§ MR. ROEBUCKSir, I have a Question to put to the noble Lord the First Minister, which I am very anxious that he should himself answer. I will preface this Question with two preliminary statements. The first is, that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General informed this House that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States on their employment of agents in this country for illegal purposes. I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he was then speaking about a matter which was sub judice; that he spoke not merely in his own person, and that person one to whom we all pay very great respect, but in the character of a great law officer. And not only that, but by his side sat the Attorney General, and it was quite clear that he spoke the opinion of the Attorney General. Moreover, he was the only Member of the Ministry who spoke on that occasion, so that he might be supposed to be the organ of the Administration in himself. The matter on which he spoke was then under the consideration of the law courts, and he expressed distinctly an opinion upon it. I think it would have been wiser if he had abstained altogether from any expression of opinion on a matter of that sort, especially in this House. But the Question being sub judice, we have to inquire at what point the transactions then were. It appears to me, Sir, that they were exactly at this point: that the Government believed certain things were being done by the Confederate States of America in this country which they held to be illegal; that they had brought those things before the courts of law; and that, as far as we have now gone, the courts of law have decided against the Government. No doubt there was an appeal, and that appeal—(I know not what may have happened to-day)—is still sub judice. Therefore, we may say that the Government, on mere suspicion, are about to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States. That is my first position. The next one is that 1917 the First Minister of the Crown has stated as his policy—and every other Member of the Government who has spoken on the subject has said the same thing—the First Minister has stated that they wish to maintain the strictest neutrality between the Federal and the Confederate States. Now, I believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government really desires to do that; but I am afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is not altogether master of the Government. There are other powers in the Government, and there is one great power that, I think, somewhat overshadows him and the whole Administration. The noble Lord the First Minister has won for himself not only the confidence of the country, but, I believe, its affectionate regard, and anything that he says he will do we have perfect confidence that he means to do. But, Sir, there is another power by the side of that noble Lord, and a power such as has always appeared in the Liberal Government of this country since the days of the Revolution. We have always had some member of what is called "a Revolution family" in a Liberal administration, who has governed, perverted, and destroyed it. The person to whom I allude is Earl Russell; and I may say that the honour of England in his hands has not shone forth with the brightness that I could have wished. Let us go, Sir, from China to Japan—though that is not far. But if I go farther, if I go to Poland, then to Denmark, and lastly to America, in every case I find that the honour, the name of England, has been tarnished by what has taken place. Sir, I have read the despatches on this matter, and the feeling predominant in my mind was that of dire humiliation. I felt that the honour of England has not been upheld as it ought to have been, and that the strict neutrality which the noble Lord the First Minister professes, and professes honestly, I am sure, has not been maintained. Why, Sir, the tone used was, in the first place, like the scream of a cockatoo or the scolding of an angry woman. The end was most unequal to the beginning; the words were big, but the deeds were the least possible. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary seemed frightened by the bluster of the Federal Government, and the moment Mr. Adams threatened war he crouched before the menace, and England seemed to recede from her position among the nations. That being the case, Sir, I feel that I have a right to inquire what 1918 is the neutrality which the noble Lord professes, and what is the state of the two peoples between whom we profess to be neutral? Now, first and foremost, we may supply contraband of war, and we have supplied it to both sides. There is no difference whatever there. The next thing that we have supplied—that is, the people who have gone—is the men. They have gone in hundreds and thousands from this country to America and enlisted as soldiers to fight her battles. A very small number of our men have gone and enlisted in the navy of the Confederate States, and then comes Mr. Adams and says "Aye, but these sailors of yours have chased from the face of the waters American commerce." If they have done so, I, Sir, am very glad. But where is the difference between them and the men who have enlisted in the service of the Federals? They have enlisted as military men, and where peace and happiness reigned before they have been made the instruments of spreading a wide and desperate desolation. The whole proceedings of this American war are a blot upon human nature. And when I am told that I should have sympathy for the Northern States of America, I turn in absolute disgust from their hypocrisy. If there is a sink of political iniquity it is at Washington. They are corrupt, they are base, they are cowardly, and they are cruel. ["Oh!"] You say "Oh;" but I want to know what they have said of England. If I have said anything worse of them than they have said of us I am mistaken. I do not think that the history of mankind displays a spectacle more deplorable and debasing. Sir, there are two things which our law distinctly prohibits—and the Attorney General can correct me if I am wrong. The first of those two things is the supplying of ships, armed and equipped, to a State at war with another State with which we are in friendship. This is said to have been done in this country with respect to the Confederate States; and that matter is now sub judice. The Attorney General, with all his acumen and all his power of persuasion, has not been able to convince a jury of his countrymen that our law has been broken by the Confederate States of America. The next thing is the enlisting of men here to fight in the cause of the Federals; and that is what is now being done in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant last year acknowledged that the Government of Ire- 1919 land was perfectly aware of what was going on in Ireland at that time; and at this present moment we see it broadly stated in The Times newspaper that the same thing is going on now. Therefore, coming from my first statement to my last, I ask whether, as you have determined to remonstrate with the Confederate States on mere suspicion—for you have carried it no further—are you prepared now, on mere suspicion, to remonstrate with the Federal States on their enlistment of men in Ireland for the purposes of the war in America? The question is clear, definite, understandable. I have perfect faith in the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that he will give me a categorical answer; and if he determines not to make that remonstrance, I hope he will be able to make it clear to the House that he has a good reason for that abstinence on his part. I myself feel that on this occasion the honour of England is at stake; that we have, under the threat—for it is a threat—of a war with America, determined as far as we can to deprive the Confederate States of any assistance they can derive from this country. Into the real feelings of the noble Lord I will not inquire. I rather guess I know them. I fancy he is not a Federal, but of that I do not ask him to give any enunciation. All I presume to do is to ask him to be that strictly neutral person which he says he intends to be, and that he will stand up against any and every Power, I do not care what or where that Power may be, that would endeavour to coerce him to be a party to that Irish kind of neutrality which is all on one side. The question I have to ask is this:—"As the Solicitor General has stated that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States upon their employment of agents for illegal purposes," and as the First Lord of the Treasury has declared that the Government of Her Majesty desired to maintain the strictest neutrality between the Confederate and Federal States, Is it intended to remonstrate with the Government of the Federal States upon the employment by them of agents in Ireland for the purpose of enlisting as soldiers the subjects of Her Majesty?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, my hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to pay me some compliments; but I beg to say I can accept of no one's compliments at the expense of a Colleague. 1920 My hon. and learned Friend ought to know that it is vain to endeavour to single out one Member of a Cabinet, to hold him up to public obloquy, and to make amends for that by compliments and praise to the Government at large. My noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office is, no doubt, the organ of the Government in all its communications, and with regard to all its relations, with foreign Powers; but my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office takes no steps except in concert with his Colleagues; and I must declare to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has endeavoured to separate me from my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, that I am equally responsible with him for every step he has taken in the conduct of every negotiation which seems, unhappily, to have excited feelings of humiliation in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend—a feeling which I believe is not shared by the people of this country—a feeling which I am confident will not be shared by any man of impartial mind who shall look with attention to the different steps which have been taken in all those great transactions to which allusion has been made. Sir, once for all, I beg distinctly and positively to state, that those who attempt to separate my noble Friend from his Colleagues will fail in their endeavours, and betray an ignorance of the principles and practice of the Governments of this country. Be it henceforth known—and I beg my declaration may be recorded and borne in mind—that we are all, and I am especially, equally responsible with my noble Friend for every step he has taken in this matter. Now, Sir, we have declared our intention to observe strict neutrality in the contest unfortunately being carried on in America, and I maintain we have kept our word and acted on our declaration. The hon. and learned Gentleman contends that we have dealt a different measure of justice to one side from that we have dealt to the other. Well, it should be remembered that the two sides stand, unfortunately for one of them, in a very different position in regard to the assistance which they may derive from this or any other quarter. The Federals command the sea; all their ports are open; they can go to Birmingham, Liege, or any other place where arms and ammunition are manufactured; they may buy what articles they like, ship, and safely convey them to their own ports. They have the command of the markets of Eu- 1921 rope, for the purpose of supplying their armies with anything and everything they may want to carry on the war. The Confederates, on the other hand, have not these advantages. They are shut out from the sea; they can only get supplies by blockade runners, many of which are taken, and few, comparatively, escape. Therefore, the conditions of the two parties are not equal under an equal law of neutrality in regard to both. It is true that there is also a great difference between the obtaining ships from a neutral country, and the obtaining of arms and ammunition. I do not dispute that in point of principle, and setting aside our own municipal law, these two things stand on an equal footing by international law and obligation. But if a belligerent goes to a neutral country and buys arms, cannon, and ammunition wherewith to arm large armies, he derives from that neutral a greater assistance towards deciding the war than perhaps one, two, or more cruisers can have on the ultimate fate of the war, although they may effect great injury to individuals. But we have a municipal law which overrides, in some respects, international relations, and we are bound by our own law to prevent certain things being done in this country for the benefit of one belligerent against another. We are bound, for example, not to permit enlistments and organization of men, and also to prevent the equipment and armament of ships. The one is an easy thing to prevent. The armament and equipment of a ship is a notoriety. A ship is a tangible thing; you can see with your eyes the progress made in its construction and equipment; you can interfere at the proper moment, and lay your hand on it to prevent a breach of the law being committed. But with regard to the enlistment of men, you have not the same means. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that great enlistments of men have been made in Ireland for the Federals. That may be so or not, but in order to punish those who have been guilty of that breach of our laws, you must have proof—proof which is not easily obtained. I dare say, speaking only from common report, it is very likely there are in Ireland agents acting under the orders of the Federal Government to induce fighting men to go and enlist in the armies of the Federals; but they are much too wise and cunning to make their enlistments in Ireland. There is, we know, so great a difference between 1922 the wages of labour in the United States and the wages of labour in Ireland, that in order to induce men to go it is sufficient to tell them, "Come as labourers. There is this railway and that railway, this work and that work and instead of 1s. or 1s. 6d. you will get 10s. a day." They are, I say, much too wise to talk of enlistment in Ireland. They induce the people to go to find a better market for their labour, and when these men land at New York there are people there to offer them a hundred dollars, induce them to enlist in some Ohio regiment or another, and become soldiers, with the chance of plunder, and God knows what besides. I say, therefore, that though the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman may be substantially true, that inducements are held out in Ireland to people to go to the United States, with the intention that when they get there they shall be inveigled into the army, yet to found any legal prosecution on these transactions you must have proof, which we are, as yet, unable to get. But we have remonstrated Generally on this subject, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into the papers which were laid before Parliament last year, he will see that representations have been made to the United States' Government on the reports and rumours which reached Her Majesty's Government on the subject. There was lately a transaction which engaged the serious attention of the Government—the Kearsage, a Federal cruiser, while in the harbour of Cork, was accused of having enlisted a number of men to serve in that vessel. When inquiry was made on the subject, the United States' Consul at Cork declared that there was no truth in the charge. Representations were then made to Mr. Adams; the men were returned to the shore, and if sufficient proof could have been afforded to identify those connected with that transaction, no doubt a prosecution would have been instituted. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General reminds me that, with regard to some who were proved to have been accessories and victims of that inveiglement, there is a prosecution now going on. If that prosecution succeeds, and you can prove that the municipal law of the country has been violated, of course representations will be made against the conduct of those officers, whether naval or consular, by whom that law was violated. I can only say that, in order to found a distinct and formal remonstrance to the United States, you must 1923 have proofs, and those proofs are difficult to obtain. But we have remonstrated with the United States' Government, as will appear from the papers which were last year laid on the table of this House. If it can be shown that there are grounds to entitle us to make remonstrances, be sure that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office will be as ready as I or any of our Colleagues to vindicate the honour and the laws of the country by adequate representations to the Government to whom the infraction of our laws is imputed.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONSir, I think that this question ought not to be passed by without any facts bearing upon it, which may be within the knowledge of any Member of the House, being stated. The matter is too important, and touches too nearly the honour of the country to be lightly treated. I believe that many persons have witnessed transactions with shame, which, if known to us, and not pressed upon the Government, would cover us with some of the disgrace which must attach to them. I disclaim any intention to diverge into a discussion upon American affairs. I have always entertained, in common with others, my opinion as to the probable result of the American contest, and, in common with others, I have witnessed with the utmost regret the savage character which the war in America has assumed upon the Federal side. We have seen horrors which have been denounced in European wars, not only permitted but encouraged by the Federal Government. Large regions have been laid waste by letting loose the flood of mighty rivers, and harbours, which the beneficence of Providence bestowed on the country, have been attempted to be destroyed by barbarous means; wholesale peculation and robbery have been perpetrated under the form of war by Generals of the Federal States, and worse horrors than I believe have ever in the present century disgraced European armies have been perpetrated under the eyes of the Federal Government, and yet remain unpunished. These things are notorious as the proceedings of a Government which seems anxious to rival one despotic and irresponsible Power in Europe in its contempt for the public opinion of mankind, as well as in its disregard of the liberties of those who are unhappily under its control. Such proceedings must be denounced by every one who values freedom and constitutional rights. Now, whilst holding these views we have not pressed 1924 our opinions upon the House. I will venture to say that if such conduct had been proved against an European Power as is patent and known to the world with regard to the Federal army, this House would not have been so long silent. But when it is notorious that enlistment has taken place for the Northern army in Ireland—that British subjects have been entrapped into being instruments of cruelty and savagery, I think it is time for us to demand that a remonstrance should be made by Her Majesty's Government, and that our remonstrance should not be confined to the weaker side. It is only two years since an officer of the British navy told me that a large bounty had been offered to his men to enlist in the Federal navy—that American agents actually offered on board of a Queen's ship in a British port £10 to be paid in this country, and £15 on the arrival of each man at America. Now these matters must be known to Her Majesty's Government. And when on mere suspicions we are disposed to address a remonstrance to the Confederate Government, I think that some urgent remonstrance ought to be addressed to the Federal Government upon this subject. It must be known to the Admiralty how such matters are going on. I trust that we shall not disgrace ourselves by limiting our remonstrances to the weak, and shrinking from the vindication of the International Law in regard to those who have proved themselves utterly unworthy of being classed amongst civilized Powers.
§ MR. BRIGHTI rise, Sir, not for the purpose of continuing the discussion, nor to refer to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, but to make one or two remarks with regard to the effect of what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck). There is a charming simplicity in the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman who now appeals to the House and to the noble Lord so fervidly for the practice of impartiality as between the North and the South. But I have never heard, I think, on the floor of this House from any speaker language so unworthy of a Member of the House when speaking of a foreign Government—and in this case they are foreign only in a certain sense, for they are after all but another English nation—growing upon the other side of the Atlantic, and with none of those differences which in ordinary cases would entitle them to be called foreigners. The 1925 hon. and learned Gentleman has put a question to the noble Lord with regard to Ireland. If he will recollect what took place last year he will remember that the noble Lord, speaking on the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), approved very much of the emigration of a large number of people from Ireland to America. In fact, it is said that the noble Lord at the head of the Government generously contributed to assist not a few poor persons on his own estates to leave Ireland and cross the Atlantic. The right hon. Gentleman the chief Secretary for Ireland last year—and, indeed, three or four nights ago—made speeches in which he expressed the same sentiments and approved very much of the emigration now going on. He showed, I think, that about 60,000 men crossed the Atlantic from Ireland in the course of last year. The noble Lord now tells us that the wages in Ireland are from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per day. That, I believe, is not quite correct. I have it on very good authority—from Irish Gentlemen near me—that the average wage of labouring men in the south and west of Ireland will not average more than from 10d. to 1s. per day. Well, if that be so, how dare the hon. and learned Gentleman with his logical miud—how dare he assume that a foreign Government is breaking international law and breaking our municipal law to induce Irishmen to emigrate to America, when he must know perfectly well that there are already overwhelming attractions, apart from the question of war, which would take Irishmen to America—and when he knows further that the bounty for enlistment is not, as the noble Lord said, 100 dollars, but very much nearer £100? The only marvel is that any Irishman who is not the owner of land, or a man of some capital, should remain in that blighted and unhappy country. Now, I happen to know the gentleman who fills the office of Consul for the United States at Liverpool, Mr. Dudley. Mr. Dudley told me, many months ago, that since the war began, every day, he believed, that his office had been open he has had to answer questions of men—Englishmen as well as Irishmen—who came to him to ask him to help them over the Atlantic that they might enlist in the Northern army. I believe the Consul at Manchester could give the same information, and that the Consuls in other parts of the country could say the same thing. There can be no object in the 1926 American Government employing persona to enlist Irishmen or to persuade them to go. The motives which impel them to go are so powerful that the American Government would show absolute stupidity if it attempted to do that which the hon. and learned Gentleman charges upon it. This, I think, is not at all unlikely to have been done. I think that when £100 is given for a recruit in the United States some sharp fellow may have found that he could afford to carry Irishmen or Englishmen over there for nothing in order that he might receive handsome remuneration for taking them there if the men chose to enlist and receive the bounty. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself, not very long ago, travelled through foreign countries, it is said, on commercial speculations. [Mr. ROEBUCK: It is not true.] Then I retract it if it be not true. But if it be not true, any American as sharp as the hon. and learned Gentleman would easily find out that he might make £10 or £20 for each passenger he took from Ireland to America, provided that when they got there they can be induced to enlist in the Northern army. I undertake to say that the opinion of the House, and of those who heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, will not be that he is a very fair critic of what takes place in the United States. More than that—I have no call whatever—no feeling, no inclination—to defend the character of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office—but turning back to the events of last Session, and the part which the hon. and learned Gentleman took on the floor of this House, I undertake to say there does not exist to my knowledge a Minister, or statesman who has occupied the position of a Minister, who has done so much to humiliate this country and the House as the hon. and learned Gentleman did last year after he returned from his expedition to Paris.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILI think that the hon. Member for Birmingham has mistaken the exact nature of the issue raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Nobody disputed that no case of enlistment has been proved against the Federal Government in the Courts of the Law. There is, however, a prosecution going on upon the subject, and strong surmises are entertained, and have reached that point that the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland last year stated to the House as an undoubted fact, that enlistments for the Federal army were going on in that coun- 1927 try. Now, what is the complaint of my hon. and learned Friend—a complaint in which I am disposed to join? It is, that the Government proceeded to remoustrate with the Confederates on pure surmise, while, with regard to the Federals, there being surmises at least as strong, they refuse to take a similar course. Remember both sides are in precisely the same case. Both sides have been presented to us for alleged breaches of the laws of neutrality; but the charges have never been proved against either. There are strong features of notoriety against both; but Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated in the one case, but have refused to remonstrate in the other. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government. I have lately seen in the news from America a statement that agents from the Washington Government are about to be sent over to England and Ireland to induce persons to emigrate to the Northern States. Of course the statement is, that British subjects are only induced to emigrate in order to obtain industrial employment in that country. But these agents induce men to go over to America, and when they get there they are enlisted. As the noble Lord at the head of the Government says, they go over as peaceful emigrants, and become soldiers when they get there. What do the Confederates do? Why, they ask also to be allowed to obtain peaceful ships which shall leave our harbours in that condition, and which, directly they get out of our jurisdiction, become vessels of war. The case is precisely the same in both cases—the raw material, so to speak, of the soldier or the vessel of war, is bought in this country, but it is not converted into a belligerent implement until out of our jurisdiction. I confess it seems to me that the offence—if offence it be—is exactly the same in both cases; and it is unjust to charge one party with a desire to elude the law when you do not make the same charge against the other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), expressed some apprehension that we should disgrace ourselves if, after having evaded so many wars with strong Powers, we should plunge ourselves into a war with the Confederate States in their present difficulties. But I confess I am under no such apprehension. My own impression is, that the Confederate States, even in their present condition of comparative adversity, are 1928 very much above the war point of Her Majesty's Government, and that, therefore, it is with the greatest equanimity that I hear that Her Majesty's Government intend to remonstrate. In fact, I believe there is no greater proof that they consider the Confederate States to be among those too strong to go to war with, than the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend to remonstrate with them. There is not a strong Power in the world Her Majesty's Government have not remonstrated with, and I have no doubt they will go on remonstrating to the end of the chapter; but I have never discovered that these remonstrances have produced the slightest injury to those to whom they were addressed. If, therefore, it is any satisfaction to the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom remonstrating appears to convey a kind of balm, I am sure no one can have any objection to such harmless indulgences, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will go on remonstrating so long as they find the slightest pleasure in that agreeable occupation.
MR. KINGLAKEI rise, Sir, to endeavour to avert a portion of the evil consequences which may be occasioned by the language which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has thought fit to apply to the Government of Washington. He has thought it fit and becoming to apply the terms"base," "cowardly," and "corrupt," to that Government; and I wish to state my opinion, that the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman do not represent the opinions of this House; nor do they represent the opinions of any party, or any fraction of a party in this House; they represent only that which no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has n great respect for—namely, the opinions of himself. I think, however, we shall be able to explain to the people of America, if they are rendered indignant by reading such language, what manner of man it is who has thought fit to use insolent language of this description. They may say and imagine from seeing the kind of way he has of expressing himself, and the attention this House is sometimes disposed to give to him, that he is a kind of oracle in this House. I quite agree he so far performs the part of an oracle in this House that he does speak with a kind of mystery and a degree of precision which we attribute to the oracles of old. But I have to remind him that there is another quality required in an oracle, and that is, that the oracle should be an oracle whom somebody 1929 consults, Now, I must say that I have been some years in this House, but I never heard of any party, or fraction of a party, or any group of men who ever went to consult that oracle. We may also ask the people of America, if they are rendered indignant at the hon. and learned Gentleman's language, to remember that the same speaker at the same moment applied to Earl Russell similar language—describing that noble Earl's language as the "screamings of a cockatoo," and his anger that of a "scolding woman." These were the images by which the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought fit to convey his impressions of Earl Russell; and I think we may express our hope that the American people will be as indifferent to the language which the hon. and learned Gentleman has applied to the Government of Washington as I am well assured Earl Russell will be when he hears he has been vilipended by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. CAIRDI wish to supply some of the facts which were promised, but which were unaccountably omitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson). I also, like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, have been in America, and from what I saw in the Western and in many parts of the Northern States, I believe that there never was a people so determined and so ready to submit to any sacrifice in the prosecution of a war which they at all events believed to he a just and a right one. It is a mistake to suppose that the Irish who are going in such numbers to America are fond of the war. For example, in Chicago, the population is one-third Americans, one-third Germans, and one-third Irish, and the latter are the most reluctant to go to war. Of 6,000 men supplied by Chicago to the Illinois army, 3,500 or 60 per cent were Americans, 1,700 or 30 per cent were Germans, and only 800 or 10 per cent were Irish. The inducements for emigration, owing to the high state of the labour market in America, are sufficient reasons for such vast numbers of Irish emigrating. I hold in my hand an advertisement published in an American newspaper so late as the 19th of February last, from a line forming in Wisconsin, offering about 7s. per day for railway labourers. It may be said that they would be paid in greenbacks; but the railway company guarantee that they shall receive every necessary 1930 that they require for 12s. a week; so that they will make a clear profit of 30s. a week. Is it, therefore, surprizing that men earning only about 6s. or 7s. per week should emigrate to a country where they can earn 42s. per week? And as to the objection that the payment is in greenbacks, it must be remembered that greenbacks in that country procure every necessary a man requires there. From ignorance of the vast inducements that exist in America, and which are likely to continue, to favour emigration, we wrongly attribute it to a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act. In the valley of the Mississippi there is a tract of land five times the extent of England, far more fertile than this country, and underlaid with coal and iron. It is capable of absorbing between four and five millions of people more, and of keeping in abundance seventy millions. Is it, therefore, to be wondered at that such prospects as these draw large numbers of persons from our shores? There is, in my opinion, a silent revolution beginning in the labour market, which will effectually settle what has often come before this House owing to the redundancy of our population—namely, the laws of settlement and removal, and which will, no doubt, be settled in a way we who are the employers of labour do not desire to see them settled.