the question of the Second Reading of his measure. He could assure the noble Earl that his suggestion did not arise from a desire to prevent his noble Friend from bringing any of his propositions before the Select Committee. The Government were anxious that every proposition should be fully and deliberately weighed by the Committee; and if his noble Friend would, as he hoped he would, consent to serve on the Committee, it would be in his power to oppose any clause in the Bill, and to offer, by way of amendment, any part of his own measure. On the other hand, he would point out to the noble Earl the difficulty there would be in passing the Second Reading

  487
  of both Bills. If they were passed, the House would be committed to the two, and it would be a question which should be proceeded with first. He hoped the noble Earl would allow his Bill to remain in abeyance at the present time.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2ª".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that, after the explanation given by the noble and learned. Earl as to the course which he proposed to pursue, he could not object in any way to the suggestion he had made. He hoped the matter would be settled in a manner satisfactory not only to employers of labour, but also to the employed. The question involved was one which agitated the minds of a very large number of persons; and he trusted that on the Committee to which the Bill was to be referred both sides of their Lordships' House would be represented. No fewer than 400 or 500 Petitions had been presented last year in favour of the Bill he had introduced; and he believed he should not be exaggerating if he said that the subject of it interested no less than 500,000 people.
  Motion agreed to;Bill read 2ª accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on February 26,
  the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  V. Cranbrook.

  Ld. President.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  D. Somerset.

  M. Ripon.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  Ld. Steward.

  L. Belper.

  E. Derby.

  L. Houghton.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Penzance.

  B. De La Warr.

  L. Selborne.

  E. Powis.

  L. Blackburn.

  E. Morley.

  L. Norton.

THE DISTRESS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EMLY: I wish to ask the Lord President, Whether, having reference to the failure of the Labour Rate Act in 1847 to relieve distress and its mischievous and demoralizing effects, while the system of food distribution substituted for it was completely successful, the Government propose on their own authority to re-introduce into Ireland a system, which on account of its admitted failure was abandoned, without waiting for the sanction of Parliament? I need
  488
  hardly assure the noble Duke that the Question I put to him, and these remarks, are not dictated by Party feeling. In my opinion, the measures proposed by the Government to meet the distress in Ireland have been wise, with one single exception. In making the exception I believe I shall be joined by every noble Lord in the House, upon whatever side he may sit, who recollects the great Irish Famine. Neither can I accuse the Irish Government of delay. I know that it has been said, no thanks to the present Government if there has been no loss of life. What can be more certain, my Lords, than that the duty of the Government was not to step in until private exertions and private charity were unable to cope with the difficulty? What could be more demoralizing to a community than for the Government to take from the people all motives to exertion? I am bound, however, to say this—that from the accounts I have heard within the last two or three days, on undoubted authority, from the West of Ireland, especially from the counties of Mayo and Roscommon, that the time has now come for the Government measures, and especially the measure for out-door relief for the poor cottier tenant, to be brought into operation. I believe that the last potato in a great number of the houses of those poor wretched people is now exhausted, and upon this subject there should be no delay. Then, with regard to the loans that are being made to proprietors to enable them to give employment on their property; if there has been any delay in this matter, it has certainly not been occasioned by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, for he has shown the greatest sympathy and energy in pressing forward measures for the relief of the people, and I think to him we owe a deep debt of gratitude. His sympathetic energy has been appreciated by every right-minded man. I feel I should not be doing my duty if I did not also express the deep feeling of gratitude we also owe to the Duchess of Marlborough. I believe there is not a house in Ireland in which there has been suffering where the efforts of the Duchess of Marlborough will not be remembered with gratitude; and the attacks which have been made upon her and upon those ladies who worked with her, as well as upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was assisted by the Catholic

  489
  and Protestant Archbishops of Dublin, breathed more of the spirit of Robespierre and Danton than any speeches which have been made even by the most violent agitators in our time; but the attacks are not doing what they were intended to do by those who uttered them for politicalmotives—drain up the springs of charity—but what they did do was to excite universal indignation. I come now to the order issued by the Lord Lieutenant to hold extraordinary presentment sessions for the purpose of commencing relief works. I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that if I believed this proceeding necessary to relieve suffering, whatever I may think of it in principle, I could not object to it; but I shall be able to convince the noble Duke, whose perfect fairness I know, that this system is not only mischievous but useless. A little more than 33 years ago the Government of Lord John Russell gave exactly the same powers to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was authorized to direct the magistrates and selected ratepayers in any barony in Ireland where distress prevailed to assemble in sessions and to present for making new roads, improving old ones, cutting down hills, fencing roads. The execution of the works was to be in the Board of Works. In the month of February, 1846, just four months after this system had been put in operation, Lord John Russell put an end to it. Why? Because it had already broken down. It had from the first been protested against by most men of intelligence and practical knowledge in Ireland, among the rest by my noble Friend the noble Viscount near me (Viscount Monck). All our worst anticipations wore fulfilled. Lord John Russell, four months after they had been commenced, put an end to the works because they had demoralized the people, and led to jobbery and waste; because they had cost extravagant sums of money; and, above all, because they had withdrawn the people from the cultivation of the land, and if continued beyond the month of March must have caused another famine in the ensuing year. Let mo read to your Lordships the account of the effect of this system given by Sir Charles Trevelyan, one of the ablest public servants I ever was brought into contact with, a man of unwearying energy and strength, and who had been
  490
  himself the chief organizer and controller of this system of relief.
  "Si Pergama possent
  Defendi dextrâ etiam haæc defensa fuissent."
  Where he failed, no one is likely to succeed. Here are his words—
  "Thousands upon thousands were pressed upon the works. The attraction of money wages regularly paid from the public purse, or the Queen's purse, as it was popularly called, led to an abandonment of other descriptions of industry in order to participate in the advantages of the relief works. Landlords competed with one another in getting the names of their tenants placed on the lists, farmers dismissed their labourers, and sent them to the works, the clergy insisted on the claims of their respective congregations. It was impossible to exact from such multitudes a degree of labour which would act as a test of destitution. Huddled together in masses, they contributed to each other's idleness. If the people were retained on the works, their lands must remain uncultivated; if they were put off the works, they must starve."
  An English commercial traveller in Ireland gives this remarkable evidence to the same effect—
  "The small cottier tenants seem to take no interest in the land, and have neglected the customary collection of manure. All flock to the public works at Boyle. Small farms are neglected. At Thurles potato grounds are left untilled—people all flocking to the public works. At Galway the fishermen have pledged all their fishing and sailing gear. Three thousand two hundred men, nearly all fishermen, are employed on the public works."
  The alarm of the Treasury was expressed in their Minute, 16th March, 1847—
  "Continuance of relief works materially interferes with the prosecution of the ordinary agriculture of the country."
  I need not trouble your Lordships with further extracts. It is to me like a bad dream to find that this system, faulty in principle and condemned by experience, has been revived. The only difference between Lord John Russell's Labour Rate Act and the system of the present Government is that the former was to be carried out by the Board of Works—the latter by the county surveyors or contractors. I need not say that in districts where the famine prevails no contractor will be found to undertake works which will cost much more than if executed in ordinary times, and where men would be forced on them, not because they would work, but because they were in want. I ask for attention to two letters from two of these county surveyors, dated the 8th of February of this year. In the first the writer said—

  491
  "There is no use in blinking the question; it will he just a repetition of the misery of 1847 over again. I do not hesitate to say that anything more ill advised, more mischievous, and demoralizing than the whole proceeding never was conceived."
  The other, also writing upon the 8th of February, said—
  "The great difficulty in this country will not be in selecting suitable, but in preventing a perfect avalanche of useless, wasteful works, by which the entire population may become demoralized. The applications up to the present are frightful—£8,700 in a barony valued at £18,000 per annum. They are much the same in two others. It is not possible to imagine anything more ruinous. Large sums are applied for on the islands where there never was a wheel or a pony, or anything more than a donkey. There is not a boreen in the country. They are not measuring, so we may look out for cross work at the sessions."
  There is another serious evil in this sort of relief—the baronies and the Poor Law Unions are not coterminous. The greater part of the barony in which I live is in the Limerick Union. A small portion of it is in the Union of Croom. Before I left home to attend Parliament I found that there was so much employment in my neighbourhood that strangers would have to be brought in to execute it. What was my astonishment a week ago to find that extraordinary presentment sessions had been ordered in my barony. I wrote to my noble Friend and neighbour, Lord Clarina, and to my agent, to inquire how there could be any want of employment there. My agent made inquiries through the barony, and informed me there was no want of employment. My noble Friend wrote to me to the following effect:—
  "I was as much surprised as yourself on receiving the printed notice of the extraordinary baronial session, and am at an equal loss to know whom we have to thank for this, in my opinion, unnecessary procedure; for, considering that Mr. "Walsh, the contractor for the Barnakyle drainage, is unable to obtain half the workmen he requires, and that those he had struck for an increase of wages—although bad men were getting 9*. a-week and brats of boys 10 d.per diem—this does not look as if there was much real distress in our neighbourhood. I gave the men my mind pretty freely as to the unwisdom of quarrelling with their bread and butter, and I believe a good many resumed work. I shall try and get home before the sessions."
  I remonstrated with the Government, and have been informed that the sessions were ordered because there is distress in the barony, which is in the Croom division. I do not believe this. My agent's
  492
  inquiries seem to me conclusive. At all events, the whole transaction shows the great inconvenience of having the providing for relief in districts not continuous and under separate jurisdictions. Why should the Limerick Union pay for the distress in another Union if it supports its own poor? All the stimulus to exertion which self-interest provides is removed by such a system. My Lords, I know it may be said this system of relief works answered in Lancashire during the Cotton Famine. It might as well be said that cotton planting would succeed in Ireland because it has succeeded in Louisiana. The whole circumstances of Lancashire and of the distressed districts in Ireland are different. In the one you have a numerous resident upper class of country gentlemen and manufacturers, and intelligent and middle classes with habits of business. In the other, a number of poor cottiers, with few among them of any class above their own. Take Lord Dillon's estate in Mayo and Roscommon, with a rental of £24,000 a-year, 7,500 tenants, of whom not 10 pay £100 a-year. Besides, the cotton labourers had no land to be taken away from. In districts such as I have described, if the labourers are taken from the land, the distress of this year will develop into famine next year. Then what is to be done? My Lords, what did Lord John Russell do when he found the measure which, with the best intentions, he introduced fail? Why, he withdrew it. It cannot cost you so much to withdraw it as it did him. It is not your progeny I ask you to destroy; it is a discredited bantling you have picked up. Fall back, I beseech you, on giving relief in food and rendering reproductive works. Give the wealthier classes the means of employing labour. If they do not make use of these means make them pay for feeding the people. By doing this you will effectually relieve distress, and you will save a sufficient sum to enable you to provide good seed. This is the really formidable question. You may bring people through the suffering of this year; but if their land is not properly cultivated, and if they have not good seed to put into the ground, the prospects of the ensuing year will be alarming indeed.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONconcurred in all that had fallen from the noble Lord. It was admitted that they should do

  493
  everything in their power to alleviate the distress which undoubtedly prevailed in many districts in Ireland; but he thought the lessons of the past would have been ill-studied if they revived the system of relief which had failed in 1847. He ventured to think that if there was one lesson that stood out more prominently than another in the records of that disastrous year, it was the utter inefficiency of public works to give relief to a starving population. He did not say that on his own authority alone. In the first number of The Edinburgh Review of 1848 he had had an opportunity of looking over a paper attributed to the pen of Sir Charles Trevelyan, than whom no man living had had better opportunities of judging or could speak with more authority. He would not quote from that article; but the sum and substance of Sir Charles Trevelyan's arguments, drawn from statistics, were—first, that the works were often of small public utility—so small, that many of them were subsequently abandoned; secondly, that where they were of any public utility they were shamefully and scandalously jobbed; and thirdly—a most serious evil—that no real work was done upon them. The system, moreover, operated prejudicially on the labour market, and it was proved in 1847 that many men preferred taking what they called the "Queen's pay" to doing their own work for their former employers, because they received the whole of the wage in coin, whereas when at work upon the land they had to submit to certain deductions in kind. The consequence of this was that on the estates of many landowners the farmers were completely denuded of labour. He could hardly conceive a system which was more demoralizing than this. He might be told that the checks which the presentment sessions would exercise would be sufficient. He did not think so. When the court-house where the sessions were assembled was surrounded by a hungry crowd it was not easy for men to stand up and resist applications which they knew themselves not to be really genuine. Nor would it be easy for a Government Board, which received applications from magistrates and associated cesspayers, to refuse to undertake works of the utility or inutility of which they could only judge by proxy. Experience had shown that the only way to deal with
  494
  a man who was really starving was to put nourishing food down his throat as early as possible. Where destitution existed over any great area the crisis could only be met by forming special agencies, and supplementing them in mountainous and remote districts by other agencies which Boards of Guardians and the relieving officers could supply. By so doing they would preserve the self-respect of the people better than by offering them a substantial wage for nominal work. What works were really useful could be instituted by sanitary authorities and by the landowners themselves, who could look after the expenditure, and who had already taken large loans for the purpose within the last three or four months. Ireland was not the only country in which this system of public works had been tried. It had been tried in France, in part of the Austrian Empire, and most extensively in Italy. He could appeal to any of their Lordships who had seen the manner in which public works had been carried out in Italy, whether, instead of being a benefit to the population, they had not proved a positive curse? The kind of machinery required to carry on public works in a proper manner could not be improvised or started at a moment's notice. Of course, matters in Ireland were vastly changed from what they were a quarter of a century ago. In the first place, there was a much smaller population; and, in the second place, the population had been materially raised in the social scale. No one could see the manner in which they were now clothed and housed without being very much struck by the improvement which had been wrought. The means of communication also, which at that time were very bad, had been greatly enlarged. In fact, the whole railway system might be said to have been created in Ireland since the time to which he had referred, and there would be now no difficulty in affording supplies to places at a distance from the coast. Mountainous and remote districts would be far better dealt with by having food brought to the homes of the people rather than by drawing men long distances from their homes to public works; and not only so, but the relief given by public works was not always applied in the way intended, and often when so applied, the food, when obtained, was not prepared in that wholesome and nutritious

  495
  manner which was necessary when the system had been reduced by privation. That difficulty could best be met by giving food instead of employment. He had been very much surprised, after the very sensible remarks with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefaced his statement of the measures of relief intended for Ireland, to find that the right hon. Gentleman afterwards said that the Government had it in contemplation to establish a system which had before proved so great a failure. If they were to sanction those extraordinary baronial sessions they would repeat over again the mistakes committed 32 years ago, and the results to a greater or less extent would be the same as they were then. He most sincerely hoped that those responsible for the welfare of Ireland would hesitate before following a course which had been attended by such disastrous effects.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, that his memory also went back to the year 1847, and he could fully confirm every word uttered by the noble Lord as to the demoralizing and injurious effects of the hasty undertaking of public works. It was not always those who most needed relief who received it. Very substantial farmers hired out their carts and horses, and they got fat upon the famine. There was a great deal of mischief done by public relief works. He could mention cases where roads, which were most un-picturesquely level, had been found by means of spirit levels to require levelling, and relief works were initiated for levelling them. The result was seen at the present day on the roads, which had been most successfully spoiled. But there was, no doubt, immense difficulty in employing very large masses of the people in times of distress, and he was not sure that they would be able to avoid resorting to presentment sessions. He hoped, however, that the Government would endeavour so to limit the proceedings of those sessions that they should not extend beyond a certain area. It was very desirable that there should be some regulation laid down as to who was to take the initiative. If it were intrusted to every occupier and fussy magistrate he would find plenty to do. There were places in which there was no distress whatever. In his own district, for instance, it was all nonsense to talk about famine. There were many places in
  496
  Ireland where there was a great deal of factitious distress. It was a great pity that any should exist; but there was a great danger lest it should be extended. With regard to the county surveyors, it seemed to be rather that they were to be the responsible authorities, in a great degree, for expending large sums of money. Their Lordships might not be aware that county surveyors, as a class, were not the right persons exactly to whom to intrust large sums of money.
  Even the obvious and practical remedy spoken of by his noble Friend (Viscount Midleton), to supply food to the people, would not be altogether free from danger, for in that there might be jobbery and corruption, at which they were such adepts in Ireland. He took up a periodical called Truth,and he found in it a statement that in some districts in Ireland, not named, the recipients of food were the people who least wanted it. In the words of Truth,the rich man had the good things and the poor were sent empty away. When the last famine in Ireland was over it was found that the granaries were bursting with food, and that the supplies of food and clothing were more than ample; but the poor people were in such a state of exhaustion that they were unable to go in search of food. The conclusion he came to was that the whole difficulty of the problem was that it must be left very much to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government; and he thought they had shown by what had occurred in "another place" that they had established a great claim to confidence. There were two ways of meeting all dangers—one was the calm and patient way of watching its approach, and the other the ostentatious and fussy way of running out to meet it. Her Majesty's Government had adopted the former, and the result had been shown in a late division "elsewhere," when Ministers, with the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the anti-Ministerial crusade went into one Lobby, while the other Lobby had in it only the small body of irre-concilables. Another point he would allude to, as inseparably connected with the subject. The first thing was to feed the starving people, and the next to prevent future famine. It was tolerably plain that the real cause of famine, in districts whore actual famine

  497
  exists, lay in the fact that there was a large population in places which nature had never designed for its maintenance. Let them look at the Highlands of Scotland, where the climate and soil were of the same kind as in the West of Ireland; and in Scotland there was no population, while in Ireland there was a dense population. According to Irish ideas, the people should be rooted to the soil, while practical people would say they should be detached from it. The idea was unfortunately not popular; bat in that House they could express it. It was a mistake to call the people in some parts of Ireland inhabitants, as they were no more inhabitants than were tribes of Arabs in the desert. These people spent eight months in every year away from Ireland earning wages in England and Scotland, while the women and children went on a bogging tour. If these people were wise they would emigrate to other parts of the world; but the misfortune was they were taught by their mis-leaders what was the worst thing for their welfare. He was not talking of those half-crazy demagogues who went about the country inculcating landlord robbery and resistance to law; but of persons who were better educated, and who talked about Ireland not being over-populated.The Nineteenth Century for December contained a very intemperate article by Mr. O'Connor Power, M.P., which was intended to throw light on the agitation against the Land Laws in Ireland. Those Land Laws, it should be borne in mind, were neither more nor less than the laws which existed in this country. Mr. O'Connor Power told the public that the cause of all the distress was landlordism. To show the iniquity of the landlords, it was stated that they had driven 30,000,000 of Irishmen into emigration. It did not seem to occur to Mr. O'Connor Power that if the wicked landlord had not caused the emigration, Ireland, which was now over-populated, would have had a population 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 larger than at the present time, making cannibalism probable, and infanticide a necessity. Mr. O'Connor Power's remedy for putting an end to famines in Ireland was really too ridiculous to consider for a moment—namely, at an expense of some hundreds of millions, buy out the Irish landlords, and turn the tenants into landowners.
  498
  Such a proposal could not be regarded as serious. As little practical was Mr. O'Connor Power's scheme for cultivating waste lands—namely, land which even under the Corn Laws no sane man ever attempted to cultivate. He thought he had shown that it was not to "Irish ideas" nor to the leaders of popular agitation that their Lordships ought to look for guidance in this matter.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I think we ought to be exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord (Lord Emly) for bringing this subject before the House, as it is one of very great importance. Moreover, we have to thank the noble Lord for informing us that, in his opinion—and there is no one who is a better authority on the subject—the time has now arrived in which it is necessary for the State to step in and to interfere to save the people in some districts in Ireland from absolute starvation. It has been very difficult to judge of the depth and extent of the destitution in Ireland. Alongside of real poverty there exists a great deal of simulated poverty. The noble Lord said that, in spite of the disaffection existing in Ireland, the springs of charity had not been dried up. I can scarcely agree with the noble Lord as to that, for I think that the recent agitation in Ireland, if it has not dried up the well of charity, has rendered it exceedingly difficult to pour its waters into the proper and natural channels. The state of things in Ireland has rendered it almost impossible to tell whether or no private charity is sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, and whether there is any necessity for the State to interfere at all. Practically, I exceedingly dislike State interference in such matters. I look very jealously upon all State interference. I heartily agree with a very eminent Irishman—the late Mr. Daniel O'Connell—in saying that the law that compels the public to support the destitute affords the strongest inducement to scheming knaves to affect destitution in order to be supported at the public expense. I do not mean to say that I agree entirely with a sentiment aimed apparently at the whole plan of Poor Law relief. I am of opinion that there may be cases in which the State is called upon to interfere; but it should be very chary of interference, and when it decides it is

  499
  absolutely necessary to do so, it should be most careful that the interference should be carried on in the best possible way. I have been very glad to hear the repeated assurances of Her Majesty's Government, that they are keeping a watchful eye on the situation, that they have their finger on the nation's pulse, and are prepared and ready to act with promptitude at any moment in the event of any emergency arising requiring instant action. That is the proper attitude to assume. They have also acted very wisely in offering loans on exceptionally advantageous terms for the improvement of land. It has been objected that the loans should have been given to occupiers. It appears to me that would be impossible. The small farmers could not have given sufficient security. Their interests will, in many cases, be different from, or hostile to, the interests of their immediate neighbours. No works could have been undertaken on a largo scale of general utility. The money would have been wasted and misapplied; a great deal of trouble and litigation would have ensued among the farmers, and the country would not have received any permanent benefit from the outlay. So far the Government has acted very wisely; but, in this supplemental plan, this idea of special baronial presentment sessions, they have adopted a plan—with all the experience of the past to guide them—they have deliberately adopted a plan that on a former occasion led to the most disastrous results; and it certainly will prove equally injurious to the country now. It is true that the circumstances of Ireland are different now to what they were 35 years ago; but they are different in a way that renders it only more difficult for this system to be beneficial. Belief works might have proved useful when a superabundant population of labouring men were reduced to the extremity of destitution. It did not prove useful, but, on the contrary, most injurious; and there is not the smallest possibility or hope that it can be beneficial now, when the small farmers are those that are suffering the most, and when there is not an excess of labour in the country. At first sight this plan of relief works sounds as if it ought to be very good. It seems natural that if the State is to supply a man with the necessaries of life, it is well to exact from him some measure of labour as an equiva-
  500
  lent. It appears as if by that means a man ought to retain his self-respect; but, on the contrary, experience amply proves that it has diametrically the opposite effect. The plan was tried in 1847, and with what effect? The country threw itself upon the State. The whole nation became demoralized. Not only the labouring class, but all classes—owners, occupiers, small tradesmen, and labourers—scrambled for the public money. All other works were abandoned, the labour of the country was withheld from profitable employment upon the soil. "Works of great general public value, such as the arterial drainage of the country, were neglected. At one time as many as 3,000,000 of people—men, women, and children—were receiving wages on those public works—receiving wages for work which they were paid to do, but which they did not do. In many cases they were too enfeebled to work; in other cases they would not labour. The Government were powerless in the matter. They attempted to compel them to work, and failed; they endeavoured to institute task-work, and were unable to do so; their efforts only resulted in adding riot and disorder to the other evils from which Ireland was suffering. The State was expected to do everything for that country; to undertake the functions and business of the whole population—of all the individuals composing the various degrees and ranks engaged in any kind of business and trade. The result was inevitable. It was chaos and confusion. The worst of it was that the soil of the country remained unfilled. The same thing will happen again now. Ireland has enjoyed an exceptionally fine winter, spring operations are about to commence, and if the labour of the country is taken away from its legitimate employment in the cultivation of the soil much damage will be done to the country, and a heavy responsibility will be upon the shoulders of the Government. Relief works will produce jobbery, and be abused. I have heard of several instances already in which it has been abused. I know of a case in Limerick, a few days ago, where a gang of 50 men supposed to be reduced to the extremity of destitution were employed by the Corporation at 12s. per week. They all struck work for 14 s.6d.per week and half-holiday on Saturdays, which does not look as if they were

  501
  starving, or anything approaching to starvation, and I have no doubt that many other such cases have occurred. But because such scandalous cases do occur, we must be all the more careful not to shut our eyes to the amount of distress that really exists. What is to be done to relieve it? The answer is very simple. The experience of the past teaches what is to be done. Whenever the people are starving, you must supply them with food—food so prepared that it cannot be used in any way except as food for the immediate sustenance of the recipients or their families. If a man is starving, the State must interfere and prevent him from starving by giving him food to eat. There is nothing demoralizing in a man receiving charity in such a way. It is not nearly, at all events, so demoralizing as giving a man labour which he pretends to do, but does not do, upon works which he knows to be unnecessary, teaching him thereby to defraud the State. The plan of relief works was, as I have said, tried in the Famine time, and it most lamentably failed. The other system of giving food was resorted to, and was entirely successful. The pamphlet, by Sir Charles Trevelyan, has already been quoted two or three times this evening; but I cannot refrain from quoting another passage in it. Sir Charles Trevelyan, speaking of what is commonly called the "Soup Kitchen Act," says—
  "This was the second occasion on which upwards of 3,000,000 of people had been fed out of the hands of the magistrates; hut this time it was effectual. The relief works had been crowded with persons who had other means of subsistence, to the exclusion of the really destitute; but a ration of cooked food proved less attractive than full money wages, and room was thus made for the helpless portion of the community. The famine was stayed. This enterprize was, in truth, the grandest attempt over made to grapple with famine over a whole country."
  If the land requires improvement, by all means give loans on easy terms to enable the owner to improve it. If the people are starving, by all means let the State supply them with food to prevent their starving. But do not attempt to mix the two systems. It has been tried and found to fail. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think seriously on the matter before, to the many evils existing in Ireland, they add yet another, for the system of special
  502
  baronial presentment sessions cannot fail to produce evil in the country.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: To listen to the various speeches that have been made on this most interesting and important subject which we have had before us, one would have imagined that the one or principal mode of dealing with the distress and famine in Ireland which we have adopted was a return to that system of public works which prevailed at the time of the last Famine in 1846 and 1847. Quotations have been made from pamphlets written by Sir Charles Trevelyan, pointing out the very grievous way in which that system at the time failed, and how unwise it would be to revert to it. The line which Her Majesty's Government have taken in the matter under consideration is as different from the course pursued in 1847 as one system could well be from another. During the debate of four nights in the other House, Her Majesty's Government, instead of being blamed for bringing forward such a proposal as that condemned by those of your Lordships who have spoken, have been told that they have been at fault in not carrying it out to a greater extent. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Emly) lives in Ireland; but there are Members in the other House of Parliament who have quite as much right and knowledge on the subject as the noble Lord himself. In his Question the noble Lord puts forward two points to which I take the liberty of demurring altogether. In the first place, he assumes that we are going to do that which we are not going to do; and, secondly, he assumes that we are not going to do what we are going to do. The Question is somewhat a long one, and I confess—we all confess—with all respect to the noble Lord, that in going over it a first time it did not seem to be quite clear. The noble Lord says that—
  "Having reference to the failure of the Labour Rate Act in 1847 to relieve distress and its mischievous and demoralizing effects, while the system of food distribution substituted for it was completely successful, the Government propose on their own authority to re-introduce into Ireland a system, which on account of its admitted failure was abandoned, without waiting for the sanction of Parliament."
  I demur to the statement that we are really introducing a system into the country which has been proved to be a

  503
  failure by all people. That is exactly what we are not doing; and the former part of the noble Lord's Question would imply that we have done nothing, and taken no steps whatever with the view of meeting the distress.
  LORD EMLY: No, no.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I have quoted the noble Lord's Question, and I venture to say that the construction to be put upon it as a whole, is, on the one hand, we are not going to give food to the people, but that we are going to reintroduce a system which would make them paupers. I am sorry not to be able to read the noble Lord's Question with the same eyes he seems to read it himself; but the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Dunraven) says he hopes Her Majesty's Government will abandon the system which they have introduced to meet the distress; but it is not a system, and what we are proposing to do by the measure to which the noble Earl has taken exception is merely supplementary to other proposals which we are bringing forward for the purpose. What have we done? We are proposing to grant loans to the landlords, and to local authorities, and it is no fault of ours that a Bill has not been introduced to indemnify us from the effect of proposals we have made, and from the instructions which we have given to local authorities. We have stated that the Poor Law may be amended in order that poor people may receive out-door relief, which they could not receive under the old Poor Law. We have considered the point, and have decided that the poor are to be taken into workhouses, unless the workhouses are full. That is the proposal which we have made. I will venture to call the noble Lord's attention to a letter which has been issued, in which it is stated that it has been represented to the Lord Lieutenant that in some distressed districts there is great want of employment for the labouring classes, owing to the inability of the landed proprietors to find employment, and in consequence extraordinary baronial presentment sessions will be called into existence, after other means have failed. [A laugh.] The noble Lord may laugh; but that is the fact. There is reason to anticipate unusual pressure and unavoidable suffering, which the
  504
  ordinary working of the Poor Law will not be able to meet, and after all these things have been tried and it is found that there is great hardship, then measures are to be called into operation to alleviate the suffering. The noble Lord behind me (Viscount Midleton), who took great exception to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, says he has every reason to believe that the measures which we have taken will be adequate to the occasion. I say if the measures which have been taken are adequate to prevent the people from starving, then there will be no necessity for putting any supplementary measures into force. On the former occasion public works were executed at the expense of the Government; now these works are to be executed in districts under the supervision of county surveyors. If it is advisable that the works should be executed by contract, then the contractor is bound by the terms set out in this Paper I hold in my hands to employ the people in the district. I can only repeat what I said before, that the measure which has been so much found fault with by the noble Lords opposite and by my noble Friend behind me is not the one measure we bring forward for the alleviation of suffering in Ireland; it is merely a supplementary measure, and we should think ourselves unworthy of the places we hold if we did not endeavour, by the best measures we can adopt and by whatever supplementary means may seem necessary, to prevent suffering and stop that famine which at one time appeared likely to become prevalent in the country.
  VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, that he had a share in administering relief during the Famine of 1847, and what he then saw would never be effaced from his memory. His noble Friend (Lord Emly) had approved of the measures of the Government; but he (Viscount Monck) would be sorry to commit himself to approval of them until he had seen their effect. He could say that he did not approve of the system of relief which was resorted to in 1846 and 1847, and which so signally failed. He did not understand what the noble Duke could mean by saying that this measure, which was to his mind simply a re-introduction of the Relief Works Act of 1847, was a mere supplementary measure to be brought into use after all the other measures of

  505
  Government had failed, because he believed that baronial sessions had been called into existence in many districts in which not an ounce of food had been distributed. He entirely concurred with his noble Friend who had spoken last but one, that the experience of 1846 and 1847 proved that the most effective and least demoralizing scheme of relief which could be adopted was to give to the people directly that of which they most stood in need—food, fuel, and proper clothing. It was very difficult to resort to any measures which would not be more or less capable of abuse; but of all the systems which could be devised that which was calculated to do most injury to the people was, he believed, the supplementary proposal made by the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped the Government would not resort to extraordinary means of relief in districts where the effect of the Poor Law had not been tried first, believing that if the existence of distress in certain districts of Ireland was made in any way a pretext for special measures being introduced into districts where no extraordinary distress prevailed, serious injury would be done to the country, by demoralizing the people. Where distress existed to a great extent the authorities should relax the Poor Law, as was done years ago in some parts of England, and he understood that the Government had allowed that to be done. With regard to what had been said about the Government extending the relief more widely than they had done, he trusted they would not depart from the attitude of firmness which they had taken up, and for which he gave them great credit, and would not, in their natural and just desire to relieve real distress, be carried away by popular feeling into the adoption of measures which, however benevolent or charitable they might appear in themselves at the time, might produce results which all would regret. As to baronial presentment sessions, he quite agreed with what had been said by his noble Friends, and he felt greatly afraid that if these public works were carried into effect by the several authorities bad results would follow. There were two safe modes of giving relief—one by carrying food to the people, and the other by inducing persons to find employment, and thus to relieve those who were in
  506
  distress; and he hoped that the Government, if they should think it necessary that presentment sessions should be held, would still re-consider their decision.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that in 1836 he had been in Ireland, and that 6d.a-day was the pay then of a labourer in the county of Cork. He had seen a model farm in which drainage had been carried on with great advantage. The surface turf, which prevented water from percolating, was made use of instead of tiles, and he hoped the drainage was still open. It had turned fields on the side of barren heath into productive land. He believed that Irishmen would much sooner receive pay for work at a low rate, as suggested by Colonel King-Harman, than be fed in idleness; and if they could work only half a day at a time through weakness, that they would be satisfied with small wages. He was sure that such men as Colonel King-Harman and his friend Major Robertson, Assistant Commissioner in the Agricultural Commission, would prevent imposition; and after alluding to the industry of such Irishmen as were sober, as described by the late Mr. Maguire in his work on the Irish in America, he added that he quite approved of the precautionary measures taken by the Government, which he believed would tend materially to lesson the distress and advance the prosperity of Ireland.

RAILWAY CHARGES ABROAD.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved for—
  "A Return of the rate of charges authorized by law, and those actually levied by the different railway companies, in the following countries: France, United States of America, Russia, Italy, Germany, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Portugal."
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: To give this Return at the present moment is impossible; but, if by a stretch of imagination I could assume its possibility, I am sure it would be quite useless. The Return the noble Earl requires refers to the railway charges authorized and actually levied in foreign countries. Now, I will take one instance alone to show the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of giving that Return. In the United States of America every

  507
  State has a railway law of its own, and it has unlimited discretion of altering its rates without any legislative alteration on every route, and, indeed, on every article; and the consequence of that is that under certain circumstances of exigency—as in the recent extraordinary competition—the alterations are voluminous. It has been calculated that the United States alone, if this Return were made, would afford a small library. I cannot agree to the Motion. The fact is it would be fruitless, even if it were possible; because before these Returns could be printed the charges would have been, in all probability, altered and even greatly changed. Under these circumstances, I trust the noble Earl will not press his Motion.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: After what the noble Earl has said, as my library is only a small one, I will not press the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House)withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.