Sitting of 14 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
QUESTIONS.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE BESSBOROUGH COM- MISSION—THE REPORT AND EVI- DENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say why the dates of all the "Statements in reply to or in explanation of Evidence" published along with the Report of the Bessborough Commission, and amounting to 385 separate statements, have been withheld; and, whether the Committee signed their Report without having seen or studied this rebutting evidence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, his only means of obtaining information to answer the Question had been to apply to the Secretary to the Commission, and probably the House would wish him to read that gentleman's reply. It was as follows:—
  "The principal Report of the Commissioners bears date January 4, 1881. After that date no material alteration was made in it and the date was not altered. It was, however, again considered supplementarily, and separate Reports of the dissenting Commissioners were added to it on January 10. By that time, all the oral and the great bulk of the written statements in reply to, or in explanation of, evidence affecting

  833
  individuals had been received and considered. The majority had been received and considered by January 4th. The time for receiving such statements was, however, extended for some weeks in order that full opportunity might be given as promised for replies. Many statements were accordingly received subsequently, and were printed by direction of the Commissioners, some of them as late as March."
  It is invidious to speak of the dates of those statements as having been withheld. The statements were mostly embodied in, or inclosed in, letters to the Commissioners. The dates of those letters, together with any other matter not forming part of the actual statement, were, in the ordinary course, deleted, and the actual statements were copied and sent to the press.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that rebutting evidence was received up to March?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot say. I have read the answer as I received it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—DIS- POSAL OF PETTY SESSIONS' FINES FOR DRUNKENNESS AT TULLA- MORE.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the fines imposed and levied at Petty Sessions, in cases of drunkenness occurring within the municipal boundary of Tullamore, are now paid into the Fines and Penalties Office; whether such payments should not, under the provisions of "The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854," and the 30th section of the Licensing Act of 1874, be paid to the Town Commissioners of Tullamore; and, whether, if that be so, he will cause the necessary instructions to be given for that purpose?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that under the Acts referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member, one-half only of the fines in question were payable to the Town Commissioners, and he believed they were so paid at present.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POST OFFICE, DONEYCARNEY, CO. MEATH.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Postmaster General, If it is true he has refused to allow a post office for Doneycarney and Mornington, county
  834
  Meath, because the postmaster asked so high a salary as £1 a quarter, or £4 a year; and if he can state the salary Her Majesty's Government were willing to pay?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that some time since he received a Report that it would be desirable on public grounds to open a Money Order Office and Post Office Savings Bank at Mornington; and, considering the great advantage it would be to the people of the district, he gave his consent. When the matter became known to the postmaster, having other business to attend to, he at once absolutely refused to conduct the business of the Post Office Savings Bank and the Money Order Office. The postmaster was pressed to do so, but still refused. It was not a question of salary. Under these circumstances, thinking it very undesirable that the inhabitants of the district generally should be deprived of the advantage of having a Post Office Savings Bank and Money Order Office, and seeing no other alternative, he accepted the postmaster's resignation, and he hoped that before long he would be able to put a suitable person in his place. At any rate, he would do his best to prevent the inhabitants of the district losing the advantage of a Money Order Office and Savings Bank.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The right hon. Gentleman has apparently misconceived my Question. He has not answered the Question on the Paper; but he has answered one which I did not put. I asked if the Government refused to pay the postmaster so high a salary as £4 a-year, and I will add this—did they not offer him £3 instead of £4?
  MR. FAWCETT: It will be in the recollection of the House that I explained, on Monday last, that the pay of these small sub-postmasters was partly dependent on salary, and partly on the amount of the Savings Bank and Money Order business transacted. It is estimated that when the Savings Bank and Money Order Office is opened, the emoluments of the postmaster at this place will be more than doubled. This was pointed out to the postmaster, and he still refused to carry on the office if he had to conduct a Savings Bank and Money Order business; and, so far as I can discover, the question of salary had nothing whatever to do with it. He

  835
  absolutely refused to be worried with the now business.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is or is not the fact that the postmaster was offered £3 when he asked £4?
  MR. FAWCETT: No. What I understand is this—it was not, as I have twice before said, a question as to salary, but of the postmaster absolutely refusing to do this additional work. I understand that he has offered to carry on the Post Office without a Savings Bank or Money Order Office, if we will pay him £4. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: Hear, hear!] Yes; but I am so anxious that the public should have the advantages of a Savings Bank and Money Order Office in this place, that if he had offered to do the other work for nothing, or to pay the Department for doing it, I would not let him do it if the public were in consequence deprived of these additional advantages.

  STATE OF IRELAND—REFUSAL TO SERVE LIQUOR.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has ascertained that the statement of Mr. Brown, of Newbridge, that his reason for refusing to serve John Costello with liquor on the 6th June was "because he was drunk" was untrue, and whether Costello was not perfectly sober; whether he has ascertained that the publican took away the liquor and threw it on the ground, on hearing that it was for Costello, who had just returned from driving police and prisoners; and, whether the Government approve of and intend to support the action of General Frazer in putting this public house out of bounds?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I have no intention to interfere with the decision of Sir Thomas Steele in this matter. I have read the statements on record, and I am satisfied that Costello was sober, and that Mr. Brown refused to supply him with beer because he had been employed by the police.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES—INSPEC- TORS' REPORTS, 1880.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a
  836
  paragraph in the Report of the Inspectors of the Metalliferous Mines of Cornwall and Dorsetshire, at page 543 of the Inspectors of Mines Reports for 1880, which runs as follows:—
  "On looking down the list of fines, one cannot help being struck by the fact that most of them are absurdly small. The fact is, a very large number of the magistrates are interested directly or indirectly in mining. Many of them are owners of mining property, and have been troubled by repeated notices to fence dangerous abandoned shafts, and have been thereby put to considerable expense; some, indeed, have been prosecuted for neglecting to attend to these notices; others are shareholders in mines in the district, and, as such, are not disposed to look favourably upon Government restrictions, which they think may interfere with their profits. If the offences had been punished with greater severity, mine agents would have attended to the provisions of the Act with much more diligence. I am convinced that this mistaken leniency on the part of the magistrates leads to a delay in carrying out all the provisions of the Act, and thereby tends to keep up the death-rate from accidents;"
  and, whether he will bring in a Bill this Session to prohibit magistrates who may have a direct or indirect connection with metal mines from sitting on the bench, or in any way by their presence taking part in such mining cases?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the allegation by the Inspectors that the magistrates, having an interest in mines, inflicted inadequate fines, so as to lead to the non-enforcement of the law, was a very serious one. In the case of the coal mines, that was obviated by an enactment that persons interested at all in mines should not act as magistrates in the case. In the case of the metalliferous mines there was no similar enactment, and that, he was informed, was done deliberately, because it was considered that in Cornwall and other like places, where metalliferous mines abound, it would have been almost impossible to have found any magistrates who were not interested, because it was so common there to have small shares in various mines. But, of course, when that was allowed, it was assumed that the magistrates having such an interest would not allow that interest to interfere with the administration of the law; and, if it was true that that was the case, no doubt, some remedy would be found for it. He should hope that the hon. Member's Question, having called attention to this very serious matter, might tend to cure it; if not, of course, some serious

  837
  remedy could be applied to it. In answer to the latter part of the Question, he was afraid the present state of Public Business did not afford very favourable hope of introducing a Bill on this or any other subject this Session.
  MR. MACDONALDsuggested that a Circular of warning might be sent to the magistrates of Cornwall from the Home Office, as had been done in other instances with good effect.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE DOWN CON- SERVATIVE FLUTE BAND.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Petty Sessions in Downpatrick on 30th June last, when certain members of the Down Conservative Flute Band were prosecuted by the police, and the cases sent forward to the assizes; whether the offence alleged was, that they had played, as they had been in the habit of doing, in the public streets; whether it was given in evidence that the tunes played were not party tunes, but were "Annie Laurie," "The Girl I Left Behind Me," "God Bless the Prince of Wales," and "God Save the Queen;" whether it is illegal to play such tunes in the public streets; whether it was not further given in evidence that their conduct was orderly and peaceable, that they were attacked by stone throwing and did not retaliate; whether, under such circumstances, it was not the duty of the police to protect them when attacked, and whether their assailants should have been prosecuted; and, whether he will direct the prosecution against the members of the band to be abandoned?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, my attention has been called to the prosecution referred to by the noble Lord. I am informed that the musicians mentioned are members of the "Downpatrick Orange Flute Band," and are charged with the offence known as "unlawful assembly." They appear to have played the tunes mentioned in the Question, which in itself would be perfectly innocent; but the charge is that they played through a part of the town where their music, if not so meant, was, at all events, more than likely to be regarded as a defiance and thus to cause a breach of the peace such as actually occurred.
  838
  Downpatrick, as the noble Lord is doubtless aware, contains an Orange or Protestant quarter and a Catholic quarter; and I am informed that whenever the band of one quarter plays, in however orderly a manner, through the streets of the other, it is accepted as a challenge, and disorder generally ensues. This, as might have been expected, occurred on the present occasion. Fourteen of the Orangemen, believed by the magistrates to have thus provoked a breach of the peace, and also two of their assailants, have been sent for trial at the Assizes, and I must say that at present I see no reason for directing an adandonment of the prosection.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether there was any disorder on the occasion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),in reply, said, that there was.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—ADMISSION OF ARTISTS ON WEDNESDAYS—DE- POSITING STICKS AND UMBRELLAS.
  MR. COOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take steps to secure to artists further facilities, by granting them permission to copy the paintings in the National Gallery on Wednesday, the public being admitted as at present on that day, and without the payment of a fee; whether he would require the enforcement of the existing rule requiring visitors to deposit their sticks and umbrellas on entering, a system which has been relaxed by the authorities of the South Kensington Museum and of the Royal Academy; and, whether he will deem it necessary to enforce this inconvenient regulation in the South Kensington Museum?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I must remind the hon. Member that the details of management of the National Gallery are confided to the Trustees and Directors of the Gallery, and I have no power to interfere with their management in such matters. I have, however, communicated with the Trustees on the subject, and have been informed that they are unanimously of opinion that they cannot accede to the suggestions of the hon. Member. With respect to the first, they say that to admit copyers to the Gallery on Wednesday would materially interfere with the right and enjoyment of the public; and with respect to

  839
  the other, they say that their own past experience has been that there would be danger to the pictures if people were allowed to bring their sticks and umbrellas into the Gallery. Two of their pictures were seriouly damaged when at Marlborough House in this respect.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW WARRANT—PURCHASE CAPTAINS.
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of granting to Purchase Captains in the Army a step of Brevet Rank on the occasion of the issue of the New Warrant, so as to avoid their supersession in Army Rank by a great number of Non-Purchase Captains now their juniors?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, if I understand the object of the hon. Member's Question it is that, there having been admittedly under the regimental system great inequality in promotion, especially from lieutenant to captain, he wishes me to redress this inequality, so far as Army rank is concerned, in favour of Purchase captains. This proposal has been carefully considered, and I regret that it is quite out of my power to adopt it. It would create a very dangerous precedent, and would perpetuate on a large scale the evil of brevet promotion other than for distinguished service.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE MILITIA AND THE LINE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that when Militia Regiments form battalions with Line Corps, the latter have two lieutenant-colonels, one commanding, four majors, and a proportionate number of captains and subaltern officers, whereas the Militia battalions have only one lieutenant-colonel and one major; and, whether he will allow to the Militia Corps the same advantages with regard to promotion that the Line Corps have by increasing the number of Militia officers?
  MR. CHILDERS: May I suggest, Sir, to the hon. Member that, before he puts a Question on the Paper, already very crowded, he should inquire whether it has been already answered? As a matter of fact, this Question has been twice answered, on the 3rd and 13th of June.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL—PROMISED LIBERATION OF LANGALIBALELE.
  MR. GEORGE PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet fixed any time for the liberation of Langalibalele, the Natal Zulu Chief, in accordance with the intimation which the Earl of Kimberley made to a deputation from the Aborigines' Protection Society in May 1880?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that Lord Kimberley asked him to answer the Question. Since the occurrence of the deputation, the Basuto War had taken place, and it would be impossible, in the present condition of the country, to release Langalibalele. Beyond that, a very strong opinion against his liberation had been expressed by the Legislative Council of Natal; and, under those circumstances, Lord Kimberley was unable to indicate a time when he should be released. It would, however, take place as soon as it could be done with safety.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—ALLEGED COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can lay upon the Table the text of the communication made to the Canadian Government by the French Consul at Quebec inviting Canada to join in a Commercial Treaty, and also Copies of the Correspondence that has taken place on the subject with the French Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the communication in question was not made by the French Consul General, but by his predecessor, in a private letter written after he had ceased to have any official character, and without any authority from the French Government.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY—SEIZURES FOR RENT.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a number of men belonging to the Royal Artillery (stationed at Limerick) acted in the capacity of bailiffs or

  841
  drovers on the 23rd ultimo, by driving the cattle of Mr. Patrick Browne (seized for rent) from the Railway station at Limerick to the pound in that city; and, if so, if he approves of the Artillerymen being called on to discharge such a duty?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir. I called for a Report on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and I am satisfied that Major Goodeve, who commanded the military on the occasion, exercised a wise discretion in acting as he did.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "POLYPHEMUS."
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that in a recent trial of the "Polyphemus" it was found impossible to maintain the required air pressure in the stokehole; and, if so, whether it is true that the cause was traced to the leakage of the bulkheads, which are supposed to be capable of resisting water pressure; and, if true, who is responsible for such defective workmanship?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, on the preliminary trial of the air-fans in the stokehole of the Polyphemus by the contractors for the engines, it was found impossible to maintain the required air-pressure at the commencement of the trial. It is not the case that the cause was traced to the leakage of the water-tight bulkheads, which are capable of resisting any water-pressure to which they will be subjected; but there were a few bolt holes in the bunker bulkheads in connection with a considerable amount of work not yet completed. These small holes, which previous to the trial were considered by the contractors as unobjectionable, bad been left open; but when they were plugged up the required pressure was obtained and maintained during the rest of the trial.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "MUTINE" AND "ESPIEGLE."
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Reports of the trial of the centrifugal pumps in Her Majesty's Ships "Mutine" and "Espiègle," with the Letter on the subject from the chief engineer of the first-named ship; and, whether he will give the Copy of a Telegram from the Admiral Superintendent of Devonport Dockyard to the Dockyard
  842
  Officers and Captains of Steam Reserves in that port, with reference to the defect discovered in the shell room of the "Mutine" when commencing to store gun cotton and live shell on 26th May last?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, while the Mutine was being fitted the chief engineer reported that on letting water into the ship for the purpose of testing the performance of the centrifugal pumps, it was found that some water was leaking from one compartment to another. The fact was that the compartments had not been completed, and the superintendent gave orders that the pumps were not again to be tested until the bulkheads were in a finished state. I may say, further, that in composite vessels like the Mutine—that is to say, vessels with an iron skeleton frame with the wood bolted on to it, the wood must and will shrink to a slight extent until the inside has been well wetted, and the bulkheads cannot be perfectly water-tight, though sufficiently so for the safety of the ship. The telegram alluded to in the second part of the Question was simply an order from the Admiral Superintendent in his office at Devonport to the officers in Keyham Yard to examine and make good a defect reported in the shell-room light box of the Mutine. The defect was reported to the Admiralty, and as, under the system pursued at the Dockyard, all work, good and bad, can be traced, the foreman of shipwrights and two leading men were punished for passing imperfect work. I may say that, in the case of both shipwrights and fitters, the authorities have occasionally to animadvert upon imperfect work, but very seldom, considering the great amount that is done in establishments where, as in our Home Yards, 16,000 artificers and labourers are employed, and upwards of £1,000,000 a-year is paid in wages.

  NAVY—THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH FLEETS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is correctly stated that the French fleet operating on the coast of Northern Africa consists of ten ironclads, seven of the first rank and three of the second rank; and, if he will state what number of ironclads are now in the Mediterranean under the orders of Sir B. Seymour?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there have been three French iron-clads on the coast of Northern Africa, which, from the latest advices, we have reason to believe have now been supplemented by the Toulon squadron of six other vessels. This would make nine in all, of which six rank as first-class ships. But there are first-class iron-clads and first-class iron-clads, and the six armoured ships under the command of Sir Beauchamp Seymour form a fleet which, for fighting efficiency, is quite worthy even for England to show in the Mediterranean. I wish this Question had not been asked; but since it has been asked, I must remind the right hon. and gallant Member that the whole commissioned iron-clad fleet of the French, with the exception of one vessel, is in the Mediterranean at this moment, while we have in European waters the four iron-clads of the Channel Squadron and the nine Coastguard ships, of which eight are at present in the Baltic.

  ASHANTEE—PAYMENT OF THE WAR INDEMNITY BY THE KING.
  MR. HEALYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Since this Country is at peace with the King of Ashantee, why a large fine of gold dust was recently exacted from this potentate; what this fine represents; whether it is war indemnity; whether it is the price of this Country keeping the peace towards him; on what principle the amount of indemnity was fixed; and, whether the Home Government was consulted before the gold dust was demanded from Ashantee?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the gold dust received from the King of Ashantee was not exacted as a fine or a war indemnity, but was offered by him as a token of submission, and accepted as a partial set-off against the expenses incurred by the Colony in making preparations to resist the invasion of the protected States, which he threatened, if a political refugee were not given up to him. The Home Government were not consulted in the matter.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was not a fact that the King denied the sending of a threatening letter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, that he had that morning read through the Papers, and the answer he had given was in accordance with the
  844
  view he derived from reading them. Although it was true that the King had stated that it was not his intention to attack the Colony, yet, at the same time, he had placed a large force upon the Frontier, and it was generally believed he was going to make an attack on tribes under our protection.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked on what pretence the Gold Axe of the King was taken from him and brought to England?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he answered that Question before.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —SCHEME OF THE SENATE.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the scheme for the Royal University of Ireland, no provision is made for the granting of a special diploma in the branch of the medical profession dealing with diseases of the eye; and, whether such an omission shall be filled up?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the scheme had been laid on the Table. On looking into it, he found it contained special recommendations to students to attend lectures on diseases of the eye and ear, and other special subjects in medicine and surgery. As to granting a diploma, it lay with the Senate, and not with the Government, to grant diplomas for such subjects.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that he asked the Question at the instance of leading oculists and aurists in Dublin, who were surprised that no such diplomas were offered. If no diplomas were given, the culture of those branches of medical and surgical science would not be secured.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE CITY OF WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a speech made at a meeting of the Town Council of Waterford by the Mayor of that city, in which the Chief Magistrate said—
  "That by the action of the Government in prescribing the city business relations and the ratepayers were injuriously affected, and the general trade damaged;"

  845
  and, if he would state if any person had been arrested in Waterford since it has been declared a prescribed district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had seen the report in The Waterford Daily Mail of the speech made by the Mayor of Waterford; and he did not appear to have stated, with regard to the prescribing of the city and county of Waterford, that it had injuriously affected the business relations of the ratepayers. What he stated was that, in his opinion, the action of the Government might have that effect. No person had been arrested in the City of Waterford since it was prescribed.
  MR. LEAMYasked whether, since no person had been arrested, the right hon. Gentleman still considered it necessary that Waterford City should be prescribed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did. He thought it likely that prescribing the city had made arrests unnecessary.
  MR. LEAMYasked if the right hon. Gentleman had inquired into the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. J. T. Power, who had been arrested under the Coercion Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had examined into the alleged grounds of arrest, and satisfied himself on the point.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—AN- NUAL REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the fact that the annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums is only issued as a "short delivery Paper; "and, whether, looking to the great importance of the subject, he will take steps to have it issued in future as a "full delivery Paper?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he dared say the hon. Member was aware that the authorities of the House exercised discretion as to whether Reports should be sent round to every hon. Member, or whether they should be merely printed for hon. Members who applied for them, the latter course being taken in connection with Reports not of general interest. The annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums seemed to have been treated in the latter way; but the hon. Member, or any other hon.
  846
  Member, could get copies of it on application being made.

  FRANCE—THE NEW GENERAL TARIFF —THE JOINT COMMISSION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether equal facilities were given to the workmen and the employers to place their views on the Tariff question before the Joint Commission which recently sat at the Foreign Office to inquire into that subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Joint Anglo-French Commission, in consequence of objection raised by the French Commissioners, did not receive directly representations from deputations of trades in the United Kingdom. These representations were, therefore, received by the Royal Commissioners, and by them placed before the French Commissioners. All those who desired to submit their views with regard to the proposed conventional Tariff were heard, the same facilities being given to all, whether workmen or masters; and, in fact, some of the most valuable speeches were made by those who represented the workmen. I need not point it out, however, for my hon. Friend is fully aware of the fact, that the matter in question is one in which the interests of the employers and employed is not divergent, but identical.

  ARMY—THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  MR. ARTHUR MOOREasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that the titles of the officers of the Army Hospital Corps have been changed from those of Lieutenant and Captain of Orderlies to that of Hospital Quartermaster; whether he is aware that this new designation is distasteful to the officers of the Army Hospital Corps; and, whether representations have been made to the Director General of the Army Medical Department to the effect that this change of designation would lower the social and military status of the officers concerned, and would render it more difficult for them to enforce obedience from their subordinates?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; under the Warrant of the 14th of August, 1877, the discipline of the Army Hospital Corps was transferred from the captains and lieutenants of orderlies to the medi-

  847
  cal officers, leaving to the former the purely quartermaster duties of equipment and supply only. Under the new Warrant of this year, the emoluments and prospects of these officers have been considerably improved by putting them on the same footing as Line quartermasters, and the opportunity has been taken to discontinue their inappropriate titles, and give them that which is the proper description of their appointments. They will also receive honorary military rank, which is really better, so far as their social and military status is concerned, than the relative rank they formerly had. Their present titles will not unfavourably affect any authority they have in the hospitals.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PER- SONS CONFINED UNDER THE ACT IN LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the suspects in Limerick Gaol, numbering some fifty, are divided into two batches, and that the gentlemen in one batch are not allowed intercourse or correspondence with those in the other; whether it has his approval; whether Coercion prisoners in Limerick are mixed with ordinary prisoners; whether, if it be alleged that the exercise ground is not large enough for all the Coercion prisoners in Limerick, he will give orders to better regulate the number of suspects sent thither; whether it is true that the governor of Limerick Gaol stopped a letter sent by Mr. O'Mahony, P.L.G., one of the gentlemen confined there, addressed to Mr. Hodnett, another prisoner, because the latter was styled "Chairman of the Ballydehob Board of Guardians, and President of the Land League;" whether he approves of this stoppage; whether a Report was made by the governor thereupon, as provided by Rule 14 of the Lord Lieutenant's Regulations; whether Coercion prisoners are disentitled the use of all titles of courtesy; and, if so, whether the letters "M.P." are objected to by the prison authorities in the case of an imprisoned Member of Parliament; and, whether he will give instructions to the prison authorities to avoid needless irritation to prisoners by the suppression of letters on trivial grounds?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that there were two different wings in Limerick prison, each of them containing 30 cells, and with suitable exercise yard and association room. In one wing 29 Coercion prisoners were detained, and in the other 21. The Governor of the gaol should be allowed his discretion as to the intercourse or communication allowed between the prisoners; and he exercised what appeared to him (Mr. W. E. Forster) a wise discretion when he declined to allow all the Coercion prisoners to associate in one yard, as it would lead to overcrowding and bad sanitary results. The prisoners in Limerick gaol, confined under the Protection Act, were not mixed with the ordinary prisoners, and the yards in which they were exercised were believed to be large enough for a larger number of prisoners than were at present confined in the gaol. As to the question regarding letters, it was true that the Governor had stopped a letter addressed to Mr. O'Mahony, one of the prisoners, by Mr. Hodnett, another prisoner; but the reason why this letter was stopped was not because it was addressed to Mr. O'Mahony as Chairman of the Ballydehob Board of Guardians and President of the Land League. In the event of a letter being stopped under circumstances that were thought to constitute a grievance, the practice was, under Rule 14, that the prisoner concerned should make a representation to the Government; but, in this instance, no representation of this kind had been made, and, therefore, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not seen the letter. Prisoners confined under the Coercion Act ought not to be, and were not, disentitled to be addressed by the ordinary titles of courtesy, The title of "M.P.," "T.C.," "P.L.G.," or any other which might apply to them, as in the case of Mr. Dillon, was not objected to.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether the Governor of the gaol was entitled to refuse prisoners in one division of the prison to see prisoners in the other division; and, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not himself stated, when the Protection Bill was under discussion, that all the prisoners in one gaol should have intercourse with one another?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not recollect having made any such promise as that indicated; but he thought

  849
  the hon. Member must see that if there were two recreation grounds and two association halls, and if one wing was too small for all prisoners, it could not be a good arrangement to have the prisoners altogether.
  MR. HEALY: Suppose there is a father and a son, or two brothers, in the same gaol, have they option, if they choose, to be confined in the same prison, or part of the prison?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a hypothetical Question, and I am bound to say that if the House is to allow hypothetical Questions to be put, there would be no end to them.
  MR. HEALYthen gave Notice that on to-morrow he would ask, whether there was any objection to allowing any prisoner so desiring it to be transferred from one wing of Limerick Gaol to another?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no objection to state at once that they could not give prisoners any such choice. He believed there was no case of a father and son imprisoned. There was one case of brothers; but he did not believe they were separated.
  MR. HEALYsubsequently asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he adhered to the statement made earlier in the evening, that he knew of no case in which a father and son had both been arrested under the Coercion Act; and, whether it was not the fact that such a case had occurred at Mitchelstown—Messrs. Mannix, father and son, being both arrested?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am glad the hon. Member has asked the Question. Since I answered his previous Question I have recollected that there was such a case.
  MR. HEALY: Are the father and son kept separate?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member had better give Notice of the Question. I am not sure whether they are both in the same prison or not.

  POOR ALLOTMENTS MANAGEMENT ACT, 1873—ALLOTMENT COMMITTEES.
  MR. HOLLONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the amount of security required by the Inclosure Commissioners before they entertain any application for the appointment of an Allotment Committee under section 9 of "The Poor Allotments
  850
  Management Act, 1873;" and, whether any such Committee has been appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners in accordance with the above Act?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, there was no fixed amount of security required. The amount was estimated only as to the probable sum required to cover expenses. There had been only three applications made to the Commissioners under the Act. In two of these cases they had no jurisdiction; and in the third—the parish of Waterbeach—they stated that they would hold au inquiry on receiving £30 as security for costs; but the applicant did not proceed with the matter.

  POST OFFICE—TRANSFERRED TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the telegraph clerks who were transferred from the late Companies to the Government service in 1870 are eligible for transfer to the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, when a member of the permanent Civil Service is nominated to a situation in it out of the ordinary course of his promotion, he requires a fresh certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, who may dispense with examination, wholly or partially, and may grant their certificate of qualification upon evidence satisfactory to them that he possesses the requisite knowledge and ability, and is duly qualified in respect of age, health, and character. The statute under which telegraphists were transferred to the Government made them members of the permanent Civil Service. If, therefore, any such telegraphist is nominated for transfer to a situation not in the ordinary course of his promotion—for instance, to one in the Inland Revenue or Customs—he is eligible on the same terms as other Civil servants.

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as stated in the "Standard" of Wednesday, July 13, that communications have been going on for some time between the Governments of England and Spain, which will probably result in the conclusion of a satisfactory

  851
  Treaty of Commerce between the two Countries; and, if so, if he will give the House some information as to the provisions of such Treaty.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, communications have for some time past been taking place between the two Governments with the view to the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty between England and Spain. Formal negotiations, however, have not yet been commenced, as an understanding has not yet been arrived at with respect to the bases of the negotiations.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—QUARTER- MASTERS.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK(for Colonel ALEXANDER) asked the Secretary of State for War, When Quartermasters who have completed ten years' service as such will be gazetted to the rank of Captain?
  MR. CHILDERS, in reply, said, that the officers in question would be gazetted to the rank of Captain as soon as the Reports upon them were received and considered.

  SEEDS ACT, 1880—POSTPONEMENT OF SPECIAL RATE.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the boards of guardians in Mayo in reference to the inability of poor farmers indebted for seed to pay the seed rate; and, if he will state what are the intentions of the Government on the subject?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he had received several resolutions from Boards of Guardians in Mayo and other parts of Ireland with reference to the inability of poor farmers to pay the instalments of the seed loan. Independent of these resolutions, the Local Government Board were carefully looking into the matter, and he should to-day give Notice of a short Bill enabling the Board in certain cases to allow a postponement to be made.

  FRANCE—COMMERCIAL TREATY—THE "TARIFF A DISCUTER."
  MR. W. H. SMITH(for Viscount SANDON) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can hold out any
  852
  hope of being able to make public the "Tarif â discuter," i.e. the secret terms for the new Commercial Treaty offered by France to England, before the close of the Session, and before Her Majesty's Government finally commits the Country to the acceptance or rejection of the Treaty; whether, during the month which is to elapse before the Anglo-French Commission re-assembles for its final decision, Her Majesty's Government will communicate confidentially to the leading officers of each of the principal Trades Unions (registered under Act of Parliament) concerned with the trades affected by the French Tariff, and so far as it relates to their own trades, the terms above mentioned, i.e. the "Tarif â discuter," in the same manner as these terms have been confidentially communicated by the Foreign Office to Chambers of Commerce and to Manufacturers, in order that Her Majesty's Government may have the advantage of becoming acquainted with the views and practical experience, not only of the master manufacturers, but also of the important and numerous bodies of handicraftsmen, whose wages and means of living will be largely affected by the decision as to a Commercial Treaty with France; and, whether he can inform the House for what period of years it is proposed to conclude the Treaty with France, and if he will provide that either party should be able to free itself from the Treaty with twelve months' notice?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Prime Minister, whether, in the event of this request being granted, there would be any objection to the terms of the Tariff being communicated to trade unions which were not registered, as well as to registered unions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reference to the Question last put, though I am not able to give a positive reply, I do not know if they can be got at, or why any distinction should be drawn between the two different bodies interested in this matter. I may say, however, in reply to the general question, that much cannot at present be promised in a definite way. One difficulty about communicating the Tarif à discuter, as it is called, is that it is a document confidentially communicated to us, and to the publication of which the consent of another party is necessary. But there is a more

  853
  serious difficulty still—though I cannot say whether that consent would or would not be obtainable—the difficulty that this document is only the basis of negotiations, and has already undergone material variation; and, consequently, I am afraid it might be taken to be more important than it is, and that it might lead to more misrepresentations than information. It has never been communicated to the Chambers of Commerce; but what has been done has been this—that the deputations that have come up to the Commission have received copies of it from the Commissioners, or such information regarding it as would enable them to take counsel upon the material points to be discussed. The Commissioners have felt it necessary to exercise their best discretion in this matter; but all interested in the matter may rely upon it that the Commissioners are anxious not to take any step without being sure of the ground under their feet. With respect to the last part of the question, the negotiations are not sufficiently advanced to make it possible to say anything as to the precise period for which the Treaty may be concluded; but as to the question whether it will be provided that either party shall be at liberty to withdraw from it after 12 months' notice, I may say that any provisions of that kind would entirely destroy the advantage of having a Treaty, though, of course, there might be a provision of that kind for the lapse of the Treaty at the end of the specified number of years constituting the period of its duration.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he desired to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he can hold out the hope that, when the Irish Land Bill had been disposed of, opportunity can be found for a further discussion of the Church Patronage Bill?
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he would ask the Prime Minister, before answering the Question, to say, Whether one of the conditions on which he undertook to endeavour to find an opportunity for the further discussion of the Bill was not that there should be no considerable opposition to its further progress?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I was not aware that there was any considerable opposition to the Bill in the limited form
  854
  to which it has been reduced, and in which it appeared to meet with the very nearly unanimous assent of the House. In cases where we have got the very nearly unanimous assent of the House, there is a strong hope of making progress with a measure, and I thought that that was the case in this instance. Opposition, however, sometimes springs up in different quarters, and manifestations are given different from what was anticipated. I am therefore afraid that if there be considerable opposition to the measure—and this is a point on which I am unable to throw any light—my hon. Friend can have no rational hope of passing it this Session. If the opposition be not considerable, if there be merely a desire for discussion and explanation, after which the decision of the House would be accepted, then I would advise my hon. Friend not absolutely to give up the hope of finding some opening for this modest and exceedingly contracted Bill.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE BESSBOROUGH COM- MISSION—THE REPORT AND EVI- DENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISER, referring to the answer to his Question, which he said had been read to the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, desired to ask him, Whether the Report of the Commission was changed subsequent to the date on which it was signed; if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the date of the alteration; and whether he would give the Return of the dates of the statements, which constituted the rebutting evidence? This was a matter in which the dates were of great importance. If the Commission had signed the Report, not only ought the dates to have been given, but there ought to have been a Memorandum calling attention to the fact.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that as we have the advantage of the presence in the House of a Gentleman who was a Member of the Commission, it would be better that the Question should be addressed to that hon. Member.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERsaid, he did not wish to cast any blame upon the Government; but he desired to obtain the information.

  AFFAIRS OF TUNIS—LAND SALES.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is aware that Count de Camondo entered into negotiations for the purchase of an estate in Tunis from Ben Ayad, a British subject, and that he was induced to do so by its being contemplated to sell to Baron Gustavus Rothschild another estate of Ben Ayad's in the vicinity; if he is aware that Baron Rothschild retired from the negotiations for political reasons; but that, on the conditions of sale having been settled with Count de Camondo, M. Roustan stated that no real property in Tunis could be sold without his consent; and, if Her Majesty's Government will draw the attention of the French Government to this gross violation by M. Roustan of the British Conventions of 1863 and 1875, which the French Government have promised to respect? The noble Earl said that on the 13th of June he asked a similar Question to this, and received a very unsatisfactory answer, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs insinuating that he (the Earl of Bective) had not sufficiently investigated the facts. He had been, therefore, compelled to repeat the Question, because he had received information which confirmed him in the opinion that the facts were based on sufficiently trustworthy grounds. [Cries of "Order!"]
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (to the noble Earl): Move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Earl is entering on a debate on a matter of controversy, and is not confining himself to the explanation of the Question.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVE: I do not wish to move the adjournment of the House; but will satisfy myself by simply putting the Question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, he was very sorry if he had said anything to hurt the feelings of the noble Earl; but on the former occasion, perhaps, he did insinuate that the noble Earl had been imposed upon in putting the Question, and he feared that was still the case. The most careful inquiry had failed to satisfy him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) of the truth of the facts of the case. M. Roustan had stated that there was no foundation what-
  856
  ever for the story, as far as he was concerned; and M. Gustav de Rothschild informed him that there was no ground for the use of his name. He really thought the noble Earl had been imposed upon.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEsaid, the hon. Baronet had not answered his inquiries in the least. Had he communicated with Count de Camondo?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, he communicated, with reference to the Question, with Mr. Reade, at Tunis, and he said that he was informed by M. Roustan that there was no foundation for the story as far as he was concerned; and, in addition to that, he had received a private letter from M. de Rothschild, who also disavowed any knowledge of the matter. He knew nothing about Count Camondo, or where he was to be found. He had invited the noble Earl to give him any facts he might possess, in order that further inquiries might be made; but that he had failed to do.

  SERVIA—THE COMMERCIAL PAPERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given private Notice. It was, Why the Servian Commercial Papers delivered to Members that day were commented upon yesterday in a morning paper, and appeared in full in The Times of that morning? A complaint of the kind had been made more than once, and an assurance given that such a thing should not recur. He would further ask, Whether the hon. Baronet intended to give a translation of the Paper, which was in French, or whether he would follow the example of the President of the Board of Trade, and refuse to give it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, with regard to the first part of the Question, his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in raising the matter. There was no doubt whatever that an irregularity had occurred; but the Foreign Office was in no sense responsible for the irregularity. The Papers were sent to the Foreign Office on Tuesday night by the printers, and communicated to the newspapers in the usual way. A promise, which was almost invariably observed on these occasions, was given that there would be a distribution in

  857
  full on Wednesday morning; but that did not take place. When he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) found that the distribution had not taken place, he directed that some of the Foreign Office copies should be sent to the Library, and an ample supply was at the Vote Office at 2 o'clock yesterday. What had occurred had been in violation of a distinct understanding previously arrived at. It had been the subject of full inquiry, and the blame was entirely with the printers. With respect to the second portion of the Question, his hon. Friend himself pressed for an immediate publication of these Papers; and if a translation had taken place there would have been a delay of several days, and, consequently, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it best to lay them at once on the Table without translation. If, however, there was any document among the Papers which his hon. Friend thought was of general interest to the House, and worth the expense of translation, there would be no objection to do so.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I think it is worth while to have a translation.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— OUTLAY ON PIERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will furnish a Return showing the dates on which the Piers Committee entered into contracts for each of the works mentioned in Return No. 244, or handed them over to the Board of Works for execution; the dates on which each work was commenced; and the amounts actually paid on account of each work undertaken by the Board of Works up to the date of the Return mentioned?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the information asked for can be supplied. If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will arrange with him the form of a Return in which it can best be given.

  MR. NORTHCOTE AND MR. BIGGAR.
  MR. NORTHCOTE: I am sorry, Sir, to interpose between the House and the further consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee; but I hope the House will allow me to say a word on a matter personal to myself. I am
  858
  never disposed to attach too much importance to words which fall from an hon. Member in the heat of debate; but I find yesterday, in my absence, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), as reported in The Standard, said that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) was the representative of a Company connected with Minnesota, and, therefore, represented a number of swindlers. [Mr. BIGGAR: I never said that.] If the hon. Member disclaims the use of the words, I have nothing more to say; but, according to the report in The Standard, it would appear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member was entitled to say that any Member of the House was the representative of swindlers? The Chairman replied that he had not heard those words; but that, if they were employed, they were certainly out of Order; and the hon. Member for Cavan thereupon withdrew the charge to a certain extent as regards myself, saying that I was an unsuspecting Gentleman, who would not wilfully do an unworthy thing; but that anyone knew that a scheme which came from the United States would not be perfectly sound. I do not know why the hon. Member should manifest such a feeling against schemes coming from the United States, unless, possibly, the subscriptions to the Land League may have recently decreased. If the hon. Member had simply confined himself to calling me a swindler, knowing the hon. Gentleman's predilection for strong language, I should have then left the matter entirely unnoticed. But, Sir, I feel with respect to the gentlemen with whom I am connected in this matter that their character deserves some defence at my hands, because they are gentlemen as honourable and honest as the hon. Member for Cavan himself. The hon. Member would not have ventured to say what he has said if he were not protected by his Parliamentary privilege. I will merely mention the names of one or two of the gentlemen of whom the hon. Member has said that they were dishonest ex necessitate. One of them is the son of a gentleman well known to many hon. Members of this House, Sir John Rose, ex-Finance Minister of Canada, a gentleman of high honour and integrity. Another is Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, who is a personal con-

  859
  nection of a member of the firm of Glyn, Mills, Currie, and Co.—a tolerably well-known house, and who has long been the head of a large and important house in the City. The President of the Company has been for many years President of the Bank of Montreal, and is a near connection of mine by marriage, and a gentleman of the highest and most stainless honour. Of the other Members of the Company I will merely say that they are gentlemen against whose character not one word was breathed in the Dominion when the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was under discussion. I am, therefore, entitled to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw or to substantiate the charges which he has made. I should like to say one single word as to why I have alluded to my personal connection with the Company. As a young Member of the House, and as the Representative of an English constituency, I would otherwise not have intruded on the discussion of the Irish Land Bill; and I think it only respectful to the Committee to state why, having some knowledge of the country the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had referred to, I ventured to address it. I do not wish to say anything personally offensive to the hon. Member for Cavan, or to do anything more than clear the character of my associates. I venture, with some confidence, to leave my own character in the hands of the House.
  MR. BIGGAR: I really, Mr. Speaker, do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do. If I have said anything un-Parliamentary with respect to him, I shall be very glad to apologize; but, so far from making any personal attack, I distinctly said I did not mean to do so. The report of my remarks which has been referred to as appearing in The Standard was only a summary of what I really did say, or was supposed to say. It certainly did not convey a correct idea of what I intended to say, or of what I believe I did say. I was careful in my opening remarks to say, with regard to these American Companies, that the fact that the hon. Gentleman had acknowledged in his speech that he was personally interested in them proved his thorough honesty and guilelessness, and that he did not, intend to mislead the Committee. I was particularly careful not to make any charge against the hon. Gentleman. I neither did so, nor
  860
  did I intend to do so. But the hon. Gentleman now asks me to do a thing of an entirely different nature, and to disavow an expression of opinion which I have used with regard to parties whom the hon. Gentleman knows, and of whom I confess I know nothing. I think, Mr. Speaker, I was justified in saying what I did. It is notorious that the great bulk of the promoters of public Companies in this City are simply adventurers. ["Oh, oh!"] That is my opinion, and I think I was thoroughly justified in saying that the fact that a Company was promoted in London for the purpose of land-jobbing in Canada proved that its original promoters, whoever they were—and I have not yet been told who they were—were persons of a dishonest character. I simply intended to convey the idea, and I think I was justified in doing so, that the hon. Member for Exeter is the dupe of designing persons, who used his name and high character for the purpose of promoting their dishonest ends.
  Afterwards—
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot help referring, Sir, to that which occurred a moment ago, and I think I may be justified in saying a word or two in regard to the explanation, if it is to be so termed, of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I own I was for a moment perplexed by it, and said to myself, What does this mean? What is it intended to imply? What is the idea of the hon. Member of the privileges of Parliament? And does the hon. Member, who offers an explanation of that kind, think that it can either give any satisfaction to those who are the subjects of it, or that it can by any possibility be regarded as anything but a serious aggravation of the original offence? As I understand the hon. Member, he placed before us prominently two propositions or points. One is that, in his opinion, the promoters of public Companies in this City are generally dishonest. That is a proposition with regard to which I need not say that it may be reasonable or unreasonable, it may be charitable or uncharitable, but from its great breadth and scope, it is hardly capable of being understood as offensive to any particular individual personally. Sweeping charges are sometimes made

  861
  against this House; but if they are made against the entire House, we do not feel warranted in treating them as personal imputations on ourselves individually. But, unfortunately, if I understood the matter rightly, the hon. Member did not stop at that point. He went further, and said of one of the Companies—that with which the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) is connected—that of itself it nearly amounted to a demonstration that those who promoted it were dishonest persons, and it appears that in a former discussion he had applied to them an epithet stronger still. Undoubtedly, that declaration of the hon. Member for Cavan, in my judgment—and I wish to look at it dispassionately—does fix upon the character of the hon. Member for Exeter and of those honourable gentlemen a stigma of the most serious kind. What are the facts as they appear upon the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan himself? The principal fact is that the hon. Member has stated that about those gentlemen he knows nothing. Now, Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I ask is it for the honour of the House—and as a matter deeply concerning the honour of the House, I do not ask it to arrive at a precipitate decision, but I wish to make some impression on the mind of the hon. Member for Cavan himself—I say, is it for the character or honour of the House that it should be permitted to an hon. Member within its walls to stigmatize as dishonest persons gentlemen outside these walls of whom the person so stigmatizing them is obliged at the same time to confess that personally he has no knowledge whatever of them? My opinion, which I think must be that of a majority of those who hear me, is that an Assembly which allows such things to be deliberately stated and persistently adhered to is not sufficiently careful of its own character and reputation, and exposes itself to the possible reproach that it allows its privileges—privileges granted to it and possessed by it solely for purposes of public utility—to be made the vehicles of gross injustice, which might, perhaps, be deserving a much more severe name, as far as the character of the House is concerned.
  MR. NORTHCOTE: After the generous language of the Prime Minister, I feel that my object is entirely achieved. I simply brought the matter forward in
  862
  the interest of my friends, and I am completely satisfied with their vindication. I hope the matter will not proceed further.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—THE EMIGRATION CLAUSE.
  MR. SHAWasked the Prime Minister, Whether he intended to persevere with the Emigration Clause of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, or whether it would be postponed?
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he might, perhaps, ask the right hon. Gentleman, If his attention had been called to a meeting lately held in the city of Kilkenny, at which a resolution was unanimously adopted strongly condemning the Emigration Clause in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and, would he consent to postpone the clause until the sense of Ireland could be taken with regard to it?
  MR. HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of his proceeding with the clause, would mention the exact sum he intended to place at the disposal of the Commissioners for the purposes of emigration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think, Sir, that there would be any advantage in my stating at this moment the exact sum which we may think ourselves justified in proposing for the purpose referred to. If, however, we are pressed, we shall be prepared to do so; but I think the matter had better be allowed to stand over till the proper time. With respect to the meeting at Kilkenny, my attention has not been called to it, nor, with all possible respect to that ancient city and its beautiful site, could I regard a meeting there as a conclusive demonstration of the sentiments of the Irish people. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), no doubt it has reference to, and is entirely justified by, the element of uncertainty which I myself introduced into the debate in respect of the clause. I said, in the course of a previous debate, that we should look with great interest and anxiety for a pretty free manifestation of the sentiments of the Representatives of Ireland on the subject. I consider that we have now obtained that information in an adequate degree; and inasmuch as it was the only point to which I adverted as remaining in order to bring full conviction to our minds,

  863
  my reply is that, undoubtedly, I have derived, and my Colleagues have derived, from the protracted discussion upon this clause a strong conviction that the opinion of the large majority of the Irish Representatives is favourable to the clause. We will, therefore, while paying all due respect to any Amendments which may be suggested in the language of the clause, both adhere to it, and endeavour to procure its acceptance by the Committee at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, in reference to the statement just made by the Prime Minister upon the Emigration Clause, that by the discussions on the clause he had ascertained that a large majority of Irish Members were in favour of the clause, he would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware the Chairman of Committees, in the exercise of his discretion, had persistently, up to the present moment, ruled out of Order any general discussion on the clause? He (Mr. Parnell) had himself been anxious to express his opinion as to the merits of the clause as a whole, but had been prevented. What he now wished to ask the Prime Minister was, whether, if a division should be taken as to the merits of the clause as a whole, and if in the division a majority of the Irish Members present should vote against the clause, he would be prepared to reconsider before the Report the expediency of persisting in the proposal? Inasmuch as no general discussion on the clause had yet taken place, he thought the judgment which the right hon. Gentleman had formed as to the direction of Irish opinion was, to say the least, premature.
  MR. GORST: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I should like to ask whether he has been informed by his Colleagues of what took place while he was absent from the House yesterday—namely, that the Chairman of Committees distinctly ruled speeches made in support of the clause to be in Order, and any speeches made in opposition to the clause to be out of Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House the great irregularity of this discussion. It is being attempted to review the course taken in Committee of this House on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. The House is now supposed to be engaged in asking Questions, and to de-
  864
  bate the proceedings of the Committee would be altogether out of Order.
  MR. PARNELL: I would ask, Sir, as a point of Order, whether the course taken by the Prime Minister, in stating that the opinion of the majority of Irish Members was in favour of the clause, was not a distinct imitation of the attempt you have just deprecated, to review the course of the proceedings in Committee on this clause?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is perhaps due from me to the House that I should make an apology in this matter. I was certainly of opinion that, considering the nature of the case, and considering that a declaration of my own had tended to throw some uncertainty over debates which are prolonged and protracted, a single word from me, not arguing anything, but simply stating that the Government had now arrived at a conviction which they had not arrived at before, it might be for the convenience of the House. That was the whole aim and substance of what I stated. To enter into the reasons of that conviction and the means by which we had arrived at that state of mind would be entirely beyond an indulgence the House might be disposed to grant me, even if you, Sir, would tolerate it from the Chair. Therefore, I must ask the hon. Member to wait until we get into Committee for any further explanations.
  MR. PARNELLagain asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the division on the Emigration Clause should show a majority of Irish Members against it, he would reconsider the question of retaining the clause before the Report?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this is a Question which the hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in putting, if such a case ever arose; but I must say that it is quite impossible for me to give the hon. Member an answer now as to what we would do in a contingency which we have ceased to anticipate.
  MR. CALLANasked whether it was competent to discuss the merits of a clause before the Amendments were moved?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting to me a Question which should more properly be put to the Chairman.
  In reply to Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was never intended to interfere with the free choice

  865
  of the emigrant to proceed to any part of the world he might wish.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH—MR. BRADLAUGH.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask, Whether it is true, as stated in the daily papers, that Mr. Bradlaugh has written to you, saying that he is to present himself at the Bar of the House for the purpose of taking the Oath on the 3rd of August next, regardless of any physical force that may be used against him?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have received a notification from Mr. Bradlaugh to the effect that he intends to present himself at the Table of the House; but I cannot say from recollection whether it contains the precise particulars stated by the noble Lord. I may say that a similar notice has been served upon the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms; but I do not consider it necessary either to lay the notice before the House or to take any action upon it.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-SEVENTH NIGHT.]
  [Progress 13th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART V.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND BY TENANTS, RE CLAMATION OF LAND, AND EMIGRATION.
  Reclamation of Land and Emigration.
  Clause 26 (Emigration).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "on behalf of the Dominion of Canada or any Province thereof or."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Before the Question is put, I beg to say that I have handed in an Amendment which will take precedence of it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question I have put is in possession of the Committee. Therefore the hon. Member cannot do what he proposes.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should like to put a question as to a statement which appeared in The Echo of last night, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had been in negotiation with the Government of Canada on the subject of emigration to that country. He wished to know whether that statement was true? He thought the question fairly arose on the Amendment before the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was glad the Chief Secretary for Ireland had seen his way to propose this Amendment, because it took the sting out of the objection to the clause. He should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to going a little further, and not only strike out the words "Dominion of Canada," but also the word "British?" The object of the clause was to assist emigration; therefore, it was extremely undesirable that they should maintain the words "British Colonies" in it, as implying that these places had advantages over every other country in the world.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is discussing that which forms a distinct Amendment a little lower down.
  MR. BIGGAR: I asked a question just now, but have received no reply.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not the fact that any understanding has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion of Canada which would in any degree approach the character of such negotiation. An intimation was conveyed to Her Majesty's Government, and, I think, by a Gentleman connected with the Dominion of Canada, of the desire of the Canadian Government that emigration should be promoted to that country; but the intimation was in general terms, and it in no way had reference to the terms of this Amendment. My answer to the hon. Member's question must be distinctly in the negative.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that at that stage he might say a few words which, if the right hon. Gentleman would answer them, would save all further trouble. He and other hon. Members had no objection to the clause stand-

  867
  ing as a clause to assist emigration, because he thought that such a provision might in certain cases be eminently useful; but he would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the main object of the clause was to remedy the congested state of the Irish population. Could he not, therefore, consent to enable assistance to be given, on the production of proper security, to persons to go to any part of the world they might choose to emigrate to? If the Government gave a satisfactory answer, or if the right hon. Gentleman entertained the same view as he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did, it might save the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of trouble.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that all these points can be raised on a subsequent Amendment.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he admitted that was so; but the question came in as the consequence of this Amendment. He thought it desirable that they should know what they were discussing, and to what this clause would lead.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, later on, we shall be able to show that the wording of the clause does not confine us in any manner whatever as to the Company or body with which we may enter into arrangements for the purpose of emigration, or as to the quarter to which emigration may go.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) seemed to speak on behalf of some other Members. He (Mr. Biggar) did not know who the hon. Member represented in that matter; but certainly a substantial portion of the Irish Members were opposed to any Government scheme of emigration whatever.
  Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had put in an Amendment, which came in after these words, and left the clause in a general state, so that assistance might be given to anybody, on security to be approved of by the Government, to enable persons to emigrate to any part of the world.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 15, to strike out all the words from the word "on," to the word "satisfied," in line 19, inclusive.—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that if the Prime Minister could suggest any other words which would carry out his object, and would bring them up on Report, he should be very glad to withdraw his proposal.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Without examining minutely into the terms of the clause, I should say that the words contained in it would enable any foreign Government to appoint a public body to arrange for emigration from Ireland to its territories. If any foreign State chose to enter into this matter, the first step it would take would be to appoint some body or organ for carrying on the negotiations. Of course, no step of this kind would be taken by any Department of a foreign State.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Amendment was altogether fallacious. As the clause would stand, if they kept within the lines accepted by the Prime Minister, they would have one particular class of Governments mentioned, and another particular class of Governments practically excluded, that exclusion being as well defined and intelligible as the inclusion of the other class of Companies or bodies. They would exclude the United States expressly by the terms in which they included the Governments of our own Dependencies. The right hon. Gentleman said that foreign Governments could put forward public bodies; but what was the meaning of that statement? If it were wrong for a Government to take upon itself the duty of an emigration agent, and if it were necessary for a Government, instead of doing this work itself, to perform the duty through a public Company, why not leave the Canadian Government to work through the medium of a Company as well as the United States? There was no use in beating about the bush in this way. Let the Prime Minister, or any other Minister of the Crown, get up, and say whether it was intended to give a preference to the British Dominions over every other part of the world. Let them say this, for the Committee had a right to demand frankness and candour from Her Majesty's Government on this matter. He need not tell the greatest financier in the country that the guarantee of a State was a very

  869
  different thing to the guarantee of a Company. The guarantee of a solvent State would carry with it in the money market an amount of security and confidence that no public Company could carry, no matter how high its position or how solvent it might be. Accordingly, if they had on one side the guarantee of a Government, and on the other side the guarantee of private Companies, it was obvious they were giving an immense advantage to the country which acted through its Government. Let the Government say plainly what they intended to do, and do not let them try by a side wind, and by omissions, to do a thing of this kind.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: What hon. Gentlemen desire is this, that we should insert the words "on behalf of a foreign State."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: That is not the Amendment before us. It is to strike out certain words.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It would be just the same—to insert words in the clause giving power to contract with a foreign State. The clause is so worded that if there be any responsible public body for making arrangements for emigration, the Commissioners have power to negotiate with it. That would fulfil the object hon. Members have in view. It is a notorious fact that almost every one of our Colonies, especially Colonies inhabited by our own race, are more or less anxious to have their numbers recruited from the United Kingdom. Therefore, we take it for granted that, with them, some arrangement might be made. We have no authority for saying, and it would be presumptuous to suppose, that similar arrangements could be made with foreign States.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would be very desirable if power were given to the Commissioners to allow emigration to countries to which Irishmen would like to go, if they were to emigrate at all; and he therefore thought it would be desirable that they should give power to the Commission to make arrangements with foreign States. The land open for settlement in America was held in three ways. It was held by States Governments; it was held by the Federal Government; and it was held by speculative Companies—in many cases Railway Companies. These Railway Companies had obtained large grants of
  870
  land in alternate sections along their lines of railway, and they offered these sections for settlement to the emigrants who might demand them. But the land that had been obtained by Railway Companies was not open to settlement on the same terms or conditions, or in the same way as the land which was in the possession of either the United States Government, or, in some cases, in the possession of the States Governments. The land which belonged to Railway Companies, and with regard to which Companies, of course, could deal with the Commission under the proposal of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, was land for which they had very often given some value, either in the shape of money, or in the shape of making a railway through it as the condition of the grant. All these Companies exacted a price, more or less, for permission to locate on this land; but it was not so with regard to the land in the possession of the United States Government. It was open to a person to locate upon it and cultivate it to the extent of 160 acres, free of all rent or charge. There was a great deal of this description of land still in the hands of the Federal Government of the United States, and still open for location. There was land of this kind along all the lines of railway, of which the Federal Government had retained every alternate section. These alternate sections were open for location, free of all rent, to the extent of 160 acres, by every body who came over and would consent to live upon it, build upon it, and improve it. But as to the alternate sections belonging to the Railway Companies, these were either let for speculation, or, in other cases, had passed out of the hands of the Railway Companies and had got into the hands of other Companies, who held land for speculative purposes. The Railway Companies charge so many dollars per acre to the emigrant or other settler who settled down upon the land. Now, he felt convinced, with regard to the land in the hands of the States authorities, that there were many State Governments that would be extremely glad to make arrangements with the Land Commission for the purpose of taking out emigrants from Ireland. As an example, he might mention the State of Virginia. He knew for a fact that that State was exceedingly anxious to bring emigrants out; and it

  871
  would be most desirable to allow them to do so under the terms of this clause, because the State of Virginia had a climate peculiarly suitable to Irish people. The winter climate—which Irish people feared most in America—was in Virginia very similar to that which prevailed in their own country. Well, this State Government, he was sure, and he did not doubt that other State Governments would be anxious to make some arrangement with the Land Commission for the purpose of setting on foot an emigration of the character he had indicated, and in many cases they would be able to give grants of land to the settlers. He would therefore ask the Prime Minister to allow this clause to be amended in such a way as to make such transations possible, otherwise they would shut out the right of anybody in the United States to avail themselves of this clause, except the speculative Companies, which would be sure to charge a settler so many dollars per acre for the land occupied.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to point out what this Amendment is. The Amendment has been handed in in manuscript, and, if it is accepted, the clause will read thus—
  "The Land Commission may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, enter into agreements with any person, or body of persons, having authority to contract for an advance by the Commission by way of loan, out of moneys in their hands, of such sums as the Commission may think it desirable to expend in promoting emigration from Ireland."
  The clause, in this way, does not say anything about Foreign States.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It seems to me that the words "any person, or body of persons, having authority to contract" for an advance from the Commission are very vague. What is "authority to contract?" Everyone, without this stipulation in an Act of Parliament, has authority to contract for himself if he chooses. But, as the Amendment has been moved, it enables me to say what are the intentions of the Government, and how we propose the clause to work. The Committee has had a declaration already from my right hon. Friend, and now it has another from myself, that it would be entirely unusual, and it might, perhaps, lay the British Legislature open to rebuff or severe criticism, were
  872
  we to name, without invitation, foreign States in a clause of this kind—were we to offer them an advance of money. That is our proposition on the one side. The Government, however, do not at all desire to prevent transactions of the kind described by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if there should be a disposition to enter into them on the part of foreign States. Nay, more. I will go one step further and say there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to give preference to one State or Colony over another State or Colony. There is no intention, either expressed or implied, in the clause that people shall be allowed to go to one Colony on more favourable terms, and to another on less favourable terms. We are not here to promote the welfare of any Colony at the expense of the emigrants. We want to do what is the best for the emigrants; and, therefore, the whole question resolves itself into one of verbal expression. Let me suppose a case. Suppose a State such as those referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were to desire to enter into some arrangement of this kind with the Land Commission, the first thing the State would do would be to constitute some Corporation adequately guaranteed and authorized, and the Corporation so constituted would either directly, or, if it were permitted by the Constitution of the United States, through the Government of the United States, enter into communication with us. It may be a public Company, or it may not; but, at any rate, it would be a public body, and as such would be covered by the words of the clause. The Commission will have power to negotiate with them to make any arrangement that may appear satisfactory.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had no desire to go further with the Amendment, after that statement from the Prime Minister; but great objection was taken to naming specifically one State without naming others. His proposal was merely to strike out certain words, and he had not as yet proposed to supply any words of his own. He had prepared some words that would make the clause read according to his view; but he did not bring them forward now. He merely wished to point out the words to which he took exception. He would

  873
  still urge upon the Government to assure the Committee that they would not indicate in the clause itself any particular State or any particular Colony, so that they would not appear to give precedence or priority under this Act to any one destination for emigration over another.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he thought the words of the clause would imply any public Company or body within the British Dominions, and he would suggest that the words "within or not within" a British Colony should be inserted. He would point out to his hon. Friends opposite that their object all along had been to limit this emigration scheme; but now they were seeking to introduce Amendments which, he was afraid, would give a great stimulus to emigration. They were really advancing emigration; and he viewed with great alarm the extension of facilities for going to America. They could not spare the people from his part of Ireland, and Irish Members ought not to be anxious to get rid of their countrymen.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that the declaration of the Government was most satisfactory, and that the question had now resolved itself into one of mere phraseology. He certainly should recommend that no apparent preference should be given to Canada or any other place. There was a mountainous region running through the Western States of America, where there was both temperate summer and winter, and it would be desirable that people should be allowed to emigrate there if they thought fit. He should be very sorry to see any words retained which would seem to give any kind of preference to a British Colony or Dependency.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he should like to correct an impression in the mind of the Prime Minister. He did not formally withdraw his Amendment; but he said he would have no objection to withdraw it. He would not encumber the discussion with the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to accept its principle. Well, the right hon. Gentleman had done so; but he still wished to impress upon him that in Ireland they were very much in the habit of being guided by the tone as well as by the words of a measure. If reference to the British Colonies was
  874
  retained in the Bill, and no other States were mentioned, it would be looked upon as giving a priority, which he knew was not the Prime Minister's intention. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the words general, including emigration to a British Colony or to any other part of the world. If that were done he would withdraw the Amendment, which he merely maintained because it was as good a proposal as any other on which to discuss this matter.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the best plan would be to have no limitation whatever. They were on the point of establishing a Commission which was to be chosen from some of the best men in the United Kingdom, and this Commission would be responsible not only to the Government, but to the country. Well, if they appointed such a Commission, why should they not intrust them with discretion and every power necessary for making the arrangements for emigration? He did not support this clause now; in fact, he rather thought that it would be desirable to put words in line 13, after the word "Treasury"—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That part of the clause is passed.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he merely wished to point out that which was necessary to make his argument clear. They should say in the clause that—
  "The Land Commission may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, advance such sums as they think desirable to expend in promoting emigration from Ireland."
  If any States or countries whatever were named in the Bill, it was possible that other countries and States would imagine that they were excluded. It was possible that in a few years' time it might be undesirable for emigration to take place to the country that had been named. There might be some alteration in the laws of nature, or some alteration in the position of the country, which would render it undesirable to send emigrants to it. Let them trust the people they were going to appoint—let them leave the matter entirely in their hands.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that their point should be to enable the people as far as possible to go to the United States of America. The reason was that, in the first place,

  875
  they believed the people could get on better there than in Canada. Then, a great number of the friends and families of intending emigrants had already preceded them to the United States, and it would be a great advantage for them to go to a country where there were friends and relatives to meet and help them. Talking about emigration to Canada and the United States, he had just received a Return, issued in June, with regard to the number of emigrants which had left Liverpool. The total number of emigrants leaving in the month to which the Return referred was 26,638. Of that number 22,565 were going to the United States, 4 were going to Australia, 193 were going to South America, 7 were going to the East Indies, 10 to the West Indies, 25 to China, and 31 to Africa, so that they had not a single emigrant going to Canada. That, he thought, was the very strongest reason why they should not retain any special reference to Canada in the clause.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, hon. Members opposite objected that the clause as it stood would give a preference to one country over another; but the whole argument of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power) was in favour of a special preference being given to a particular country. The hon. Member had distinctly stated that the object his Friends had in view was to strike out words from the clause which, in their opinion, might possibly operate against people emigrating to the United States, which was the single place to which they wished them to go.
  MR. WARTONproposed the insertion of words to embrace "any foreign nation or British Colony, or any State, or district of such nation or Colony."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think we have a right to take it for granted that any foreign Power wishes to borrow money from us. On the other hand, we do not wish to appear to give preference either to Canada or the United States, or any country or district whatever. If there be a desire—and I think there can be no doubt that there is—to arrive at a point at which we can have a fair discussion, I would throw out the suggestion that we should shorten matters a great deal if both sides of the Committee were to consider what our view was in bringing the clause forward. We do not wish to point specially
  876
  to any Colony or to any State; and our view, perhaps, might be better carried out by striking out, not so many words as the hon. Member for Youghal suggests, because that would leave us in a position of neglecting to say who the Companies or bodies are to act in behalf of, but such words as would make the clause run in this way—
  "Having authority to contract on behalf of any country or public body in whose constitution the Land Commission shall have confidence."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion unconditionally, and should be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. R. Power) had been misunderstood. He had not desired to exhibit any special preference for America; but all he wished was that words should be taken out which seemed to give an advantage to one country over another. His hon. Friend had merely quoted facts to show that if the Irish people had their choice they would go to the United States instead of Canada. So far as he (Mr. Leamy) was concerned, he would much rather see the Land Commission deal with the agent of a State, whether British or foreign, than with the agent of a private Company. It was said—"Why should you mention a foreign State when you do not know whether it would be agreeable to such State to be mentioned in the Act?" But in 11 & 12 Vict. power was given to advance money to send out emigrants to Canada "or any foreign State." Why had Parliament put in the words "any foreign State" there in that Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the words had only been inserted to enable people to go to any foreign State if they desired it.
  MR. LEAMYsaid that was true; but an emigrant would not go to a foreign State if that State would not take him. He wished to see the words "any foreign State" in the clause, because Irishmen would have a great deal of confidence in an agent appointed by the United States, and they did not know whether their countrymen would be safe in the hands of an agent of a public Company. Public Companies would not take out emigrants without making a profit by the transaction. They would try to make as much as they could out of these poor

  877
  people, and would not consider anyone's interest but their own.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Member will allow us to strike out these words, he can then bring forward any proposal he thinks desirable.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the proposal of the Government removed, to a considerable extent, the objection of himself and his Friends. As long as they left those words in, it would be taken as a sort of direction to the Land Commission to send the tide of emigration as much as possible to the British Colonies. He was not at all sure that the expression a "public body" would comprise a State Government. Of course, the Prime Minister had better information and better knowledge as to the constitution of the United States than he had; but he did not think it was the practice in America for a State Government, or a State Legislature, to form itself into a public Company. He had never heard of any such a thing being done. Public Companies were usually formed for the purpose of profit, and they applied, as was the ease in this country, for Acts authorizing their formation. But he should not think that an American State would be at all likely to have a public Company under its control for the purpose of promoting emigration. If the Government would allow the clause to run in this way it would meet any remaining objection he had on this point—"to any Government, public body, or public Company."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, if these words were struck out there could be no doubt that the words "public body" would include a State Government. A "public body" was put in the clause in contrast to "public Company," and possibly it would obviate still further any objection there might be if the words "public body" were put before the words "public Company." There could be no doubt then that a "public body" was something quite different to "public Company."
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he saw very great reasons why there should be an etiquette observed in dealing with foreign Governments in this matter. It was one thing to lend money to a Board of Guardians to enable them to assist a person to go to any country in the world; but it was quite a different thing in an Act of Parliament to offer to lend money
  878
  to foreign Governments. Some of them might say—"We don't want to borrow money from Great Britain;" and he would, therefore, suggest, as the matter had become merely one of a phrase, that they should use the words "public authority."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: What we want is that, without appearing to set forth that we suppose foreign Governments are going to borrow money from us, we should give power to the Land Commission to arrange for emigration to take place to places where it may be best for the emigrants to go to. No doubt, as has been pointed out by an hon. Member opposite, it would be as well, as they have so many relations in the United States, that many of these Irish emigrants should be allowed to go there. Suppose we put in these words—"having authority to contract on behalf of any public body or public Company." ["No, no!"] If hon. Members object to it, they can take a division on the point at the proper time. We are advised, by those who are well informed on the matter, that that would cover a State of America; but if there were found to be any reasonable doubt about this, we pledge ourselves, at a future stage, to amend the clause.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that when he lived in New York there was a body of Commissioners of Emigration organized by the State. There was the same in the State of Massachusetts, and he believed that both these organizations would be included in the words "public body." The States need not be named at all.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSpointed out that they had committed an error of this kind as to the word "Government" in an Act they had passed—the Extradition Treaty—for securing peace and concord amongst nations, and the unfortunate result had been to cause difficulty between our Government and the Government of the United States. When the Act was framed they did not think for a moment that they would be interfering with the amour propre of the United States; but, seemingly, the United States had taken a very different view of the words they had used to that taken by themselves. He mentioned this only to confirm the right hon. Gentleman below him in his suggestion for leaving out these words. He quite concurred with

  879
  what the last speaker had said—that they would find in every country where they were at all likely to transfer a portion of their population a body far below, in point of power, the Government of the State—Commissioners of Emigration, for instance—that would be quite adequate for their purpose.
  MR. DAWSONthought they were now coming to a very narrow issue on the matter. He would point out to the Prime Minister that this Emigration Clause ought to be free from all commercial aspects. A commercial tinge had been given to it which it never ought to have had, as it was essentially a social matter. If they left out the word "Company" altogether it would deprive the clause of this commercial aspect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Might I suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Dawson), who, I believe, wishes to facilitate the progress of this measure, that we should take these questions separately? We wish now to omit from the clause anything which points specially to any Colony or State. That will be moved if the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) will withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I have withdrawn it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not withdrawn yet.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: On its withdrawal I shall propose to omit the words after "any" in line 15 to "any" in line 17, and to insert "on behalf of any public body or." Then the question whether we should insert "public Company" or not can be discussed. Undoubtedly, we are all agreed that if we amend the clause in this form, "public body" ought to come first.
  MR. WARTONthought the Amendment would read rather awkwardly, because the word "body" they had already passed in line 14.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the objection of the Irish Members had been to the preferential word "British;" and he thought the difficulty might be met by making the clause read thus—
  "The Land Commission may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, enter into any agreements with any person or body of persons having authority to contract on behalf of any Colony or Dependency, or any State or other district, or on behalf of any public Company or other public body, &c."
  880
  If this were done, it could not be said that they were offending the amour propre of any State, because then they would not have given a preference to any British Possession.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: We must take care that we do not get into a mere verbal discussion. What we have suggested we really believe carries out the view of both sides of the Committee, and I do not think we can do more than say that if, on examination, there appears to be any legal objection to our proposal, we will take care to amend it. We do not like to leave in the word "State," because we think that if it means anything, it means a Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Now, I move to omit the words of which I have spoken.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, to omit all the words from "any" in line 15 to "any" inclusive in line 17, for the purpose of inserting "public body or."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLproposed to amend the Amendment by omitting the word "or."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was disposed to question seriously the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) that "public body" included a solvent State. He should like to hear a precedent quoted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will now move to insert the word "or," in order to raise the whole question as to the words which are to follow. I trust the Committee will not strike out the words "public Company," because I think that if there is to be a particular plan, Com-

  881
  panies ought to be a party to it. Any hon. Member who considers that the Government or the Land Commission would lend itself to merely speculative Companies of land jobbers, or persons who would tempt emigrants to go out to places where they would encounter great difficulties and be very badly treated, ought to vote against the clause altogether. If I thought that people of this kind would be treated with, I should not have proposed the clause; or if someone else had proposed it I should have voted against it. I think that, firstly, the Commission; secondly, the Government; thirdly, public opinion; and, fourthly, the censure of this House, would be a sufficient safeguard against any such speculative jobbing in this matter as some hon. Members seem to apprehend.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the word "or."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that if the Government pressed that Amendment, he was sure it would occupy a considerable amount of the time of the Committee, and he doubted whether the question was one which it was worth spending a large amount of time on. There was this objection to it, that Emigration Companies might not hold the very highest character. He had never heard that they possessed the best possible character, he had never heard any good of them, and certainly they did not possess that great reputation which would justify the Committee in expressing approval of existing Emigration Companies in this clause. But there was one other objection to it. He thought that by sticking in these words "public Companies" they invited the formation of Companies. After the debate that had taken place, if they insisted upon inserting these words, it would mean that they would look upon the formation of Companies for the purpose of emigration as a necessary and important step. That would not be a very fortunate result, and they should guard against misconstruction.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock should have intimated that a great
  882
  deal of time will be taken up by this Amendment. If this really is an Assembly for the transaction of Business, after all the hours we have spent on this clause it will be a most extraordinary thing if we cannot decide in the course of a quarter of an hour whether or not we will insert these words "as to public Companies." Such prophecies as that of the noble Lord have a considerable tendency to fulfil themselves. Under the clause no speculative Company, and no Company which is regardless of what is due to the emigrants themselves, can possibly be contracted with without bringing the Commission and the Treasury under the censure of the House. Long before the House had the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord at its Councils, there were cases where Companies played not only a most conspicuous, but a most honourable and important part in the conduct of colonization, and made their mark in history. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The South Sea Company, for instance.] Oh, that was before the noble Lord's time; and I do not want to go beyond that—it was before my time also. But let the noble Lord, whose historical views are so comprehensive, condescend to take notice of what happened between the time of the South Sea Company and the present day. If he thinks that New Zealand is a Colony which does credit to the Crown—and certainly it stands in the first rank of our Dependencies for its character—it was distinctly to a Company, and nothing but a Company, that we owe its formation into a Colony. The New Zealand Company was undoubtedly a commercial body; but it also contemplated moral and social ends, and it occupied that Colony by its own agency before it was taken up by the Government.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, supposing, as he hoped would be the case, the majority of the emigrants went to the United States, there was a society in New York which would interest itself in them, but which would be excluded by the exclusion of "Companies." He referred to the Catholic Colonization Society. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: That would come in as a "public body."] The association was a public Company, and was formed for the purpose of assisting emigrants that came out to America, especially Irish emigrants. This

  883
  Company, whose operations had the sanction and support of the Roman Catholic Bishops, had bought a large quantity of the best of the land in the Western States, and he looked to the agency of this and kindred societies for working a great deal of good.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish absolutely to prevent the Commission from negotiating with a public Company; he merely objected to their indicating in the Bill that Companies were the particular bodies to negotiate with. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England (Sir Farrer Herschell) whether the term "public body" did not include "public Company?" It appeared to him that a "public Company" might be a "public body," although every "public body" was not a "public Company." It reminded him of the old saying that every cow was an animal, but that every animal was not a cow.
  MR. E. STANHOPEurged that the Committee should be allowed to get on with the Bill, as they were evidently now really fighting with a shadow. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had no objection to public Companies interesting themselves in emigration; but he did not think it should be put in the clause, as "Companies" were included in "public bodies." He (Mr. Stanhope) did not agree with the hon. Member; he thought it was desirable that Companies should be plainly included, because it was probable that some of the best effects of the clause would be worked out in that way.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)thought it was quite open to argument that the term "public body" did include a "public Company;" but he could not say that the question must necessarily always be decided one way. It was one of those things upon which a great deal might be said on either side, and it would not be safe to leave out the double phrase, if it was intended that the clause should apply to a "public Company."
  MR. CALLANsaid, a great deal of difficulty could be obviated if, before the word "Company," they inserted the words "non-dividend paying." He had two Companies in his mind at the present moment. There was that Society to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Colthurst) had referred,
  884
  which had not been established, as many Companies were, for the purpose of securing dividends. It was a Company formed by some benevolent capitalists in America who wished to colonize certain States on certain conditions. The other Company of which he was thinking was one got up in Dublin by a patriotic gentleman, who had made himself very prominent in connection with the condition of Meath, from which county the population had almost been exterminated; but the object of this Company had been to secure a large dividend. He did not think facilities should be given to a "public body" which came forward merely for the sake of making money out of an emigration transaction. A great deal of their objection would be taken away if the Government would intimate that they would agree to an Amendment, stating that one of the conditions upon which a Company should be treated with should be that they should allow each family a free grant of land.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the question they had really to consider was the responsibility that would attach to the Commission. If they thought that the Land Commission would deal only with Companies of a high character they might safely intrust these powers to it; but if they had no confidence in the Commission, they should not leave it to them to deal with the whole matter. If Parliament had confidence in their Commission they should give them power to deal either with States or public Companies, whether dividend-paying or not. The sole matter for consideration was the confidence that could be reposed in the Commission.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, it was a very strange thing to be asked to repose confidence in a body that did not exist, and the composition of which they knew nothing about. If the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was to be one of the Commissioners, no doubt they would be able to repose confidence in the body; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could have shown the Committee the difference between a "Company" and a "public body" he would have smoothed matters very much. It had been said that they ought to get on quickly with the measure, and he perfectly agreed with them; but it must be remembered that this was about the

  885
  most important clause in the Bill, and they must be careful how they worded it. They were establishing a traffic in human beings in Ireland, and they must use every caution that they did not invite a number of speculative Emigration Companies to be set up in Ireland. The Prime Minister had said that if the Companies failed in their duty their conduct could be brought before that House; but hon. Members would recollect that exactly the same thing was said with regard to cases which might arise under the Coercion Act. The Irish Members were told that they would have every opportunity of bringing the cases of persons arrested before the House; but, notwithstanding that many persons had been thrown into prison, the majority of whom he believed to be respectable men, not a single opportunity had been given to Irish Members of speaking upon their cases. Therefore, he did not think the argument of the Prime Minister would hold. There could be little doubt that one effect of the passing of the Bill would be that many tenants in Ireland who had sons would send them to study the law, and that many others would send their sons into the emigration offices that would spring up in various parts of the country. For his own part, he did not see how the House could possibly control the action of these Companies; and, therefore, he trusted that the words "public Company" would be left out.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, if it was meant by the Government that the term "public Company" was included in the more general term "public body," they took up a position which would, so to speak, stink in the nostrils of the Irish people.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, when it was asked whether a public Company would come within the term "public body," it was necessary to have regard to the tribunal who might have to decide upon the question. It was impossible to predict with any certainty what would be decided; and, therefore, it would not be safe for him to say that the term "public body" included "public Company."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, if the term "public body" stood alone, people would be saying that it did not include "States."
  MR. LEAMYobserved, that there was no doubt that the term "public body"
  886
  included States. He assured the Committee that he looked upon this clause with the greatest concern, inasmuch as it was one of the most important in the Bill. He and his hon. Friends had a right to take care that their fellow-countrymen who emigrated should be in the hands of people in whom reliance could be placed. They knew that as soon as the Bill passed into law Emigration Companies would spring up like mushrooms, all ready to make a profit out of the Government scheme, and they were told that the Land Commission would take care that they were good Companies, and that the Treasury would be responsible to Parliament on account of them. Undoubtedly, the Treasury would be responsible; but it would be when the mischief was done; and when, perhaps, 100 families had been destroyed or consigned to misery. Then, and not till then, would Irish Members be able to make their charge, and when they did make it, the result would be that a large majority would go into the Lobby against them, and so the matter would end.
  MR. PARNELLwished to point out, with reference to what the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had said on the question whether the term "public body" included "public Company," that his doubt on this matter must be very small indeed, because if he looked at the wording of the after part of the clause he would see that the draftsman held the opinion that the words "public Company" implied "public body."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 17: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 304.)
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to prevent land-jobbers and speculators trading on the misery of the country. In this clause, the Government, in effect, said to the public Company—"If you wish to engage in this trade of taking Irishmen to America, give us security and we will advance you money out of which you will earn large profits for yourselves." This was the first time he had ever heard of such a proposal. There were, no doubt, benevolent public Companies in America, who carried people to America and settled them upon the land, and who ultimately received back

  887
  the money they advanced, but who paid no dividend to the shareholders. It was not against those that his Amendment was directed, but against those who would get possession of the public money in order to make a profit out of emigration, and pay a dividend to their shareholders. If the Catholic Colonization Company of New York were a benevolent Company, and did not pay dividends, it would be entitled to the confidence of the Irish people, and to the name it had assumed; but if it were a trading Company, then he hoped that this discussion would show, in all its naked deformity, the purpose for which that Company had been formed. He certainly objected to any advance of public money being made for a scheme which had been condemned by every Irish authority—by the Bessborough Commission, and by every qualified person who had spoken on the subject of Irish distress during the last five years, and would move an Amendment in order to prevent it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 18, after "Company," insert "incorporated for co-operative or benevolent purposes, and not working for profit."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he failed to understand the meaning of the hon. Member when he spoke of Companies formed for trading purposes being exhibited in all their "naked deformity."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he alluded to Companies which came here under the guise of benevolence. He had spoken of the Catholic Colonization Company of New York in that sense, if it was a trading Company.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Company mentioned by the hon. Member was one of which he know nothing whatever; but it certainly did not come here at all in any guise. With regard to the naked deformity of these trading Companies, was the hon. Member so ignorant of the great social movement of the present day as not to know that one of its characteristics was to invite persons to enter into associations for purposes mainly benevolent, running risks, but not making a total sacrifice of their means, yet content with dividends of a very limited amount? It was too much to say that
  888
  any Company, which for the most benevolent purpose might desire to conduct the work of emigration, should not be permitted to enjoy what Parliament was willing to give to carry out a good and valuable end, unless it was prepared to make a sacrifice of the whole of the capital invested in it. It was only reasonable that they should cover themselves against loss to a certain extent. Therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be persisted in; but, if so, he trusted that the Committee would put a negative upon it.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that if every Company that paid a dividend was to be excluded, the Catholic Colonization of New York would be among the number. This was an immense organization of small proprietors, and its capital consisted of the earnings of the working classes. It paid a moderate dividend on its capital, was worked on co-operative principles, and performed what was admitted to be good works, while there was not a Catholic Archbishop or Bishop in the United States who was not on the Directorate.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment; but he should afterwards move to insert the words "incorporated for benevolent purposes, and not paying a dividend exceeding 4 per cent." He thought that would be sufficient to exclude Companies of a speculative character.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 18, after the word "Company," to insert "incorporated for benevolent purposes, and not paying a dividend exceeding 4 per cent."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the Amendment would be inoperative. It would be impossible to hold a Company guilty of paying a future dividend.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 18, to leave out "or other public bodies."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question, "That the words 'or other public body' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words struck, out accordingly.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 18, after the word "Company," to insert "or person or persons with whose."—(Mr. Callan.)
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment would have a ludicrous effect, as the clause would run—"Persons with whose constitution and security the Land Commission may be satisfied."
  MR. CALLANsaid, if the Chairman had read further down, the connection of the words would have been apparent, and he (Mr. Callan) would have been spared the Chairman's witticism. He had given notice to leave out the word "constitution," so that the clause might read—"Public company or person or persons with whose security the Land Commission may be satisfied."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am desirous of calling the attention of the Committee to a point of Order, and I wish to do so in the way of a suggestion to the hon. Member (Mr. Callan). The Chairman, in the execution of his duty of seeing that the Amendments of hon. Members make sense, suggested to the hon. Member that his Amendment was open to objection on that ground, and the hon. Member, in the course of his explanation—if I did not hear rightly I shall be glad to be corrected—referring to this, used the words—"I might have been spared your witticism." I submit to the Committee that this is not an expression which the hon. Member ought to be permitted to make use of, as applied to the Chairman.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he believed at the time the word "criticism" was used by the hon. Member (Mr. Callan). The right hon. Gentleman, however, probably heard more correctly. If he had caught the word "witticism," he should have called the hon. Member to Order.
  MR. A. MOOREsubmitted that the Prime Minister was not in Order in drawing attention to these words some minutes after they were uttered. He distinctly heard the hon. Member say "criticism."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I made an intentional delay, not wishing to interrupt the hon. Member while in a condition of uncertainty as to the reading of his Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will tell us what he did say; and if he used the word "witticism," he will, no doubt, see the propriety of apologizing.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had used the word "witticism." It escaped him at the moment, in reference to the observation of the Chairman upon his Amendment, which, but for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, would have read consistently with the rest of the clause. He certainly regretted having used the expression, and begged to withdraw it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that one effect of the adoption of the Amendment would be, though it was a very unlikely thing to occur, that "any person or persons" wishing to get rid of the tenants of a particular estate or district might enter into the necessary agreement with the Commissioners for the purpose. He could not conceive that the hon. Member had any serious intention of thus extending the scope of the clause.
  MR. LEAMYwas quite at a loss to understand why a man wishing to emigrate should have to go to any public Company at all. Why should not the Land Commission advance the money to the individual upon being satisfied with the security? If they were satisfied, why should not the individual treat with them direct?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the sense of the clause was still obscured by the Amendment of the hon. Member. If it was the desire of hon. Members to extend the clause to persons desirous of assisting emigration, let a proposal be made for that purpose in a separate clause; but do not let it be attempted by incorporating with the clause sentences which could lead to nothing but confusion. The Laud Commission was not authorized within the sense and meaning of the clause to advance money in a personal sense to any public body or public Company. It was necessary that the Land Commission should be satisfied, first, with the constitution of the public body or Company, and next with the security offered, and he entreated the Committee not to withdraw these limitations.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that under the clause as he read it, having regard to the word "constitution," the Land Commission would have power to inquire into the prospectus of the Company, and give preference to a Company engaged in Canadian emigration business over

  891
  one whose business was the carrying on of emigration to the United States.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if the Amendment were inserted the clause would run in a way the effect of which, he believed, was hardly contemplated by the hon. Member—that was to say, as follows:—
  "The Land Commission may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, enter into agreements with any person or body of persons having authority to contract on behalf of any public body or public company or person or persons."
  That meant that the Land Commission might make an agreement with a person having power to contract on the part of another person. It was bringing in a single individual.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, as the clause stood at present the constitution of the Company and the security were the only things required to be guaranteed; but he desired that some further security should be given for the protection of the emigrants by providing for their employment and settlement. The Amendment he was about to propose might be met with the general objection that it was too much to ask that the Land Commission should regulate the emigration which took place. But this regulation of emigration he pointed out would not be inconsistent with the Amendment of the Government a little lower down on the Paper, which, to a certain extent, proposed to regulate emigration. Therefore, the only question between the Government and himself was whether their form of words was preferable to his own. He ventured to think his words were preferable to those of the Government; and, therefore, he asked that the Commission should satisfy themselves that these Companies were able to perform their duty before they entered into an agreement with them, of providing for the emigrants.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 18, leave out the word "and," and insert "powers to employ, house, and settle the emigrants, and."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that these words were unnecessary. It
  892
  was the intention of the Government to include in the agreements a provision for the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the words of the right hon. Gentleman were by no means sufficient for the purpose he had in view. Besides which, he desired to raise the question at the earliest moment possible. The phrase "reception of the emigrants" might mean anything or nothing, and would be of no use to the emigrant if the agent was not inclined to send him on to the place where his labour would be of use. What he wanted was something more than the reception of the emigrant. Three things were required—first, that the Company should be able to afford proper employment; next, proper housing; and, thirdly, that they should be able to settle the emigrant. He assumed that the Government had some idea in their minds of what should be done with the emigrants who were taken away from Ireland—that it was not their wish merely to get them out of the country, but that they were anxious that some care should be taken of them on the other side of the Atlantic; and, therefore, he concluded they could have no objection to the insertion of words for that purpose. The words of his Amendment might be regarded as too detailed, or they might be objected to as showing a certain amount of jealousy in respect of the clause, which, to his mind, was certainly objectionable. Well, he did not think he and his Colleagues could be too jealous with regard to its provisions; and he believed, so far as their general objection was concerned, it remained as strong as ever, their whole object now being to put into the clause everything that could possibly be introduced for the purpose of guarding against an extensive or injudicious use of it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the conduct of the hon. Gentleman stands much more in need of a charitable construction than that of the Government. I venture to say that the proposal of the Government that a responsible body should make provision for the transport, shipment, and reception of emigrants is far better than that of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the Prime Minister was right in assuming that he had not taken a sanguine view

  893
  of the benevolent intentions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had taught him some lessons as to placing a too ingenuous confidence in himself or his Colleagues, which it was not necessary at that time to repeat. He had acknowledged that the words of his Amendment were, perhaps, open to objection, for he was not, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, a believer in his own infallibility, and was therefore willing that it should be properly amended. It was, however, no question of confidence in the Government—it was a question of confidence in the working of the clause, which, as it stood, was open to the most disastrous operation by the working of Companies and others altogether beyond the control of the Committee. He should not therefore be deterred by the somewhat excitable eloquence coming from the Treasury Bench from taking such precautions for the security of his fellow-countrymen as were within his power, or from improving the clause in such a manner as he deemed necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out to the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the words proposed to be introduced by him constituted no security whatever that the object he had in view would be carried out.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the words of the Government proposal were very vague. For instance, the reception of the emigrant might mean shaking hands with him on his arrival. On the other hand, the proposal of the Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was perfectly clear—namely, that the Commission should satisfy themselves that these Companies had power to employ, house, and settle the emigrant. Now, if the Government really desired to see the Emigration Clauses carried into effect, why could not they arrange concerning the emigration with hon. Members in that Committee, who were the Representatives of the men about to go away? He wished the Government to understand that if they wished to make the emigration scheme a success, it was desirable they should obtain the consent of the people whose interests were concerned, and who spoke in that House through their Representatives. It was absurd to suppose that Irish Members brought forward suggestions in that Committee, which were inimical to the interests of the emigrants.
  894
  The general charge against Irish Members was that they claimed too much from the Government; but they were now told that they claimed too little.
  MR. GREGORYexpressed his opinion that the safest and most effectual course for the protection of the emigrant would be that an agreement should be entered into between the Company and the Government of a binding character—the Government advancing the money and making the necessary provisions for the reception and carriage of the emigrants. At the time of entering upon such an agreement the Commission would have the opportunity of inquiring into the solvency of the Company, imposing penalties on them for non-performance of agreement, and stipulating for everything necessary to be done. He ventured to think that the plan proposed by the Government was infinitely preferable to the loose mode of procedure proposed by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor).
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had made a mistake in putting the word "power" into his Amendment; because, under that Act, he agreed that the Commission would have the power to carry out the proper shipment, transport, and reception of emigrants. Apart from that, he considered the words of his hon. Friend far better than those proposed to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The only object he and his hon. Friends had in moving Amendments to that particular part of the clause was that they desired above all things to see that the poor people who were either driven or enticed away from Ireland by the flattering offers of the Government were properly provided for. If those people were to go away—and, for his own part, he should do all in his power to persuade them to stop where they were—they wanted them to be provided for, and supplied with suitable employment, in whatever land they might go to. The Amendment of his hon. Friend said, "employ, house, and settle the emigrants;" and, to his (Mr. R. Power's) mind, these words were very much preferable to the words proposed to be introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, "the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants." The words

  895
  "shipment of emigrants," for instance, were particularly objectionable to him, as being a sort of cattle-drovers' phrase, very well in its application, no doubt, to pigs and sheep, but quite out of place as applied to human beings. The Government must bear in mind the necessity of providing for persons who would arrive abroad without a farthing in their pocket. What was needed was proper employment, and there was nothing in the Bill to say that the emigration agents must give that. Unless some means were given to the emigrant to enable him to push up into the country, where he would not be exposed to the temptations of great cities, but where he would meet with the necessary employment, the Government would, in his opinion, be doing a serious injury to the people they wore trying to serve.
  MR. CALLANhoped the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would withdraw his Amendment, which did not in any way provide satisfactorily for the treatment of the emigrants when they reached America. If the hon. Member looked down the Paper, he would find there were several proposals which would meet his views much better, inasmuch as they went further into the question.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, there could be no possible objection on the part of the Government to the Land Commission satisfying itself that the Companies with whom it might enter into agreements with respect to emigration had land on which they could settle the emigrants as soon as they arrived in America. The only objection he could see to his hon. Friend's Amendment was not that it was unnecessary, but that it was too small. If Irishmen were to be shipped off like cattle from their own country to be landed in America, the most complete provision ought to be made for their protection on arrival.
  MR. BIGGARsaid it ought to be made imperative, and not merely permissive, that Companies who took charge of emigrants should treat them in a specified manner, according to the contract entered into with the Commission and Treasury. These loose observations, as to the treatment of emigrants, were all very well as far as they went, but they were no real guarantee; and he should therefore very much prefer to see some specific words added to the clause which
  896
  would secure to Irish Members the satisfaction of knowing that their fellow-countrymen would not be allowed to die of starvation on arrival in America.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 14: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 305.)
  In reply to Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government were quite as anxious to secure the advantage of the emigrants as the hon. Member could be; but if the hon. Member was not content with the word of the Government to that effect, he might move the Amendment which stood in his name next upon the Paper.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORintimated that he would not propose his Amendment.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. HEALYrose for the purpose of moving in page 18, line 21, after the word "sums," to insert "not exceeding twenty-five thousand pounds."
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to substitute the words "not exceeding in the whole the sum of ten thousand pounds." Would he be able to move that in the event of the hon. Member's (Mr. Healy's) Amendment being rejected?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could still move his Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had a serious complaint to make against the Government. They promised to put in the sum, in a limited sense, after the word "sums;" and it was extraordinary that the Government, who were quite ready to make charges against private Members, did not think it worth while to place their own Amendment upon the Paper. As the Government had not placed on the Paper any limit to the sum they intended to advance for the purpose of emigration from Ireland, and as he presumed the Government had the intention of imposing a limit, he would make this proposition in that direction. If he were acting in accordance with his own convictions, he should have put down the sum of "one farthing," which he thought would be quite consistent with the feeling of the people of Ireland as to the extent to

  897
  which emigration should be promoted in that country. He had, however, put down £25,000, because that was one of the most moderate sums for which they could get any scheme of emigration carried out in Ireland. As the clause stood, it provided that the Commission should advance by way of loan such sums as they thought it desirable to expend in promoting emigration from Ireland. He thought the Government had treated the Committee very unfairly in not having placed their own Amendment on the Paper, especially as they had already had one day to consider the matter. His objection to the scheme as it stood was this—that the Commission might expend any sum, even up to the extent of the National Debt (£800,000,000), subject to the control of the Treasury, and there was nothing whatever to prevent them. Indeed, there was nothing to prevent any future Commission that might be appointed from embarking in very extensive shemes of emigration, and so depleting Ireland of its population, that in the end they would, as Mr. Gladstone hinted, call upon the Legislature for a reduction of the number of Irish Representatives. He would say nothing of the indecency of the proposal—first, to turn out the unfortunate inhabitants of the country, and then, having got rid of the inhabitants, to cut down the Representation of Ireland; but such, in fact, was the proposal of the Government. The Government managed these things very cleverly, and, by-and-bye, they might make a proposal to send out the whole of the Province of Connaught to Nova Zembla, or elsewhere, and then immediately following there might be a proposal to take away the entire Representation of the Province of Connaught. He asked why the Government should expose themselves to charges and suspicions of this character? They knew that the Irish Members thoroughly mistrusted them. As matters now stood, the Commissioners might enter into a speculation to purchase emigrant ships. That would be quite possible under this proposal. An unlimited sum of money would be placed in the hands of the Commission and in the hands of some public Companies, in regard to which the Committee was at present quite in the dark. The Irish Members wanted to know what the plans of the Government were,
  898
  so that they might be satisfied that their object was only to deal with the congested parts of Ireland, and not to deal with entire districts and Provinces. If they put down £50,000 as a limit to the advances, he would be able to understand that they had no such object; but if, on the contrary, they put down £5,000,000, then he should regard that as a proposal to depopulate the entire country.
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 21, after the word "seems," to insert "not exceeding twenty-five thousand pounds."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was not serious in putting down such a sum as £25,000. It would be better for the Government to abandon the scheme altogether, rather than submit to such a proposal. It was proper that they should have the clause in a form that would commend itself to the Committee, and not in a form in which it would be hopeless to deal with it. To put down £25,000, as a sum sufficient to aid in the emigration of the people from the congested portions of Ireland, was just as much good as if they had put down half-a-crown. There were districts and parishes in Ireland which would require alone a very large proportion of £25,000, if it was to be applied in relief in the direction of emigration and to make proper provision for the comfort of the emigrants. He hoped that his hon. Friend, having ventilated the subject, would not persist in limiting the amount to so ridiculously small a sum as £25,000. It would, he hoped, be possible for the Government to name a sum sufficiently liberal, on the one hand, and, at the same time, not so affluent as to demand the censure of the Committee. He trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORinsisted that the Government had as yet given no answer to the question as to what sum they intended to fix as the limit.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), that it was impossible to support such a proposal as that, unless it was intended to nullify the whole scheme. The Govern-

  899
  ment would withdraw the clause altogether rather than accept that proposition.
  MR. PARNELLunderstood that the Government were prepared to say what amount they would limit the expenditure to. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government were in a position to state their views.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERunderstood his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that when the clause was settled he would be prepared to state the limit of the sum. But they must first decide what they were going to do with the clause, and after they had so decided, the time would arrive for stating what the limit should be.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the impression conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman was that they should go through the Amendments in the clause, and then the Government would be prepared to insert the provision to limit the expenditure.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERThe Committee will quite understand that this is a matter which is peculiarly connected with the Financial Business of the Government; and I do not like to undertake the responsibility in the absence of my right hon. Friend.
  MR. HEALYasked why the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was not present?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster) had given them a pertinent reason why he should not commit the Government to a particular sum, but had not given them any reason why the Prime Minister should not be there. He (Mr. Biggar) would, therefore, move to report Progress, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views on this important question. Some hon. Members of his (Mr. Biggar's) Party alleged that the Prime Minister had specifically promised to state what the sum was, during the progress of the clause, that they would limit these advances to. That was a very important question. No doubt, the Prime Minister said there should be a limit; and it would have been convenient if the Prime Minister were there in order to explain his views upon the question. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised that as soon as the Amendments in the clause were gone through, and before the
  900
  Question was put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," the sum should be named, he (Mr. Biggar) thought that ought to be sufficient. As the matter stood now, they were in an awkward position. It was in the recollection of the Committee that the Prime Minister had promised to name a specific sum. Probably the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not present at the time, and they did not blame him for not undertaking to perform the promise the Prime Minister had made, or for not doing a thing which he had no authority to do; but, at the same time, it was only reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to name some time when the sum would be fixed before the clause was directed to stand part of the Bill. He begged leave, under the circumstances, to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can hardly believe that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is serious in making that proposal, because the Prime Minister does not happen to be here. I hope it is not expected that my right hon. Friend should be here during the whole of the evening. Every hon. Member in the Committee is aware of the intense devotion my right hon. Friend has given to the Bill, and it is not reasonable that he should not be absent for a few minutes in order to take necessary refreshments. If he had gone away just at the time when the Business could not go on without his presence, there might be some reason for complaint; but that is not so. I would suggest that the Committee should settle the clause, and, before the Question is put that it shall stand part of the Bill, my right hon. Friend will state the limited sum to be inserted in the clause.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, this was a matter upon which they should really consult the convenience of the Prime Minister. The question of limitation could be considered just as easily at the end of the clause as in the middle of it, and he felt sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would not grudge the Prime Minister the short time he took for rest.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, of course, his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) did not at all grudge the Prime Minister the leisure he so well deserved; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not seem to appreciate the position. The position was this—the question was whether or not the Government intended to stand by or recede from the important announcement they had made yesterday? The Prime Minister had declared within his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) hearing that he saw no objection to insert in the clause a limit to the amount of money to be advanced towards carrying out the purposes of the clause. The Prime Minister made that statement distinctly; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland only put it hypothetically, and it was a promise that materially affected the whole complexion of the clause—namely, whether the clause was to be limited in its operations or not. The Irish Members thought that it should be limited; the Government agreed with them, and the Government, therefore, were bound to state the nature of the limitation they proposed. They all appreciated the attention which the Prime Minister had given to the Bill; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was satisfied that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was not more desirous of grudging a few moments to the Prime Minister than anybody else; but it was unfortunate that the Prime Minister should not be present on this occasion, when really the Treasury Business was under discussion. At the same time, he would not advise his hon. Friend to proceed with his Motion for reporting Progress, and he would recommend him to withdraw it.
  MR. HEALYregretted the absence of the Prime Minister. It was somewhat extraordinary that the right hon. Gentlemen, when Amendments were being discussed in regard to which they had no complaint to make, was present all day; but that he absented himself at a particular moment when it was most inconvenient that he should be absent, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was unable to state, in consequence of the absence of the Primo Minister, what course the Government intended to take.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDrose to Order. He wished to know if it was proper for an hon. Member to accuse
  902
  the Prime Minister of intentionally absenting himself?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to judge the propriety of the remarks of an hon. Member when within the rules of Order; but it is for the Committee.
  MR. HEALYregretted that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had thought proper to interfere. They had been informed that the responsibility of the Government with regard to this Bill was undivided, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, therefore, ought to know what the mind of the Prime Minister was. He must tell the Chief Secretary for Ireland that if he wanted to make progress with this Bill he must take some better course than the way in which he had just dealt with this Amendment. There were still 24 clauses to be gone through, and the Report had then to be brought up; and it might be convenient for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to learn that Amendments of this kind, about which promises had been made, must be fairly and properly considered. If the right hon. Gentleman had been left in ignorance, he ought to have communicated with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and ascertained what the intentions of the Government were. The Irish Members had been charged with unduly suspecting the Government. Had they not good ground for their suspicions? They found that the promise which was made yesterday might be absolutely broken to-day.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not now in Order.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would apologize if he was out of Order; but he had used the word "may," and not "was," for the promise given by the Prime Minister yesterday now remained in so nebulous a condition that they did not know what had become of it. In regard to the former proposal, the Prime Minister got up and said there were two objections raised to it by the Irish Members. One of them had been dealt with, and now they came to the second; and what did they find? They found that the Government did not know their own mind in regard to it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was a Cabinet Minister, and he presumed that he was in the confidence of the Crown; but he did not seem to know what had become of the intentions of the Prime Minister. Was that the way in which matters ought to

  903
  be conducted? If the Government were dealing with an English Member, or one of their Tory Friends above the Gangway, they would not dream of treating him in such an off-hand manner. If they did they would soon find out their mistake. If the promise had been made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Devon, that a certain limitation would be put into the Bill, and a Minister of the Crown was not there to make the proposal, he had very little doubt that the Prime Minister would hear more about it. But now the right hon. Gentleman was only dealing with an Irish Member. If the Government desired to make progress with their measure it was desirable that they should not in every step they took display their hostility towards the Irish Members, nor induce the Irish Members to bring the hostility they entertained to the Bill to an extreme conclusion. Their hostility to this clause might be attenuated if the Government would fix a definite limit to the advances. They had received a distinct pledge from the Prime Minister on the subject; and he wanted to know what was the good of Government pledges if, after they had been made, there was nobody there to carry them out? He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was perfectly justified in moving to report Progress.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I shall not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) in the language he has used upon this occasion, and which he has dared to utter against the Prime Minister; but I shall go at once to the question of this particular matter of limitation. The hon. Member knows one thing, and he ought to know another. He knows that the limitation, if there is to be one, can be put in in a subsequent portion of the clause, and that it is not necessary to insert it in this part. Further, he ought to know that whatever sum is put into the clause, as the sum will have actually to be expended every year, must be voted by the House, and whether it be £100,000 or £1,000,000 would make no difference whatever. If any amount is to be spent at all, that amount must be brought every year before the House; and without a direct Vote of the House nothing can be spent. Therefore, all this trouble which the hon. Gentleman is giving is purely useless, except for the
  904
  purpose of Obstruction. The hon. Member must know that that is the case. The hon. Member may move an Amendment on every word or letter of the Bill; but there can only be one conclusion on the part of the Committee—namely, that, whatever may be the expressed hostility of hon. Members opposite, they dare not vote against the clause.
  MR. HEALY: Give us a chance.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: They will have a chance, no doubt. It is obvious that a majority, and a large majority, of the Irish Members are in favour of the clause.
  MR. HEALY: That is not so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The course taken is one that is intended for the purpose of Obstruction, and the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is a direct insult to the Prime Minister. Indeed, I should think it a hopeless thing for Ireland if the majority of her Representatives persisted in pursuing the course which has so constantly been taken by a single Member of this House. I am certain that there is not a single English or Scotch Member who will not condemn the course which has been taken by the hon. Member for Cavan.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not know by what title the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presumed to tell, or dared to tell, the Irish Members that they dared not vote against this clause. He (Mr. Parnell) had all along intended to vote against the clause, and he denied that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had any right to impute to him, or to the majority of the Members acting with him, an intention to obstruct that or any other clause of the Bill. [Cries of "Oh!"] He did not think that any Member of the House had moved fewer Amendments, or taken a less part in the discussion of the Bill in Committee than he had, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman to point to any speech he had made since the Bill had been introduced up to the present time, or to any action he had taken which had been of the slightest obstructive nature. When the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) moved to report Progress, as soon as he could, he rose to deprecate the Motion, and he asked his hon. Friend to withdraw it. He said then he regretted the line

  905
  his hon. Friend had taken, and that he thought the Prime Minister was entitled to a few minutes of rest. He should not follow the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his wholesale criticisms of individuals, simply because he always observed that although there might be an abundance of mistakes on the part of English and Scotch Members, yet that whenever an Irish Member made a mistake the English Members were quick to follow it up; and there were too many Irishmen who followed their example. The Irish Members had asked that a limit should be fixed to this clause, and the Prime Minister, within the hearing of the whole Committee, admitted the reasonableness of the request, and said that when the time came the Government would consider the matter, but that the question might be postponed until the end of the clause. He (Mr. Parnell) had said that he thought that a reasonable request on the part of the Government, and he had recommended his hon. Friend to give the Government the advantage they desired to have in that respect, so that when the clause came up to be finally settled they might ask the Prime Minister then to fix the limit, or propose one themselves, and take a discussion. But he would take the liberty of suggesting that the next time the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took it upon himself to lecture an hon. Member, he should take care not to accompany the lecture with a wholesale condemnation of the Associates of that hon. Gentleman.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with surprise, and regretted that he had not been in the House when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had made his speech. If the hon. Gentleman really had, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had stated, offered an insult to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which he (Mr. Power) very much doubted it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to do, he was quite certain that his hon. Friend would be the very first person in that House to withdraw the observation that had given offence. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that it
  906
  was the evident intention of hon. Members from Ireland to obstruct the Bill. Now, in reply to that observation, he (Mr. Power) wished to say that he had always voted with Her Majesty's Government on this measure, until they brought in a clause which he believed to be of the most dangerous character as far as the welfare of the Irish people were concerned. The Irish Members had told Her Majesty's Government honestly and fairly, when they brought the matter forward, that they would use every legitimate means in their power to oppose the Emigration Clause of the Bill, and this they were determined to do; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had said the majority of the Irish Members were opposed to those who objected to the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had given no proof of this, and there had not yet been a division upon the clause, and could not be until the Question was put, That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the Irish Members intended to obstruct the Bill? What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by Obstruction? Did the right hon. Gentleman know what Obstruction meant? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed. He was glad to hear that laugh, and he would reply to it by giving the Committee a definition of Obstruction—not a definition given by Irish Members sitting below the Gangway, but one that had been given by no less a personage than the Prime Minister of England himself, not when he was Prime Minister, nor when he had any hope of being Prime Minister, but at a time when the Conservative Party sat on the Treasury side of the House—nor was the definition given by him in that House, with what had been termed "his usual impetuosity" in the heat of debate, but what he had deliberately set down in writing. The Prime Minister had said—
  "The prolonging of debate, even by persistent reiteration on legislative measures, is not necessarily an outrage or offence, or even an indiscretion."
  This was said when the Tories were in power. The Prime Minister had gone on to say—
  "For in some cases it is only by the use of this instrument that a small minority holding strong views can draw adequate attention to those views."

  907
  Those were the very words that had been written by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister when he sat on the Opposition side of the House. Again, he had said—
  "In other cases obstruction has been freely and largely practised, even by a great Party, with no other apparent effect than that of retarding business. I refer especially, as will be at once understood, to the Army Purchase Bill."
  But it was not the Irish Members who obstructed the Army Purchase Bill, but other hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was one of those audacious Members who, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, "dared" to vote against the Emigration Clause of this Bill. He had made up his mind to take this course long ago, and he thought it would require some considerable courage on his part if he were to go back to his constituents and say that he had not voted against the clause. Like the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), he had been exceedingly pained to hear the speech that had been made a short time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and he deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have infused such a feeling of acrimony into the remarks he had thought proper to make. He should have thought that the struggle of a small minority against a large majority might have found some sympathy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and that, with the right hon. Gentleman's experience of debates in that House, and his remembrance of the misconstruction which in other days had been directed against him and his Colleagues, he might, if he had borne in mind the past, have shown more consideration for the Irish Party, especially at a moment like the present. Many of those who belonged to that Party—he believed he might say most of them—were opposed to the Motion that had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the Chairman should report Progress; but, certainly, none of them who had heard the remarks of the hon. Gentleman believed that he had intended to accompany the Motion he had made with any language of disrespect towards the Prime Mi-
  908
  nister. But one of the effects of the imputations that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan was, that even the most moderate men among the Irish Party felt that they could not desert a comrade under a fire like that; so that the only effect of the right hon. Gentleman's attack had been to draw the lines of that Party more closely together, and produce the very result the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was apparently so anxious to avoid. In his (Mr. M'Carthy's) opinion, it would have been far wiser to avoid the necessity for this bitter interchange of personal expressions. The small Party to which he belonged had been accused of using harsh language and strong expressions. For his own part, he was not an admirer of strong and bitter language, nor of much in the shape of invective, even though it had been called an ornament of debate; but he felt bound to say that in the course of these controversies that had now been going on for so lengthy a period, it was not the Party with whom he acted that had begun the use of intemperate language. That sort of language had come, in the first instance, from the Treasury Bench. It was from that Bench that had come the accusation of using wicked and cowardly language; from that Bench, also, had come the charge of poltroonery with regard to the conduct of Irish Representatives, a charge that had been more than once repeated from the same quarter. Therefore, it was not the Irish Members who had begun the use of bitter language, and if personalities were to cease, let Messieurs les Ministres commence.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Committee would now resume Business, and that the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had put a question to the Prime Minister that afternoon, in reply to which the right hon. Gentleman had said that the great majority of the Irish Members were in favour of the Emigration Clause, which the Committee were now discussing. Unless the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to provoke the sort of discussion that had latterly been going on, he should not have made a

  909
  statement like that without having waited to see the majority submitted to a practical test. He (Mr. Martin) was one of those who had hitherto supported the Government in many of the divisions which had taken place on the clauses of the present Bill. He thought it unfortunate the Irish Members had not the opportunity of entering on this discussion and taking a test division on the clause at an earlier hour. It had been authoritatively stated by the Prime Minister, in answer to the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) this evening, that the majority of the Irish Members were in favour of the clause. This Motion to report Progress presented the earliest available opportunity to his brother Members from Ireland of announcing their opinions with regard to the clause. The Prime Minister, he thought, had made a great mistake, and the matter was one which the Committee were bound to consider before they proceeded with the general debate on the details of the clause. How stood the matter? As far as the majority was concerned, they had the authority of the Bessborough Commission for stating that—
  THE CHAIRMANrose to Order. The hon. Gentleman could not, on a Motion to report Progress, enter upon a general discussion of the clause.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, if he were out of Order, he would at once bow to the decision of the Chair. He was not going to suggest the Report of the Bessborough Commission as a matter for the consideration of the Committee; he was only desirous of pointing out that, up to the present time, they had had statements made by the Commissioners in reference to and against State-aided emigration which he thought required the Committee to reflect upon before it went on to discuss the merits of the entire clause. He was not referring to whether the Members of the Bessborough Commission were right or wrong in the conclusions they had arrived at, but to what most of the Members of the Bessborough Commission—
  THE CHAIRMANagain rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) was distinctly out of Order in discussing the conclusions of the Bessborough Commission on a Motion to report Progress. The discussion had wandered very wide of that subject, the question before the
  910
  Committee being merely whether he should report Progress.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, the object they had to consider was the amount of money that it was intended should be applied for emigration purposes; and he thought it absolutely essential that the Prime Minister should be present before they could determine that question. He wished to point out that he did not in any way intend to debate the Report of the Bessborough Commission, but only to state, as a matter of fact, that they had to deal with a question on which they had the weight of authority on the part of the Members of the Bessborough Commission, individually and collectively, on the side of the Irish Members. He did not wish to carry the matter beyond the statement of this fact; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had now returned to the House his object was attained, and he should not say one word more.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, notwithstanding the somewhat unpleasant discussion that had been going on for the last quarter of an hour, he must express his hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would not persevere with his Motion. He was not one of those, any more than his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy), who would desert a comrade under fire of the enemy; but he might state that, before the fusillade began, he had offered to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan the suggestion that he should withdraw his Motion. He wished here to say that he was sorry it had been rendered painfully necessary that the Irish Members on those (the Opposition) Benches should express their individual opinions in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because, if out of any feeling of comradeship, they went into the same Lobby with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan, should they be driven to take a division on the Motion for reporting Progress, they might, if they remained silent, be held to endorse the action of the hon. Gentleman which had been so strongly characterized from the Treasury Bench. He (Mr. Sullivan) had thought it right to occupy a few moments, in view of the possibility of a division, in order that he

  911
  might say this—that so far as he was concerned he had put down very few Amendments on the Paper with regard to this subject, although he had felt a desire to see the clause amended in many respects. He had never obstructed the proceedings on this Bill during its passage through Committee; and he was in the recollection of the Committee whether he had done so or not. He had, on the contrary, given the Bill his sympathy in the House, and he had rendered to it his praise out-of-doors. Was he, therefore, to sit silent when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in a most regrettable moment, did that in which he (Mr. Sullivan) hoped he should not imitate the right hon. Gentleman, his wish being rather to calm the irritation which the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had produced? He repeated, however, that he was not at all under the imputation of having been obstructive in these debates; and he asked was he to sit silent when the right hon. Gentleman told him that he dared not vote against this clause? He would state that he had intended to vote against this clause, although he had not opened his lips in the debates upon it, until an observation made an hour ago had tempted him to help to clear the way of some Amendments. He had then only made a few observations amounting, probably, to a sentence or two; yet, such was his opinion on this subject of State-aided emigration, that he would give 100 votes against the clause if he had them to give. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had had the grievous bad taste and worse judgment to attempt to identify some of those who sat on those (the Opposition) Benches with an insult to the Prime Minister. He wished the right hon. Gentleman were still absent from the House, because he hesitated to say in his presence that which he should have freely said had the Prime Minister still been out of that Chamber, and that would have been to have paid a hearty tribute to the zeal and devotion with which the right hon. Gentleman had, night after night, given himself to the labour of forwarding that Bill through Committee. He dissociated himself, not the less for not being the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague on that (the Treasury) Bench, from anything
  912
  like the semblance of an affront to the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, but from anything that would seem like a failure of grateful recollection—he did not like to use the word grateful, because a public Minister only did his duty—but he used the word in the sense in which it would be understood, when he said he desired not to be thought to fail in his grateful recollection of what the right hon. Gentleman had done, and was still doing, for his (Mr. Sullivan's) country. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to think of the pain he had caused to many hon. Gentlemen—["Oh, oh!"]—Yes, the pain he had caused to many hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House. And now, notwithstanding the turn that had been given to the discussion, he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), as one who had not receded from him sometimes when perhaps his judgment had not gone altogether with him, not to press this Motion to a division, but to let what had happened pass away, and to follow the advice that had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork and Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Parnell), who had risen in an earlier part of the discussion for the purpose of saying that the view expressed on the part of the Government was a reasonable view, and of asking the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Motion. He (Mr. Sullivan) took the same ground as the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He thought that the Motion might be withdrawn; he thought also that it ought to be withdrawn; and he hoped his hon. Friend would not be driven into the Lobby by the most regrettable imputation that had been imported into that discussion.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there had been a good deal of talk about insult, and he thought it incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell the Committee what was insult. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister ought not to have left the House at the time he did without informing his Representatives what the Government intended to do with regard to the limi-

  913
  tation of this clause, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had needlessly introduced into the discussion the idea of insult. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was one of the most straightforward and outspoken Members of the House; but every hon. Member was fully aware that never during the whole course of the time he had sat in that House had he been suspected of wilfully insulting any hon. Member. He had often spoken of the policy of the Government in terms that could not be too strong; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in stating that an insult had been offered to the Prime Minister, had simply drawn from a very defective memory. At the same, he (Mr. O'Donnell) could not altogether regret the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Manners made the man, and the right hon. Gentleman, without his characteristic manners, would hardly be himself. He thought that there was now no necessity to press the Motion for reporting Progress. The object with which that Motion had been made had been fully attained; because, in consequence of the prolongation of the debate, caused by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Prime Minister had returned to his place to conduct the Government policy on the Bill—a policy which evidently fell into very inferior hands when it left his own. He thought also that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might take the opportunity of doing something to correct the impression which had evidently got into the mind of his Colleague (the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), that the Representatives of the popular Party in Ireland would be afraid to vote against this expatriation clause of the Bill. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman the Premier must have produced that impression on the mind of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the latter would not have made that observation, and he hoped the Premier would take the opportunity of putting this matter right. In regard to all these questions of gratitude and insult that had been raised by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he (Mr. O'Donnell) begged leave to say
  914
  that, for his own part, in approaching the Government in the discussion of this Bill, which he recognized as being in every respect a great measure, he felt in no way bound to express an extravagant feeling of gratitude to anybody. As the word "dare" had been imported into the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he would say to that right hon. Gentleman—Let Her Majesty's Government dare to drop the project of Irish Land Reform. They had the whip hand of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. At the same time, he did not in the slightest degree detract from the view that had been expressed with regard to the time and thought the right hon. Gentleman the Premier had devoted to this elaborate and important project. He hoped it would be passed through Parliament this year, and if it were not, he returned his full thanks to its chief author; but, at the same time, he also recognized in the Premier the chief author of a measure that had had the effect of reducing Ireland to slavery for months past and months yet to come, and he regarded the aggressive policy of Her Majesty's Government as an insult to his country, to himself, and to every Irishman.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he felt conscious that he had not the smallest right to do so, but he would urge on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that he should not press his Motion; and he did so on this ground. This Bill was one which changed in its character, not only from day to day, but even from hour to hour, and for no visible reason except that it was promoted by a Government who were desirous, by whatever means, to retain Office. He did not think that this was a convenient time for taking the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because, if it were accepted, it might have the effect of ruling out of the Paper altogether other Amendments that were of the greatest consequence.
  THE CHAIRMANrose to Order, remarking that the hon. Member had no right to complain of that which was the act of the Committee.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he did not complain of the act of the Committee, but of the act of the Government. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the

  915
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he had entirely forgotten what he had said in days gone by? Speaking in that House some 34 years ago, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) had said—
  "As a Lancashire Representative, I protest most solemnly against a system which drives the Irish population to seek work and wages in this country and in other countries, when both might be afforded them at home."
  He should also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten having said—speaking of the Irish people—
  "The great secret of their idleness at home is that there is little or no trade in Ireland; there are few flourishing towns to which the increasing population can resort for employment, so that there is a vast mass of people living on the land, and the land itself is not half so useful for their employment and sustentation as it might be. A great proportion of her skill, her strength, her sinews, and her labour is useless to Ireland for the support of her population. Every year they have a large emigration, because there are a great number of persons with just enough means to transport themselves to other countries, who, finding it impossible to live at home in comfort, carry themselves and their capital out of Ireland, so that, year after year, she loses a large portion of those between the very poorest and the more wealthy classes of society, and with them many of the opportunities for the employment of labour."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was altogether out of Order.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would only now press on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that he should withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, and it could be resumed somewhat later in the evening, when hon. Members might wish to obtain further information from those who were at present responsible for the misgovernment of Ireland.
  MR. WARTONsaid, as one of the few who were present in the House when the Motion for reporting Progress was made, he felt it his duty to offer a few remarks. Politically, he was strongly opposed to the present Government, which, he might add, had no stronger opponent in the House; but he fully recognized the English principle, that when they did fight they should fight fairly. He thought the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that the Chairman should report Progress, a most unfair Motion, and that the remark with which it was
  916
  accompanied, as to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, was in exceedingly bad taste. The right hon. Gentleman could not always be in the House; it was not physically possible that he should, and it was unfair to attribute to him some design in being temporarily absent, especially as he had previously said he intended to make a statement as to a limitation of the amount of the emigration advances at a future portion of the proceedings on the clause. It was wrong for hon. Members to think that they might fix their own time for the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement on this subject, and especially to make the comments that had been made on his absence.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he could not but join in expressing the surprise that had been indicated by other hon. Members at the speech which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged the Irish Members to vote against this clause of the Bill, and had asserted that they would not dare to do so. Now, he would ask the Committee was not that to be taken as the measure of what the right hon. Gentleman knew concerning the feelings of the Irish Members and of the Irish people? Was it not perfectly well known to everyone who knew anything of Ireland that the subject of emigration was a very sore one with the Irish people? Was there a Member of that House who did not know that the Irish Members, as the Representatives of the Irish people, regarded the Emigration Clause of this Bill with the utmost hatred and aversion? And yet, so accurate was the estimate that had been formed by an English Cabinet Minister of the feeling of the Irish people and the Irish Members on this subject, that he really supposed the Irish Members were prepared to accept the clause, and that they dared not vote against it. The fact was that the Irish Members had agreed on this subject, and had all along intended to vote against the clause, and would try to tear it to pieces.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of Order. He is now discussing the whole merits of the clause.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was expressing his surprise, and the surprise of the Irish people, on finding any

  917
  Cabinet Minister in England so misinformed of the feelings of the Irish people and the intentions of their Members as to say the Irish Members dared not vote against this odious Emigration Clause. They would show that they would vote against it and fight against it as long as they could.
  MR. HEALYthought too much fuss had been made about what was said by Cabinet Ministers, for he did not think it mattered very much what they said. They knew the self-complacency which characterized certain British Philistines; but of all the inconsistencies of that British Philistinism, there could be no greater than the notion that because an English Cabinet put a certain clause into a Bill, therefore the Irish Members dare not vote against it. The pledge given by the Government was that "there could be no objection whatever on the part of the Cabinet to mention a limited sum." Was it not an extraordinary thing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should endeavour to shuffle out of that pledge—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I told the hon. Member, on a previous occasion, that his distrusting a pledge, solemnly given by a Minister, is out of Order, and unless he immediately withdraws the expression I must take notice of it.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would, of course, withdraw the expression, and added that yesterday the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, gave a pledge, and now he made a statement which the Irish Members were quite unable to understand. He did not assume that the Government would not redeem their pledge; but what difficulty had they in stating their intentions? This was the proper stage for that statement, and he trusted it would be made.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was very much surprised, on coming to the House, to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had expressed doubt as to the sincerity of the Irish Members in their opposition to the Emigration Clause. There was no man in the Three Kingdoms who had done more to inspire hope in the minds of the Irish people than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or contributed more to social revolution in Ireland; but it was to be regretted that he should now charge the Irish Members with a want of sin-
  918
  cerity in fighting a battle which they looked on as the most serious and important battle they could engage in. Many Irish Members had an especial reason to take this attitude, because they came from the class which had sent emigrants to every part of the world. They came from that class which English laws had oppressed most harshly; and, therefore, they would be false to their blood, their kindred, and their country if they did not oppose this clause. If his opposition to that clause meant the defeat of the Bill he should still vote against it. He admitted that this Bill was a very large advance, and contained several considerable concessions; but when the Irish Members were fighting the Coercion Bills, and were taunted with preventing this Bill coming on, he had declared that he would never purchase land reform at the price of the liberties of the Irish people, and he would never purchase land reform 10 times as largo as this at the cost of deportation.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Chairman's definite ruling as to whether the hon. Member's remarks against the clause were in Order, for it seemed to him that the Irish Members were setting the Chairman's ruling at defiance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out how far this debate has gone away from the question. As hon. Members thought it necessary to answer the right hon. Gentleman, I did not think it right to stop the discussion; but they are wholly departing from the subject before the Committee, and it is not right to discuss generally the Emigration Clause on a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. LEAMYapologized for departing from the ruling of the Chairman; but he supposed he should be in Order in discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to a fixed sum. [The CHAIRMAN: No, no.] He should then support the Motion to report Progress, because he had distinctly understood that on reaching this part of the Bill the Prime Minister would state the amount of money to be spent on emigration beyond which the Commission should not go. The Irish Members ought not to be asked to vote for the clause until they knew what would be the largest possible powers of the Commission, and in no Act of Parliament authorizing the Treasury to ad-

  919
  vance sums of money was that power given without a limit being fixed. The Irish Members would divide on this clause, for it was almost more hateful than even the Coercion Bills.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that the original object of this 26th clause was not assistance to, but deportation of, the poor people of Ireland. The Government had, however, conceded one point, and made the object assistance and not deportation, and he thought they would do well to follow out that concession by giving up the clause entirely.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already informed several hon. Gentlemen that they cannot discuss this clause now; and if hon. Gentlemen say they will take the Forms of the House in opposing this clause, it is my duty to keep them strictly within those Forms.
  MR. FINIGANadded, that he should vote against the clause en bloc and in every detail; but he was anxious that the Motion for Progress should be considered, with a view to some amicable and quiet arrangement for effecting a concession in the interests of the Irish Members.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought hon. Gentlemen might cease the discussion, and hoped the Motion would be withdrawn. [Cries of"Divide!"] He was not inclined to be silenced by interruptions.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Chair.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Well, Sir, I hope you will preserve Order in this House, and will not allow hon. Gentlemen opposite to shout me down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is stating that the Chair is not doing its duty.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not make that allegation, for the Chairman always did his duty, though hon. Members sometimes rendered that very difficult. There was no occasion he hoped for a division. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) would best promote his object by withdrawing the Motion, and allowing the Prime Minister to say what he, no doubt, would say at the proper time and place—what the limit of amount should be.
  MR. BIGGARasked permission to withdraw his Motion; but, as his conduct had been criticized adversely by some hon. Gentlemen, he wished to
  920
  deny first that he intended to suggest anything unkind or offensive with regard to the Prime Minister. What he specially objected to was that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, instead of meeting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) on its merits, and fulfilling the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, had pooh-poohed the Amendment and refused to re-promise what the Prime Minister had promised. As to the charge of Obstruction, his experience was that Ministers always failed to meet Amendments on their merits, but shuffled behind generalities; and nothing had a greater tendency than that to prolong discussion and defeat their object. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) had said the amounts advanced would be subject to a Vote by Parliament; but when everyone knew that the Minister of the day could always carry Votes by his majority, a statement such as that was rather too much for the credulity of hon. Members. Still, he had, he thought, attained his object of getting Ministers to seriously consider this question of a limit, and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 18, line 21, after the word "sums," to insert "not exceeding twenty-five thousand pounds."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had suggested it would be more convenient to consider the question of a limit at the end of the clause; but he should prefer to have the limit named now, because he could then better understand the views of the Government as to the extent to which the clause should be used in Ireland. But, of course, if the Prime Minister preferred to wait to the end of the clause, he should not wish to press him for the limit now.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the remarks of the Irish Members as to fixing the limit, I stated that if they pressed it I should not be unwilling to accede to their desire to have a limitation named; but I am distinctly of opinion that it would not be well to name the limit of amount until we have settled the main conditions of the clause. What

  921
  I would suggest is that when we have gone through the conditional clause I will introduce, in the shape of a proviso and specification, a sub-section giving the maximum amount which may be laid out in any one year in virtue of the Act of Parliament. It seems to me that the jealousy of hon. Members as to this or that particular sum would be very materially influenced by the adjustment of the conditions.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to press the matter; but he thought the jealousy to which the Prime Minister had referred would be best met by the limitation being now named. Hon. Members probably would not so strongly oppose the clause if they knew in advance that only a limited amount would be spent every year.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. J.N. RICHARDSONwished to submit the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and would leave it to the Committee without detaining hon. Members by any remarks.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 21, after the word "expend," to insert "in assisting tenants in needy circumstances to emigrate with their families from the poorer and more thickly-populated districts of Ireland."—(Mr. J. N. Richardson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreminded the Committee that he intended to propose to insert the words "especially of families," after the word "emigration." The object he had in view was this. Undoubtedly, the emigration must be subject to the permission of the Treasury, and the great object must be to relieve the poorer districts; but he did not think it would be well to insert the actual words, as proposed, because it would be hard that a poor family wishing to emigrate, and capable of doing well by emigration, should be shut out from the advantages because they did not come from a district specified in the Act. On the other hand, he did not think the Act would be so worked as to benefit people who were well-off and did not want any State assistance.
  MR. A. MOOREstrongly supported the Amendment, because he could not vote for the clause unless it was properly limited and guarded. The Emi-
  922
  gration Clause was a most dangerous clause, and it was only because of the absolute necessities of the case in some congested districts that he could support it at all. What guarantee would there be for the procedure of the Commission in after years if some such words as these proposed were not introduced? How long was the clause to remain on the Statute Book? So long as the present Chief Secretary for Ireland should have the direction of the clauses he should have implicit confidence that it would not be abused. The right hon. Gentleman had had a difficult post to fill, and he (Mr. Moore) should have complete confidence in him; but, hereafter, great pressure might be put on the Commission, and it was of the greatest importance to put a limit on the operation of the clause, not only as to districts but as to time. It was not right or moral to tempt people by large bribes to leave their homes where the Almighty had placed them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought he could suggest words to meet the case. The condition of some of the Irish labourers was as bad as that of any in the Three Kingdoms, and it would be hard if the clause were not so worked as to apply to them. He would ask the hon. Member for Armagh to withdraw his Amendment, and he would propose, after "emigration," to introduce the words "especially of families from the poorer and more thickly-populated districts of Ireland." That would not be a hard-and-fast line.
  MR. PARNELLquite agreed that the labourer should be permitted to emigrate equally with the tenant; but the contention of the Government all along had been that it was their intention to assist families to emigrate. Why not, then, confine the assistance to families, leaving out the word "especially?" Unmarried people, if they wished to emigrate, could do so out of their own resources, and the young people were the people most wanted in Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, one effect of absolutely confining the assistance to families would be that if a young woman saw a good chance of doing well by emigrating, she would have to go out unprotected, and he thought protection in such a case ought to be ensured.
  MR. CALLANthought it would be better to postpone the Amendment till

  923
  that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was reached, and suggested that the Amendment should be amended by the introduction of the words "and agricultural labourers," so that assistance should be given to needy tenants and agricultural labourers with their families. He objected to the clause being restricted to certain districts.
  Amendment proposed,
  In second line of proposed Amendment, after the word "circumstances," to insert" and agricultural labourers."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONoffered to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he also should have no objection to withdraw his Amendment, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would accept it when he came to his own Amendment. Otherwise, he must persevere with it.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was wholly opposed to this scheme of emigration; but it seemed ridiculous to refuse to allow labourers to emigrate. An hon. Baronet had urged the emigration of the small tenants—the men who made the agitation which had won this Bill—but not of the poor labourers. The object of the Bill was to clear out the small holders; but if assistance was to be given at all, it should be given to the labourers.
  MR. BIGGARsuggested that if there was any real objection to the Amendment it should be given now, and not postponed only to be re-opened at some future point.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANobjected to the view of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and said he preferred the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to that now proposed.
  MR. BLAKEhoped both Amendments would be withdrawn.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment (Mr. Callan), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. J. N. Richardson), by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit the word "promoting," and to insert "assisting."
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 22, to leave out the word "promoting," in order to insert the word "assisting."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word promoting' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. POWERinquired what the difference was between "promoting" and "assisting?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that "promote" was supposed to mean to stimulate or force, and finding some objection to the word, he had put in "assist."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'assisting' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERproposed to insert the words "especially of families, and from the poorer and more thickly-populated districts of Ireland."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 22, omit the word "from," in order to insert "especially of families, and from the poorer and more thickly-populated districts of Ireland."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'from' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CALLANthought the proposed words vague, and asked for some explanation of what they meant. The more thickly-populated district in Ireland was Ulster, and the poorer district was Connaught. Were Leinster and Munster to be left to fish for themselves?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the meaning of the words was perfectly well understood, and it was much better not to lay that down too specifically in the clause. There were districts so crowded that no alteration of the Land Laws would do what was necessary for the relief of the people, and they had been frequently described in the House.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, being so well acquainted with every dissolute village ruffian in Ireland, ought to be able to say which were the poorer districts. The Committee did not know who the Commissioners might be, and as they might be all Englishmen, this information as to the meaning of the Amendment ought to be given. If a labourer wished to emigrate with his family, would he be refused assistance because he was not in a thickly-populated district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was necessary that a close line should not

  925
  be drawn by specifying any particular district.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsympathized with the object of his hon. Friends; but he thought it would be a mistake to schedule particular districts in the Bill. If he might, he would like to suggest that the Commission should be put in operation on the application of the Board of Guardians of a district.
  MR. R. POWERcould not understand the words, and could not find in any Act of Parliament any words of such a peculiar description. How on earth was the Commission to know which parts of Ireland were the poorer and more thickly-populated, unless there was some district authority to call in their action? He supported the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. M. Sullivan).
  MR. LEAMYthought it would be of advantage to the Commission and to the people interested if the local authorities had power to apply to the Commission.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think there should be any condition requiring applications to come from the Boards of Guardians.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANproposed to insert, after the word "Ireland," the words—
  "Provided always, That the Commission shall apply such assistance only to residents in any Poor Law Union the Guardians of which shall apply to have such Union declared an area for the purposes of this clause."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I doubt whether this Amendment can be put, on account of a similar restriction made yesterday.
  MR. CALLANpointed out that there were several Amendments on the Paper after "Ireland," and asked whether they would not have precedence over this Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Callan) is perfectly correct. This Amendment cannot be put till after those on the Paper. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) is irregular and not within the scope of the Bill. It therefore cannot be put. The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. R. Power).
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the Committee had decided that the Bill should only apply to Ireland?
  MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) was perfectly correct. If they referred to page 27 of the Bill, they would find, by the 49th clause, this Bill shall not apply to England or Scotland." Until the Committee had passed the 49th clause, the hon. Member was correct in the point he had raised.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The title of the Bill is—"TO further amend the Law relating to the Occupation and Ownership of Land in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto."
  MR. LEAMYasked if it was not a fact that unless a Bill was expressly confined to England or Ireland or Scotland, it extended to the three countries?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Bill is expressly confined to Ireland, and it can only be extended to England and Scotland by a special Instruction of the House.
  MR. CALLAN, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert in page 18, line 22, after "Ireland," the words—
  "But in all such agreements for the advance of money the following conditions shall be imposed (that is to say):—

  "(a.) The emigration shall be to a temperate climate;

  "(b.) The emigration shall in all cases include the whole family;

  "(c.) That each family shall be allotted a free grant of land;

  "(d.) That each family shall be supplied sufficient food for support till they have time to raise a crop;

  "(e.) That due security be given for the satisfactory conveyance of each emigrating family, free of expense and any charge on their respective allotments;"

  said, they had read of the evils attending the great emigration after the Famine of 1847. They had still the horrors of the Lansdowne Ward in New York fresh in their memory; they were aware of the horrors which marked the progress of the emigrant ships from Ireland to America; they were equally cognizant of the sufferings and privations which the poor emigrants had to endure upon their arrival in America; and it was to guard against a recurrence of these things that he now made this Motion. It was not at all desirable that persons should be despatched to the cold regions of the Hudson Bay, or that they should be sent to the swamps of Virginia or to the unhealthy rice districts of Carolina. Of course, he could conceive that there would be objections to the second con-

  927
  dition he proposed, because there might be cases where some members of a family might be unwilling to emigrate, or where some persons could not leave the country. He believed, however, his third condition would impose an effective check upon the speculative Companies who were always found ready to take up emigration schemes. There could be no objection to the other conditions. It was only proper that care should be taken that emigrants were not huddled together on board ship, as had happened on previous occasions. If it was desired to promote emigration for charitable and benevolent purposes, the Committee should insist that the Companies whom they assisted should give ample security that these conditions would be complied with; for who, in his benevolence, would wish to cast poor families on American soil, unless they had sufficient means of subsistence until they could raise a crop? Each of the conditions he recommended would commend itself to the good feeling of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The second condition cannot be well moved now, as it is inconsistent with the words "especially of families." The rest of the conditions can be moved.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 22, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "but in all such agreements for the advance of money the following conditions shall be imposed (that is to say):—

  "(a.) The emigration shall be to a temperate climate;

  "(b.) That each family shall be allotted a free grant of land;

  "(c.) That each family shall be supplied sufficient food for support till they have time to raise a crop;

  "(d.) That due security be given for the satisfactory conveyance of each emigrating family, free of expense and any charge on their respective allotments."—(Mr. Callan.)

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) was not serious. Anything more extraordinary or restrictive than the proposed conditions it was impossible to conceive. If the object of the hon. Member was to render the clause utterly nugatory, it was not possible for his inventive genius to propound anything more calculated to do so.
  MR. LEAMYwas surprised at the remarks which had just fallen from his
  928
  hon. Friend (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). What was the poposition of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan)? It was simply this—that the Commission, before it consented to allow families to be removed, should ascertain that all the conditions suggested by his hon. Friend were complied with. It was a notorious fact that people had been induced to go away from Ireland on the promise that they would get land free; but that when they got to their destination they found they had to clean the land, and that there was nothing given them to subsist upon until they could get in a harvest. The Land Commission would not be carrying out the wishes of the supporters of this clause unless they insisted upon some such conditions as those now suggested being carried out. Only yesterday they were given a description of the Province of Manitoba, to which it was proposed to send Irish tenants. The hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) seemed to think it was an excellent place for people, although, in describing the temperature of the Province, he said at one time it was greatly below zero and at another time much above 100 degrees. He (Mr. Leamy) could not help thinking, as he listened to the remarks of the hon. Member, of the description which Milton gave of the vicissitudes of heat and cold in a certain unmentionable place. It was not enough that the people should be transported from Ireland to America, but he and his hon. Friends wanted to know what would become of the people when they landed on the other side of the Atlantic; they wanted to receive the assurance that each family emigrating should be allowed a grant of land, and that each family should be supplied with sufficient food till the harvest. Supposing the Bill came into operation two months hence, a number of the people who would be emigrated would go out towards the end of November. What would be the use of giving them a free grant of land unless they also received something to subsist upon until they raised a crop?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANconsidered the adoption of the Amendment would be the ruin of Ireland, because there would not be a poor man in the country who would not apply for the advantages indicated in the Amendment. If the

  929
  first batch of Irish emigrants were deported to a place in which they could not live it would have the excellent effect which many so much desired—namely, of preventing this clause working any further. If they passed this Amendment the consequence would be that things would be made so pleasant that it would be impossible to keep the people in Ireland. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would not persevere in his proposal.
  MR. R. POWERthought in was only proper that the emigrants should be provided for as well as possible by a generous grant of the Government. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) expressed surprise at the Amendment, and seemed to doubt the seriousness of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). He (Mr. Power) did not know whether his hon. Friend was serious or not; but the Amendment he had moved was in itself rather vague and somewhat complicated. In the first place, he proposed that emigration should be to a temperate climate. Now, there were many Irishmen who would be very glad to go to a very cold climate, and there were others who would prefer a warm climate. In fact, to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman thoroughly it would be requisite to have thermometers in the different places to which emigrants would probably be sent, and to have the readings communicated to the people at home. He would certainly disapprove of emigrating whole families; because, if this were done, nobody would be left at home, and the land would become an utter waste. If anyone were to be sent away, they ought to be those people who were now no use in the country. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman proposed that each family should receive a free grant of land. The quantity of land was not stated; it might be only 9 acres, and a family might consist of nine persons. Certain unpleasantness might arise in families, and perhaps one brother would think he ought to have two acres and his brother none at all. This would lead to a great deal of confusion; and to avoid this it would be requisite that each member of a family should be allowed a free grant of land. The condition as to supply of food until the emigrants had time to
  930
  raise a crop was very indefinite, because it might so happen that there was a succession of bad seasons after the arrival of the emigrants, and that the crops would be worth nothing at all. The last condition, which related to the conveyance of the emigrating family, was perfectly impracticable. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. BLAKEconfessed that he should be glad to see the Amendment embodied in the Bill, with the exception of one portion which required some explanation, and that portion was that "the emigration shall be to a temperate climate." It was an exceedingly difficult thing to find what was meant by a temperate climate. If the Amendment were carried out in its entirety, the only part of the United States that could be considered to have a temperate climate was California, and a portion of the British Dominion in the North-West. He wished to remove an error that had prevailed in that House, and that was that it was the intention of the Government to emigrate a large portion of people to Manitoba. That would be simply impossible, because the greater portion of Manitoba was already taken up, and nearly the whole of the only valuable portion of the Province was in the possession of the Hudson Bay Company, who were asking large prices for their land. As they approached the Rocky Mountains the climate unquestionably improved. The climate of Manitoba was undoubtedly very cold in winter, and very warm in the summer months; but he would venture to point out that if the climate was suitable for the sons of English gentlemen and their wives and families it ought to be suitable for his hardy countrymen.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he should have much pleasure in withdrawing, at once, the condition, "The emigration shall be to a temperate climate." The explanation of the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) was sufficient to show him the wisdom of withdrawing it. It was, however, his intention to go to a division on the remaining portion of the Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not see any advantage that would arise from the adoption of the Amendment. They could not agree that emigration should, in all cases, include whole families.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I ruled that that condition could not be moved.
  MR. GLADSTONE, continuing, said, the next condition proposed was that each family should be allotted a free grant of land. But families might not necessarily go in for agricultural pursuits. Was it intended that a single person should not be allowed to emigrate unless he was going for agricultural purposes?
  MR. CALLANsaid, he merely proposed that each family should have a free grant of land.
  MR. GLADSTONEasked if everybody in Ireland was to be prevented from taking advantage of this clause unless he was prepared to take a free grant of land? The next condition proposed by the hon. Member was that each family should be supplied with food until he could raise a crop. That was evidently a question of detail, and no fixed rule could be laid down. It was also proposed—
  "That due security be given for the satisfactory conveyance of each emigrating family, free of expense and any charge on their respective allotments;"
  that was to say, that all the people who emigrated were to go purely upon eleemosynary principles. These were not things to which they could consent, because they would only tend to tie up the Commission. The Government, therefore, were prepared to meet the Amendment with a direct negative.
  MR. PARNELLcertainly thought it was a reasonable stipulation his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) suggested—namely, that a family emigrating should have a grant of land. He had always understood that one of the principal reasons why the Government brought forward this Emigration Clause was to enable the Irish people to emigrate to America or elsewhere, and to get on the land, instead of, as at present, hanging about the Eastern seaport towns. Surely the already overburdened labour market of the United States of America must tell them that, and certainly the working classes there would not thank England for sending out a number of poor Irish families to compete with them, and to reduce their already too scanty wages. That was certainly not the intention of the Government, as he had supposed up to the present time. Well, if that was not the intention of the Government
  932
  what objection had the Prime Minister to this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman had asked Parliament to agree to a very unusual and extraordinary thing—a thing, he (Mr. Parnell) believed, unprecedented in modern English history—namely, a grant of money by the State for the purpose of assisting emigration from Ireland. If the views of the Government were that the agricultural classes in Ireland, who were accustomed to working on the land and not in mills, should be allowed to better their condition by, in the case of tenants, giving them larger holdings in America and in Canada than in Ireland, and, in the case of agricultural labourers, by changing their position from labourers to that of owners of small farms, why were they not prepared to insert some such provision in the Bill? As it was, they would have a great number of people going to earn daily wages, there would be a large class of emigrants whom this clause would not affect at all; but as regarded the State assistance of emigration, it was only reasonable that the last three conditions proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) should be observed. He would not adhere resolutely to the phrase "free grant of land" in sub-section C; but would suggest that the sub-section should read—"That each family shall be allotted a grant of land on such terms as may seem suitable to the Commission."
  MR. GLADSTONEwondered whether hon. Gentlemen were of opinion that persons earning daily wages should be absolutely shut out from emigration?
  MR. CALLANsaid, if such people were offered a free grant of land they would, no doubt, accept it. He would, under the circumstances, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and request to be allowed to modify sub-section C, so that it should read—
  "That each family shall be allotted what, in the opinion of the Commission, shall be a suitable plot of land."
  If he could not get permission to withdraw the Amendment, but was forced to a division, he hoped the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) would go with him, because he was prepared to withdraw the condition to which the hon. Gentleman had taken objection. He should also be most happy to accept the suggestion of the

  933
  hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be better to bring the Amendment up in an amended form.
  MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. When the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) wanted to do this upon a previous clause, the Chairman ruled that the second proposition was much the same as the first, and therefore could not be put. Would the Chairman rule that, in this instance, the hon. Member could bring up the Amendment in an amended form?
  THE CHAIRMANsaw no similarity between the two cases.
  MR. DAWSONsuggested that subsection C should read—"That each family who desire it shall be allotted a plot of land." That would meet the views of both the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan).
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was quite impossible to deal with Amendments moved by hon. Gentlemen who did not know their own minds. The least they could do was to know what they wanted before placing the Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANhoped permission would be given to the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) to withdraw his Amendment, in order that something in the nature of this Amendment might be moved by him or someone else—
  "Provided always, that regard shall be had to the desirability of assisting such emigrants only to agricultural localities, or to places where such emigrants may have facilities for acquiring homesteads."
  He desired that an instruction of this kind should be given to the Commission without laying such a mandate upon them as the Amendment proposed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is not yet disposed of.
  MR. CALLANhoped the Government would accede to the withdrawal of the Amendment, and allow it to be brought forward on a subsequent occasion in an amended form. The Irish Members had been charged with not knowing their own minds; but, if his memory served him right, there had been more than one change of mind on the part of the Government themselves since the Bill had been introduced.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking directly to the question of the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYcomplained that the Government had given the Committee no information whatever as to their intentions, except that they proposed to deport a large number of the Irish people. He (Mr. Healy) asked the Government, if they wished to gain the confidence of the Irish Members and of the Irish people in respect to the emigration scheme, to give a more detailed explanation of their intentions. The Government might appoint a Land Commission and authorize them to put the Emigration Clause into force; but the Irish people would not accept the scheme unless they were informed as to the conditions. A charge of change of front had been made against the Irish Members; but the Government themselves changed front so often that it was difficult to know when they had them. It was ridiculous to accuse the Irish Members with not knowing their own minds simply because one of their number proposed to amend a particular clause which the Government declined to accept; and the charge was all the more unreasonable when they remembered that the Government was continually giving lamentable instances of change of front.
  MR. LEAMYthought the Government ought to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, so that it might be amended. The Government now proposed to do what had never been done by a Government before. For the last 50 years emigration schemes had been got up and recommended by men who were hostile to the Irish people; but though such schemes had been approved of from time to time by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Benches, no Administration had ever attempted to do what was now proposed to be done by the present Government, which boasted of being the champion of liberty and freedom throughout the world. He maintained that the Representatives of Ireland had a right to demand from the Government some explanation as to what they proposed to do with the Irish emigrants after they had induced them to leave their native land. At present the Committee had no information as to what was to become of them when

  935
  they reached their destination. They had been told that arrangements would be made for their "reception;" but that was a vague term which might fairly be interpreted in many ways. He wished to know whether small tenants, who might be induced to leave their homes in the West of Ireland, would be supplied with land upon their arrival in the new country; or whether they would simply receive some assistance for a month or two, until such time as they might find employment as labourers? Would the nature of the arrangements for their reception include proper accommodation for the emigrants, and some proper means of gaining a livelihood? If that were so, he was entirely at a loss to understand why the Chief Secretary should hesitate to say so openly and frankly in the Bill.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that, having had some experience of assisting people to emigrate to Canada, he should like to mention one or two cases with a view of showing that it by no means followed that it was desirable that all emigrants from the agricultural classes should at once become freeholders. Hon. Members from Ireland must rember that the conditions of farming in America were very different from those in Ireland. Although he would be exceedingly glad indeed to see a great many Irish labourers and tenant farmers settled in comfortable homesteads in Canada or America, still he thought that a few years' apprenticeship under the new system of farming would be of great advantage to them before they entered upon the enviable position of freeholders. He was quite satisfied that they would do far better as labourers for a time, as the experience they would gain would be of the utmost assistance afterwards when they began to farm for themselves. It was within his own knowledge that people sometimes turned out very different, under the changed conditions of a new country, to what their previous training would lead those who knew them to expect. For instance, some 14 or 15 years ago, he assisted a large family to emigrate to Canada. The head of the family was a clever shoemaker. He did not, however, make a living in Berkshire, and he (Mr. Walter) supplied him with means for going to Canada. He followed his usual employment there for some years, and,
  936
  having done extremely well, he changed his occupation to that of farming; the only thing he now complained of was the want of labour, and he stated that he would be thankful for labour of any kind. He (Mr. Walter) also sent to Canada a tenant farmer who rented 100 acres. He was a very good farmer; but he did not succeed; and on arriving in Canada, instead of pursuing his accustomed occupation, he accepted a remunerative post on board a ship running along the American coast. Those instances went to show that a man's previous training by no means indicated the kind of occupation which would most suit him when he became a Colonist.
  MR. BIGGARthought that if it was really meant that any attention was to be paid to the emigrants after their arrival, no provision less than that proposed in the clause would be of any benefit to them. It had been stated that the real intention of the Government was simply to induce the Irish people to go to America, to turn them adrift in some city, and leave them to their own devices. Whether that was true or not, that was certainly what would take place if some such provision as that proposed were not put in the Bill. As the measure at present stood, it contained no suggestion whatever for the guidance or instruction of the Commission in this important particular; and, failing the necessary instructions, the Commissioners would simply follow the example of others before them who had superintended emigration schemes and turn the people adrift to find employment as day labourers as best they could. The Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan), however, would, if adopted, secure that the emigrants would be taken to places where they would find employment similar to that to which they had been accustomed in their native country.
  MR. CALLANproduced a copy of the despatch of the Governor General of Canada, presented to Parliament by command of the Queen, relating to the arrangements made by the Canadian Government for the reception and treatment of emigrants from the United Kingdom, and pointed out that one of the provisions was that each emigrant was to be supplied with 140 acres of land, the hon. Gentleman remarking that if the Government did not accept the proposal similar conditions should

  937
  be introduced into the Bill. Irish emigrants to Canada under the scheme would be deprived of the free grant of land.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 260: Majority 238.—(Div. List, No. 306.)
  MR. HEALYmoved, in page 18, line 22, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words—
  "Provided always, That, under any scheme of emigration, no voters shall be removed out of any district where, and during the time when, an election for any Parliamentary, Municipal, Poor Law, or County Board vacancy is then pending."
  He said that as, of course, all schemes of emigration had to be reported to Parliament by the Central Commission, and to the Central Commission by Inspectors, the Commission would not be the judges of whether a scheme in a particular district was advisable or desirable, or as to the time when it was desirable that the scheme should be initiated. They would be guided entirely by local circumstances—that was to say, that if the Government sent down a man anywhere to make inquiries, the first persons he would go to would be the police, and the next the resident magistrate. Having done the resident magistrate, he would go round to the landlords—that was to say, he would touch the fringe of the whole hierarchy, while the people themselves were left entirely untouched. The contention of himself and his Friends was that it was possible so to time a large emigration scheme that it would chime in with a particular local election in a manner that would greatly influence the result of that election. They knew very well that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was very fond of imprisoning Poor Law Guardians. In one Union alone he had imprisoned nearly half-a-dozen local representatives of public opinion. What were the facts then? That the Board of Guardians was so depleted of the representatives of popular opinion that the ex-officio members who were by law appointed in the same proportion as the elected Guardians could at a particular election—let them say for a surgeon, or clerk, or any other official of the Board—carry the election in their own way owing to the
  938
  arrests of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the deprivation of the Board of its elected Members. The ex-officio Guardians thus had it all their own way. Supposing a scheme of emigration were adopted at a particular time in a particular district, the same thing would happen. He did not say, in fact he was very far from saying, that that was the object of the Government in proposing that scheme; but owing to the influence of local magnates a particular scheme might be so timed as to chime in very opportunely with the election of the local representatives, and the ex-officio members would have matters all their own way. They might find in a borough—because the franchise was very limited in spite of the frequent promises of the Government to assimilate it with the English—that out of 300 or 400 voters, 50 or 60 might be included in the scheme, a number whose absence might be sufficient to turn the scale in the desired direction. They might find the same thing occurring in regard to Poor Law Guardians and Municipal Elections. Upon all those grounds he thought it would be wiser for the Government to accept the Amendment, so that there would be no fear of any sinister motive actuating the local Inspectors in carrying out the emigration scheme.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 22, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Provided always, That, under any scheme of emigration, no voters shall be removed out of any district where and during the time when an election for any Parliamentary, Municipal, Poor Law, or County Board vacancy is then pending."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought that they ought to have some explanation from the Government as to their views on the Amendment. He did not think for a moment that the Government would lend themselves to any scheme which would prevent the popular voice being expressed in the elections in Ireland; but, on the other hand, he thought it was quite possible that there were persons in Ireland who might take advantage of opportunities to do so; but, whether that were so or not, the Amendment was one which was allowed to be put from the Chair, and that being so, he thought they should have some

  939
  expression of opinion on the part of the Government.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he really thought the Government ought to let the Committee know what they thought about the Amendment. If they would not, he would let them know what he thought about it. The Amendment said that under any scheme of emigration no voters shall be removed out of any district where, and during the time when, an Election for any Parliamentary, Municipal, Poor Law, or County Board vacancy is then pending. It might happen that the time during which an election was taking place might be the very time—perhaps the summer time, when the weather was fine—that the people would be wanting to go away. The Amendment, if it were carried, would prevent their doing so; and, therefore, if it were carried, he should propose to move to add at the end, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) would allow him, the words "unless they expressly desire it."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 220: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan); but as it would subject the Commission to the action of the Poor Law Guardians, and as that proposition was negatived yesterday, it cannot be moved.
  MR. LEAMY: On the point of Order, Sir, I would respectfully submit that the Amendment which was moved yesterday by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! I have already given a decision on that point. I now call upon Mr. W. E. Forster.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I now, Sir, beg to move, in page 18, line 24, to insert the words "and for securing the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants." In doing so, we consider that that would insure that there would be proper arrangements for putting the emigrants on board, for taking them wherever they may desire to go, and for giving them a proper reception when they arrive at their destination.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 24, to insert "and for securing the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he really thought that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had scarcely treated the Committee with courtesy, and that he had scarcely fulfilled something in the nature of an engagement which he had given earlier in the evening. He had proposed that Amendment without one word of comment as to what he meant by the words. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman did that under the supposition that he was thereby saving time. But he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) confessed it appeared to him a most extraordinary way of saving time to propose an Amendment without explanation, and to leave the Committee by cross-examination to get out of the right hon. Gentleman what it was he really meant. Now, he wanted to know the meaning of every single word of that Amendment. He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "the shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants?" What did reception mean? That was not the first time he had asked the question in the course of that evening, and in spite of the questions he had ventured to put to Ministers, the Chief Secretary for Ireland got up in his place and took it for granted that they were going to allow his Amendment to pass without a word of comment. Now, the word reception might mean anything or nothing. It might mean that the emigration agent was at Castle Garden—he was obliged to repeat himself, because his questions had not been answered earlier by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—or it might mean that the emigration agent was to bring the emigrant to a proper settlement, to allot him a proper portion of the country, to see that he had work to do and a house to dwell in, or to give him the means to construct a house, so that he should have a good start in his new home with something like a chance of success therein. What was "the shipment, transport, and reception of emigrants?" He had proposed that evening, and he bad subjected himself to the lightning-like invective of

  941
  the Prime Minister for doing so, that they should demand of the responsible bodies that they should undertake to find proper employment, proper houses, and a proper settlement for the emigrants whom they took under their charge. Well, it might be said that such detailed instructions were limiting the action of the Land Commissioners. He wanted to limit their action, so that they might be compelled by the terms of their bond to treat the emigrants in a proper manner. He made these observations in the hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland might see his way to make some explanations, and to suggest some better words. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, through the Chairman, whether he refused to give any answer to the question?
  MR. LEAMY: As the right hon. Gentleman does not condescend to give any explanation, I move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Leamy.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have been very unwilling to say anything in the course of this debate, so far as we have been able to avoid it, that would lead to dissatisfaction. But I speak on the morning of the 15th of July, and this is the third day we have spent on the Emigration Clause, with respect to which we have declared our willingness to limit its action in funds. We have developed the general words of the clause for the purpose of giving every satisfaction, as we hope, to every reasonable person. We have supplied the Commissioners with instructions amply sufficient if they are rational—I will not say high-minded—to defend them against serious error; and now we are met by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who, in his speech, stated that which was wholly inaccurate—namely, that my right hon. Friend had proposed his Amendment without a word of explanation, when my right hon. Friend had given a most careful, though concise, explanation of the only three words in the Amendment which could possibly require it—"shipment," "transport," and "reception." Under these circumstances, because the right hon. Gentleman declines to be the instrument—I will not say of hon. Gen-
  942
  tlemen opposite; I will not even say of hon. Gentlemen in that particular quarter of the House, because they are but a limited portion of those who commonly sit in that quarter of the House, who are parties to the operations that are now deliberately carried on—having miserably failed in their attempts to denounce this Bill in Ireland, they now seek, by offering an obstructive opposition, and by attempting to attach to this Emigration Clause impossible conditions, again to set up their reputation among their own countrymen as those who really and truly demand what is for the good of Ireland; and this, as we well understand, is their capital, their method, for repairing and making good the damaged reputation they now have in Ireland. If the avowal of these facts is torn from me, I cannot refuse to make it. I have sat here in patience from day to day, witnessing with a pain not to be described—I admit the success of a small handful of Members in this respect—with a pain not to be described, the degradation which has been inflicted on this noble Assembly—
  MR. HEALYrose to Order. The Chairman had, on the previous day, ruled that it was not in Order to discuss, on a Motion to report Progress, anything but arguments in support of that Motion.
  The CHAIRMAN called upon
  MR. GLADSTONE, who, resuming, said: The degradation which has been inflicted upon this noble Assembly, which for generations and for centuries has had for its main study to adapt every one of its arrangements to defending the rights of minorities, to secure liberty of speech, to prevent oppression by numbers of those who might have reason on their side. We have seen every one of these admirable Rules systematically perverted for the sake of intercepting, by mere persistence, and by words multiplied without a thought, or without an attempt at persuasion, the deliberate convictions of this House, and taking its legislative functions out of the hands of the great mass of its Members, in order to place them within the power of a minority reduced from day to day by the defection of its more moderate Members, subject as they have been from time to time to the reproaches of those who will not go to the measureless extremes of the hand-

  943
  ful I have in view. This is the state of things in which the Committee has to determine whether it will succumb to the attempts which are made from such a quarter, in such a spirit, with such an unblushing openness; or whether it will this night, by carrying forward to its conclusion, and taking the definitive judgment of the Committee on the clause relating to emigration, assent and vindicate its former rights against the unworthy efforts by which they are sought to be defeated and destroyed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, there was a very deliberate purpose and a clever stratagem beneath the apparently hot and excited language of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well what he was doing in addressing that hot and violent and inflammatory language to his very excited and excitable followers. What was really the state of the case? The Prime Minister wished to hide and cover out of sight an almost imbecile mistake of tactics in respect to this Bill, and to throw on the innocent shoulders of the Irish Members the perilous delay in the progress of the Bill, which was entirely due to the compound folly and timidity with which the Government had acted. What might the Government have done? They might have abandoned this clause on the first night it was introduced. There might have been some little protest from the Opposition Benches, because this was the only part of the Bill which commended itself to the Conservatives either in that House or in "another place." Had the clause been supported with unanimity by the right hon. Gentleman's own Colleagues? By whom had the strongest arguments against the clause been made? By the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald).
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN, rising to Order, asked whether it was in Order for Gentlemen standing below the Bar to make interruptions?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have heard no interruptions that were disorderly.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, resuming, asked, did the Liberal Party, did the Democratic Party, sneer at the hon. Member for Stafford? The hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Sunderland were far more representative men than the brainless and nameless
  944
  creations of caucuses or other organizations. The right hon. Gentleman had got up, and, in words of almost penitence, had invited the Irish Members to force him to abandon this clause. He was quite willing to fish for their opinion on this question; but did he not already know the opinion of a considerable section of the Irish Party upon it? If not, let him go to a single division, and see if he could find a majority of the Irish National Representatives in favour of the clause. The Prime Minister had, with a plaintiveness that appealed to every heart in that Assembly, remarked on the lateness of the Session; but if he had only had the good sense to give up the clause three or four days ago, the Committee, instead of being at the 26th clause, might now have been discussing the 35th or the 40th. Was this clause so important that it should imperil the whole Bill? The Irish Members had given a loyal support to the Bill as far as they could; and he should like to ask who saved the Government when their own friends nearly defeated them—when that treacherous friend of the Bill, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) tried to minimize and destroy it? He asked for an answer to that—not in the purposely imflammatory language of the Prime Minister, but in the language of fact and sense? Who delayed the progress of the Bill for many days after the House got into Committee? The noble Lord who, for his pains, according to popular rumour, was now to be tranquillized and rewarded for his obstruction to the Bill, by being transferred to the eminence which was occupied by the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. Who had all the Amendments on the Paper, and who made all the speeches? The Whig Members; and the Prime Minister, the head of the Government, was not ashamed to endeavour to cover the defection of his own followers and his own mistakes by making political capital against the small Party who were made the scapegoat of every offence or mistake of the Government. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and several of his hon. Friends from Ireland had said too much in favour of the Bill in Ireland; but, of course, facts were not of the least importance to the Prime Minister when he was in a difficulty, and wanted to cover his retreat and bad tactics by an attack on his opponents.
  Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS and Mr. JESSE COLLINGSrose together. [Cries of "Collings!"]
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS.
  MR. PARNELLrose to Order, and, observing that he had heard the Chairman first call upon the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), submitted that that hon. Gentleman was entitled to address the Committee, although an ex-Cabinet Minister sought to do so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did call upon the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings); but the Committee have the power, and it is constantly exercised, if they desire a particular Member to be called upon who rises at the same time with another Member; and I understood that the hon. Member for Ipswich had given way.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I shall not stand between the Committee and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) more than a few minutes; but in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) I cannot sit still, having witnessed what has taken place, without offering my strongest protest against the course pursued by a small fraction of Irish Members. I am one of those, who, as the Committee probably know, are strongly opposed to a great part of this Bill; but having more than once expressed my dissent from that part of the Bill, and the Committee having decided against me, I am bound to yield to their opinion, and not delay the progress of the Bill unnecessarily. Unless Parliamentary government is to be carried on upon that principle there is an end to all Parliament, and I must entirely endorse every word which has fallen from the Prime Minister on the course taken by a small fraction of the Irish Party. I say a small fraction, because I believe it is a small fraction. It would be the greatest possible mistake to say it is the Irish Party or anything like the Irish Party; it is the merest handful of that Party. I entirely endorse what has fallen from the Prime Minister, and this House and this Committee will not allow their own legislative action to be stopped absolutely by a small and insignificant section of Members. If anyone could have proved the justness of what has fallen from the Prime Minister, it was the speech of the hon. Member
  946
  who has just sat down (Mr. O'Connor). He has stated that everything they have done for the last two or three days has been done to force the Government to withdraw this clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. He must most distinctly repudiate that insinuation. He never said anything of the kind.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: That is precisely what took place. That is exactly what the hon. Member did, and he has shown to the Committee that the whole reason and object of what we have been passing through so painfully has been to force the Government, if possible, to withdraw this clause. The Government have made great concessions, from some of which I differ; but they have made them to conciliate hon. Members on this side of the House, and if this conduct is to go on, I shall be prepared to hold that it is within the terms of the Standing Orders of the House, and does amount to wilful and persistent Obstruction. It is, in my opinion, an abuse of the Forms of the House, and a persistent abuse of the Forms of the House is, in my view, wilful and persistent Obstruction, for which the individual Member is liable to be censured by the Committee and by the Chair.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that that was the third day the Committee had been discussing that Emigration Clause. It was so important a clause that no one expected it would pass without due discussion and some opposition; but he took it that the opposition had now gone beyond the bounds of fairness, and had involved what the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had described as a perilous delay. There were hon. Members on his (Mr. Collings's) side of the House who opposed the clause; but if hon. Gentlemen opposite wished their co-operation in this matter, they must conduct their opposition with dignity and fairness. And, of all things, he would remind the hon. Member for Galway that if he wished the co-operation of hon. Members on that side of the House, he must avoid even the appearance of such unbecoming language as had been addressed to the Prime Minister. It was alleged that the Government wished to depopulate Ireland; but he (Mr. Collings) could hardly conceive that anyone truly believed that to be the case. But what was the effect of this

  947
  Amendment? He could understand these tactics when they were adopted with regard to the Coercion Bills, because the object of such tactics was to destroy that Bill which contained coercion, and the effect of these tactics now would be to destroy this Bill as far as possible which contained remedial measures. He could understand and sympathize with hon. Members when coercion was being put in force with what they thought unnecessary violence; but he could not understand these tactics when applied to a Land Bill such as this—a Land Bill such as did not enter into the wildest imagination of Ireland. It was a Land Bill for which all Ireland was waiting. Ninety-nine tenants out of every 100 were wishing for the day when it should become law, and the Committee had arrived at a critical time when every moment was worth an hour, and when the great danger in its way was delay. If hon. Members were about to strike at the Bill through that clause, it would be better for them to say so. The hon. Member for Galway had spoken of the Bill being dealt with in "another place;" but he (Mr. Collings) had no fear of its being dealt with in "another place" if there were a fair issue; but if it was sent up at a time when those in "another place" could have some reasonable excuse on account of time for not considering it, there would not be a clear issue before the country, and great difficulty would be created. If that were so, it was time that the tenants of Ireland should know who they were who were delaying the Bill. Hon. Members on his (Mr. Collings's) side of the House had been taunted with silence, and it had been said that they did not speak on the Bill because they did not understand it; but they thought they did understand it, and some of them rejoiced in it, and they believed they had helped the Government to pass it by being silent upon it. This example had not been followed by hon. Members immediately behind the Government Bench, who had, he was afraid, been listened to by the Government for their much speaking. But the Prime Minister, some months ago, gave the assurance that the Bill should not be mutilated, and relying on that he (Mr. Collings), with others, had been silent. He would remind hon. Members that this was not
  948
  only an Irish question, but an English question, and an English question particularly dear to hon. Members below the Gangway, because England rested under a continual reproach in Europe which they were anxious to remove. They could not praise their system of Government, they could not preach to Russia and speak as they would, until they had removed this peculiar form of government in Ireland—government by means of 50,000 soldiers. Therefore, that was an English question. He had all along voted and spoken in favour of what he believed to be the true interests of Ireland, and he believed he was never speaking or voting more in the interests of Ireland than when he was speaking and voting against this obstruction of the Bill by a few hon. Members. While, as an English Member, he was willing and eager to do justice to Ireland, English Members were not willing to be played with in this fashion. Therefore, he hoped the Government would not give way in this matter; but, if they could manage to send the Prime Minister home, they would leave the Committee to try conclusions with the hon. Members opposite.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had listened with regret to the speech they had just heard. He was not one of those who could be charged with Obstruction, and there wore few hon. Members who had spoken so seldom as he had during these discussions; but the Government had selected one of the worst points in the Bill for taking issue with Irish Members. He (Mr. O'Kelly) had explained, the other night, he was not wholly opposed to emigration; but he wanted to know, in regard to the Government proposal, what did they mean by the reception of emigrants? Irish Members did not wish their countrymen taken to the slums of American cities—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is at liberty to discuss the Amendment as soon as the Motion for reporting Progress is withdrawn. At present the Question is that I report Progress.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, Irish Members were charged with obstructing the measure; but he could claim that he had not spoken frequently or obstructed the progress of the Bill. He was one of the Irish Members who, at considerable risk of unpopularity, asked the people of Ireland to give the Bill a fair hear-

  949
  ing; he was not afraid to do that in Ireland any more than he was afraid to take the side of Ireland in the House, however small the minority. The charge of Obstruction applied much more fairly to the Whig Members who supported the Government. Irish Members were silent during the early discussions on the Bill, and only now interposed when a point was reached that would be fatal to the interest of the Irish people. They knew very well, whatever the intentions of the Government might be, the people into whose hands the machinery for the working of this clause would fall would use their power to clear the country of every man they could tempt out of the country—
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKrose to Order. Was not the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) disregarding the ruling of the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN: At the present moment the hon. Member is beginning to discuss the whole clause, which he is not entitled to do on a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he merely rose to protest against the attempt of the Government, and it was an attempt common to the two Front Benches, to throw upon Irish Members the responsibility for the heat that had been introduced into the discussion. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) by his unfounded charge against hon. Members—a charge which he had not withdrawn or apologized for. With regard to the special declaration and doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and who was chiefly known as the author of the great London Water Supply fiasco, if that right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Irish Party as an insignificant fraction, it was known that a number still more insignificant had a leading part in flogging out of power the late Cabinet, and it certainly had not declined in influence since then. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) felt it incumbent upon him to express an opinion that Irish Members were pushing opposition to the Depopulation Clause with unfairness; but, with all respect to that hon. Member, it lay with the Irish Representatives to judge of the degree of opposition that should be offered to measures that they considered in the highest
  950
  degree detrimental to the Irish people. The position of the Government was this—that, while affecting to believe that the Irish Representatives were delaying the consideration of the Land Bill, in reality the Government chose to put their foot down in advance upon a most objectionable part of the Bill, and were themselves the obstructive obstacle and the sole cause of delay. Irish Members ought to be listened to on this question of emigration. This was said by the Government to be intended for certain counties in Ireland; and was it not a fact that the Representatives of those very counties led the van in this opposition? It was from Mayo, Galway, Kerry, and Clare that the opposition mainly came. He was sorry to understand that it was the intention of the Government to force the discussion at a time when it was impossible that the Amendment could be discussed with fairness and fullness; he was sorry because the discussion of that important clause would therefore have to be resumed on Report. Unquestionably, there was a necessary Obstruction; for if hon. Members were to be controlled by the mere mechanical force of a majority, they must seek other Constitutional opportunities of making themselves heard. The clause might be passed in spite of the Irish Members; but if carried against them merely by brute force the clause would not redound to the influence or credit of Her Majesty's Government. He could assure the Government and the Conservative Party, whose splendid views of reform required the continued removal of larger and larger bodies of the able-bodied population of Ireland, that the Irish Members did not shrink one inch from their opposition; that not alone the Irish Members, but the Irish nation in Ireland, the Irish race in America and all over the world had put their foot down; and he could assure hon. Members that, so far as his knowledge of facts went, he expected that 12 months would not pass before both English Parties would be whining for the conciliation of Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, what did the Prime Minister mean by referring the Committee to the concessions he had made? At whose bidding did he make them? And what concessions had he made to Irish Members? He wished

  951
  to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact. During the first stages of, the Bill—the Landlord and Tenant Clauses—he (Mr. Dawson) did not speak; but he came over especially to do what he was doing now—to direct attention to what he believed was a fatal blot in an otherwise great measure, a blot that neutralized the good in the eyes of the people. Reference had been made to the Irish Party and their action, and when the clause came to be voted upon he should look with much interest to the final issue and the action of Irish Members who now were absent; whether they would vote for the emigration of the people from the already depopulated country at the discretion of the Government—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the clause.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he was referring to the accusations of the Prime Minister against the Irish Party. He would now only say that he should watch with some anxiety the votes that Irish Members would give.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was delighted with that episode; it seemed so much like old times, and it would really do hon. Members good to sit up all night. It would further be remembered as a brilliant passage in their Parliamentary career. The Government had complained that Irish Members were delaying the Bill. Well, of course, every word littered did delay the Bill; but it was an extraordinary thing that only now was such a complaint raised, and not a word was said when the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) and the Front Opposition Bench were discussing the 1st clause. No; that was legitimate Whig and Tory opposition, and the Prime Minister justified opposition which took three days to settle a line. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a large question to be decided, so the Committee was kept three days on one line; it was a tremendous achievement; but now that the Irish Members were on the second day of a clause affecting their own kith and kin, they were told they were committing a heinous offence. If he had to go back by way of illustration, he would remind the Committee that if the first Business to occupy the House had been the Land Bill, they would not be now squabbling over it on the 15th July. The Coercion
  952
  Bill occupied two months; but between the 7th of March and the 7th of April there was a month of delay; why could not the Land Bill have been taken up then? Had that been done, this question would not now be fought out on July 15. It was an extraordinary argument—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to me to be speaking merely against time.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he begged very seriously to correct that impression. [Cries of "Name, name!"] He would stand up there so long as he had his rights as an Irish Representative, and, though it were against 10,000 tongues, he would say what it came into his heart to say. He was not wasting time more than any other hon. Member speaking from one Front Bench or the other. He did not blame the Chairman for calling him to Order, as he could not help being swayed more or less by the feelings and passions that influenced the House—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am swayed by no other feeling than a desire to keep Order in the Committee, and to preserve its dignity. The hon. Member, in his remarks, seems to me to be simply wasting the time of the Committee, and if he continues in the same way I must take other measures.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was sorry his remark had been misunderstood as an imputation on the Chair. It was not so intended; he was mentally excusing the Chairman to himself, and perhaps he ought not to have said it; but it did not much matter. If the Prime Minister was speaking, Order was secured for him; but he (Mr. Healy) was as much entitled to Order, for he spoke as a Representative of the people quite as much as the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member, and he would say what he got up to say. The Prime Minister endeavoured to throw on Irish Members the delay of the Bill; it suited his purpose to do so; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir. R. Assheton Cross) tried to do the same thing; it suited the Tory Party to do so. The Whigs on one side were justified by the Prime Minister, and the Tories were justified by their champion. It was fortunate, however, for Irish Members that the public opinion with which they had to deal was not that of the House of Commons or of England; they had their

  953
  public opinion at home, their own home and their own country, and however much they might be abused in that House, however much themselves and their countrymen might be maligned, they would continue to fight out this clause to the bitter end.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, the Motion to report Progress was a perfectly reasonable one. They had arrived at a time of night when no real good could come out of discussion, and a further reason offered itself in the fact that the Government had materially altered the clause. Of course, he did not mean to discuss that now; but he was sure that there were not a dozen Members on either side who apprehended the alteration fully. Let the Committee go home and reconsider the position. Whatever his (Mr. Mac Iver's) sympathies with hon. Members from Ireland might be, he had no sympathy with any personal attacks that had been made upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He knew too much about him for that, and what a high-minded, right-thinking man he was. There was no more patriotic statesman in the House.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the Committee would see that the clause was materially altered by the Amendment to provide for the "shipment, transport, and reception" of emigrants in New York; but all he wanted now to know was what was understood by "reception?" The Government intimated that the emigrants should not only be provided for up to the moment of landing, but that they should be placed in a fair way of getting their living, and that the agricultural class especially should have holdings provided for them. He understood that was the intention of the Government; and, therefore, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved these words in regard to the reception of emigrants, it was natural to ask what meaning was attached to "reception." The right hon. Gentleman, instead of explaining, merely moved the Amendment, and simply for that reason the Motion to report Progress was made. As to the charge of delaying the Bill, he would say for himself that he came into the Committee with no intention but, so far as he could, to endeavour to extend the Bill in the direction the people would like to see it extended; but for at least eight or nine clauses he scarcely spoke at all, and he
  954
  believed the people of Ireland were satisfied that the Emigration Clause would be dropped. But the moment it was forced on—he did not conceal his intention to fight out the clause, line by line, nor did he conceal from himself the fact that this would delay the Bill; but he did not hesitate to say that if, by fighting out the Emigration Clause, which he believed a fatal blot on the Bill, if the effect of this opposition were to defeat the Bill altogether, he would not be afraid to go back and face his countrymen and say—"Yes, it cost you this great measure; but, so long as I have a right to speak, I will never consent to a measure which really means the expatriation of those people for whose benefit we want the Bill." That was the simple fact, and, whatever object the Government might impute to him, he was actuated by the desire to defeat the clause.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he felt strongly that the clause might be made of the greatest benefit to the people of the West of Ireland, and, therefore, he supported it with as honest and as earnest a wish for the welfare of the people as any who opposed it. Under the circumstances, he would really suggest that the discussion might now come to an end, that the Motion might be withdrawn, and that the Committee should go on and endeavour to dispose of the clause, for everybody must admit that for the good in the Bill, it was well to pass it as soon as possible, and if there was anything objectionable let it be amended afterwards.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had quite looked forward to finishing the Amendments that night, when the Motion was made which gave the Prime Minister the opportunity of taking the responsibility for the delay of the Bill off his own side, which gave the Conservatives the opportunity of disowning responsibility on their side, and which placed the House of Lords in the delightful position of being able to throw out the Bill, and say it was not the fault of the Conservative Party, though that Party unaided, except by a section of Whig Members, had held the Bill through all those weeks. But he had expected to get through these Amendments that night, and that they might be enabled to state their objections to the clause at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and he

  955
  would suggest that that course should still be followed, that they should go through the Amendments as was originally intended, until the end of the clause was reached, and then, on the final question, the Motion to report Progress might be renewed in order that they might have the opportunity of stating their final objections to the clause to-morrow. The Amendments upon the clause were few and unimportant, and he did not think that there was any principle to be served by dilatory Motions, and these Amendments might be discussed and disposed of in a short time. The hon. Member who had moved to report Progress had done so against his (Mr. Parnell's) wishes; and, having made his protest, for which there was certainly ample justification, he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 18, line 24, insert "and for securing the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYasked what was the object of the Amendment?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the object of the Amendment was to secure that the emigrants were properly provided for, and that the arrangements made for them, both with regard to their shipment, transport, and reception, when they landed at their destination, were satisfactory. He did not believe that it would be possible or proper to interfere in greater detail in giving instructions to the Commission; but it would be necessary for the Commissioners themselves, of course, to consider all the details.
  MR. O'SULLIVANremarked, that the Poor Law Guardians, when they sent out emigrants, provided them with money.
  MR. LEAMYthought the Government ought to make provision for finding employment for these people when they arrived at their destination. They might easily imagine the position of a man from the wilds of Connemara landed in New York, who had never seen a big city before.
  MR. O'DONNELLpresumed that the emigrants would be properly lodged and
  956
  taken care of during the interval before they were sent out to their destination? He presumed that was the intention of the Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that. I said that transport meant taking care of them to the place they were to be sent to.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if there was anything in the world to compel the Commission to take that view of the clause? The words were vague and dubious in their meaning, and he thought they should be made clear in the clause itself.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the position of the Government really appeared to be this—that they were undertaking the duties of emigration agents. They first proposed to stimulate emigration; now they had to go a step further and become emigration agents. He did not quite understand the business they were about to embark in, and he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to be in ignorance as to the arrangements that were to be made on entering into this new trade. It was desirable, however, that the Committee should know how the Government were going to carry out this trade. Did the clause mean that the emigrants were to be received at the nearest seaport they went to, or at their ultimate destination? Were the Government going to follow them up all the way to Minnesota, or to Manitoba, or even to Brazil? Were they intending to follow them some thousand miles away from the port of landing; and if they were going to do so, had they any idea of the vast and complicated business they were taking upon their own shoulders and the enormous amount of failure they must meet with? The business was far too vast, too complicated, and too new for the Government to undertake.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANdeplored all the time that had been occupied in seeking an explanation of the Amendment. It seemed, on the face of it, a perfectly plain and useful Amendment. As he understood it, it was to secure the satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants. The Government were determined to save the horrors of the middle passage to these poor emigrants; but the question was, not what the Government meant by the phrase,

  957
  but how it would be considered and dealt with by the Commission. He would suggest that they should add after the word "reception" the words "to the place of destination of the emigrants." He understood from the Government that that was their intention.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked what would be done provided the Government took a body of emigrants to a place which turned out to be unsuitable for them? Was the whole responsibility to be shifted from the shoulders of the Government and placed upon the emigrants, who would have to make arrangements for themselves. He reminded the Committee that there had been Welsh Colonies, Scotch Colonies, and various other Colonies especially, under what appeared to be the most promising auspices. The Moravian Communists of Russia had been successful agriculturists. Many of them, rather than endure the Russian military law, emigrated in large numbers to the Brazils and other Colonies, and when they got into the Brazils those who took them were no further responsible. If it were now proposed to take the emigrants to a place which the Government thought suitable, but which afterwards turned out to be entirely unsuitable, were these poor people, who might be 3,000 miles away from all their friends, to be left to shift for themselves? There ought to be some precautions against a failure of that description.
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. PARNELLmoved to add at the end of the Amendment, after the word "emigrants," the words "also for their maintenance for one year after their landing, in case it should be necessary."
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "also for their maintenance for one year after their landing, in case it should be necessary."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government could not add those words to the Amendment. If they did so they would be entering into details which were undesirable.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman regarded this as only a detail. It was, however, a most important
  958
  detail whether a man should starve, or whether he should not. Did the right hon. Gentleman object to the term "one year," and would he prefer the words "for a reasonable period?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: My objection is that it is impossible for the Committee to frame instructions that will take off from the Commission its responsibility to see that these emigrants are properly provided for. Not that this would not be an important matter for the Commission to look into; but to attempt to put it into the Bill is to require us to do work which we ought not to undertake.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the only fear that the Irish Members had was that many of the emigrants would be worse off when they reached their destination than they were now.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not see any force in the objection of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was not more a detail to provide that these men should be supported when they reached their destination than it was a detail to provide for their satisfactory shipment, transport, and reception. All of these were details, and if it were not unreasonable and not impossible to put such details in the clause, surely it was not unreasonable and not impossible to require that the emigrants should be kept from starvation for a reasonable period after they landed. He should certainly take a division on the Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, this emigration proposal would come under a very different recommendation to the Irish people if they were told that they were to be supported for a reasonable time, if it was necessary, than if they were told that that proposal had been deliberately rejected by Her Majesty's Government. If it were a mere detail it could do no harm to put it into the Bill. Certainly, as it had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), it was no less a detail than that the Government should provide for the shipment, transport, and reception of the emigrants. If there was to be a choice of details, the right hon. Gentleman might certainly leave out the word "shipment," because he might take it that the Commission, in proposing to remove emigrants from Connemara to Manitoba, would certainly provide the means for taking them over the water.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 159: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
  MR. LEAMYmoved, in page 18, line 26, after "approve," to insert—
  "And a copy of every such agreement shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one month after the making of the same, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within one month after the next meeting of Parliament."
  He said, he did not know whether the Government would accept the Amendment; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would see that there was some reason in it. It was only reasonable that Parliament and the Treasury, in lending money to the Land Commission, should have the means of deciding whether the regulations made by the Commissioners were reasonable or not, because it would otherwise be very difficult to bring any charge against the Commission. They had been told that they ought to make the Treasury responsible for such transactions; and that being so, he thought he was not unreasonable in asking that his Amendment should be accepted by the Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, as there was another proposal later on that would probably sufficiently accomplish the object it desired to obtain.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the next Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), and it could not be put, because it referred to the question of emigration to British Colonies, which had been already struck out of the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, asked if it would be in Order to substitute another Amendment? The Governments alluded to in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmeath had been already excluded from the Bill by a previous Amendment; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to know whether it would not be in Order for him or his hon. Friend (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) to move an
  960
  Amendment compelling the public bodies or Companies which were now the only bodies authorized by the Bill to receive the advances, to undertake to pay for the return to Ireland of the emigrants who found themselves unable to live in reasonable comfort and prosperity?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot move it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, after what had fallen from the Chairman, he would not move his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Gentleman he cannot move it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was not going to move it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then there is no Question before the Committee.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It now becomes my duty to state what it is that Her Majesty's Government think ought to be the limitation to the total amount to be advanced for emigration purposes, and also to the amount of the annual expenditure. For this purpose I have to propose the insertion of words providing that there shall not be expended by virtue of the authority hereby given a greater sum than £200,000 in all, nor a greater sum than one-third part thereof in any single year.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 18, line 29, at end of Clause, to add the following words:—"Provided always that there shall not be expended by virtue of the authority hereby given a greater sum than two hundred thousand pounds in all, nor a greater sum than one third part thereof in any single year."—(MR. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he certainly must object to this proposal. He thought that £200,000 was not a very enormous sum to spend in emigration; but he would rather have seen the sum to be advanced for that purpose limited to £100,000. He believed that an expenditure of £100,000 would be amply sufficient to enable the Commissioners to provide for any shortcomings in the facilities he hoped this Bill would be found to offer to his countrymen before it left that House, for the purpose of enabling the reclaimable and improvable lauds in Ireland to be occupied as they ought to be. He would, therefore, ask Her Majesty's Government whether, taking all

  961
  the other things into consideration, they did not think £100,000 would be quite sufficient in view of the fact that they might probably have a series of good harvests for the next few years to come, to provide against any evil results from the congested state of the population that had been so much talked about, and the possible failure of the crops?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think if the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had ever sat on a Board having to administer public funds, he would know how very difficult it is for a Minister, who represents a Public Department, to get leave from the Treasury for the expenditure of any advance of public money. I do not think he need fear that this money will be expended, unless there are good grounds for it. But the hon. Gentleman has alluded to a sum of £100,000; and I must remind him that, as far as the proposal for expenditure in any single year is concerned, this proposition is decidedly less than that, as the maximum amount to be advanced is £200,000, while only one-third of that can be advanced in one year.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he calculated that each emigrant would cost about £10; and, at this estimate, £200,000 would suffice for 20,000 emigrants. He understood there was to be no limitation as to the localities; at any rate, there was none in the Bill at present. The right hon. Gentleman had, over and over again, declared that he wished the emigration to come from particular localities—that was to say, from those districts where the population was congested. That being so, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to meet the Irish Members on that point.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he sincerely hoped there would be no limitation as to the districts.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he was sorry the amount to be advanced for emigration was to be limited to the paltry sum of £200,000, which he regarded as totally inadequate to meet the needs of the country. For the last 30 years there had been an average of 87,000 persons emigrating from Ireland; and, putting those at the mere cost of their passage money alone, the expenditure from private sources had been £870,000 a-year. What, then, was the use of a paltry sum
  962
  of £200,000, which it was proposed to spread over a period of three years? He should certainly not support a proposal which he regarded as a deception of Parliament.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tottenham), I should point out that we are now about to try a tentative and experimental proposal, and I think it may be fairly limited as we suggest. If the experiment turns out to be a real success, I suppose that even hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House will be inclined to say there need be no difficulty in extending the provision. The sum of £200,000 will afford an expenditure of £60,000 odd per year for a period of three years; and that is as much as, under all the circumstances, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, ought to be advanced.
  Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he trusted the Government would now agree to report Progress, so as to enable the Irish Members to state their objections to the clause, as it stood in its amended shape, on the morrow.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) that during the past three days there has been argument after argument on this clause, and that if there has been any refraining from the use of argument, it has not been on the part of those who argue against the clause, but of those who would have urged arguments in its favour. If we had plenty of time at our disposal, if we had not to send this important measure to "another place" as soon as possible, and if we did not know that it is necessary for the sake of Ireland that it should become law as soon as possible, we might agree to the suggestion just made; but it is of the most serious moment that we should be able to proceed with the other clauses of the Bill to-morrow; and, therefore, although the hour is late, I must really implore the Committee to allow us to finish this clause to-night. We cannot prevent the matter being

  963
  again discussed on the Report, if that is thought desirable; but, under all the circumstances, considering the actual necessity of proceeding with the measure, I am sorry I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it had been repeatedly stated that the majority of the Irish Members were in favour of this clause; and he did not think it would be fair, after that statement, so often reiterated, particularly at a time when many hon. Members who would vote against the clause were not present, to press the clause to a division, independently of the fact that the Irish Members had had no opportunity of stating their objections to the principle of the clause. Did the Committee wish it to be understood that it did not wish to hear anything against the clause; that it was so well satisfied with the clause as it stood, that it did not wish to hear any arguments that hon. Members might have to urge against it. That was a position which he should not have supposed any deliberative Assembly could possibly have contemplated. Many hon. Members had had very little opportunity of expressing their opinions in reference to the clause. Undoubtedly, his opportunity had been very small. He had been interrupted by the Chairman, and very properly interrupted, when he was stating his objections to the clause the other day, and he was then obliged to be content to reserve his remarks until the proper occasion. It would be very hard, however, to expect that he should make his remarks at that hour, and that a great many of his hon. Friends who desired to be heard on the subject should do the same. There was no doubt that the Prime Minister was labouring under some irritation when he made the declaration he had uttered before he had retired from the House, and he (Mr. Parnell) would not say it was at all unnatural that the right hon. Gentleman should have been irritated to a certain extent; but the Motion which had then been made to report Progress had arisen out of a misconception. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted, however, that it was quite right that Progress should now be reported. The loss of a day or two, more or less, could not be of so very much importance to the prospects of the Bill; but, of course, if the Irish Members could not get the opportunity now, they
  964
  would have to take it on the Report. They desired, however, to get rid of the subject once for all, and what object there was to be gained with regard to speed by resisting the Motion for reporting Progress now he failed to understand. Why, he asked, should they get into a wrangle that could really serve no purpose? He did not know that there was any point of honour involved in this matter; if he could see otherwise, he should be the last person to ask the Government to retire from their position; but it was clear that nothing of the sort was involved on the present occasion. In his opinion, the Ministry ought to concede to the Irish Members the right which legitimately belonged to them, and it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said he was disposed to seriously regard the opinions of the Irish Members. The only way in which they could express those opinions was, in the first place, by arguments on the clause; and, in the next, by taking a division on the question, and he did not think Her Majesty's Government were reasonable in resisting the suggestion that the Chairman should report Progress.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, with regard to what had been urged about the waste of time that was alleged to have taken place, he could not but regret that Her Majesty's Government had not three days previously intimated to the Committee what was to be the limitation of the total advance for emigration purposes which they intended to propose. If this course had been then taken, a good deal of what had since happened would have been avoided, and a very considerable saving of time would have been assured. The fact was that the Emigration Clause at the present moment was one thing, and the Emigration Clause of only an hour before was another and a very different thing.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONexpressed a hope that the Government would allow the Chairman to report Progress. What, he asked, had been the lines on which the clause had been hitherto discussed? It had simply been, how could the clause be best amended in order that it might be passed? They had now disposed of the Amendments to the clause, and had come to the question whether the clause should pass at all, which stood on a totally different line from that on which

  965
  the Amendments had been considered. The clause was one of considerable importance, and he thought it was one that would be peculiarly injurious to the Irish people, inasmuch as it would give the landlords another opportunity of oppressing the tenantry. There were many hon. Members opposite whose opinions were entitled to be considered by the Committee, who ought to hear what they had to say; and those hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that this Emigration Clause would be more injurious to the Irish people than any other clause in the Bill. Therefore, he (Mr. Thompson) thought it very unfair to ask the Committee, at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock in the morning, to enter into a debate on the principle of the clause. There had, undoubtedly, been a considerable waste of time during the evening, and in referring to that waste of time he was not about to pass a censure on the Committee; but he might say that a considerable portion of the waste of time had not arisen out of anything attributable to the Irish Members, but in consequence of the necessity of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister taking refreshment, which, of course, everyone would consider his due. The Committee had been obliged to waste a good deal of time over one proposal, which had, unfortunately, produced a good deal of irritation, and what possibly might be called an exhibition of great eloquence and argument, characterized by the sesquipedalia verba of the Prime Minister, and by much "sound and fury, signifying nothing." He thought that a good portion of the time had been taken up by causes over which, perhaps, neither Party had any possible control, and he hoped the Government would afford to those moderate Members who had considered the question, and who wished to discuss it not only as regarded the Irish people, but also from the point of view of the English nation, a full opportunity, without casting in their teeth the reproach that they wished to prolong the debate. It was unfair to those hon. Members to persist in going on at that hour in the morning and; he trusted that the Government, though they might be desirous of saving a little time, would think it right to give way on this occasion, and let it be considered that they had made a concession in the interests of one of the most important parts of Her Majesty's Dominions.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I doubt whether the majority of this Committee will go with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), first of all, in his denunciation of the Prime Minister for going to dinner, and, secondly, for his sesquipedalia verba—
  MR. T. C. THOMPSON: I am sure, Sir—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I say, first of all, in his denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman for going to dinner, and then appealing to this Committee, with that command of language which the hon. Member possesses—
  MR. T. C. THOMPSON: I am sure I never indulged in any such denunciation—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will not yield to the hon. Member—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether it was the Chairman's function, or that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), to declare to another hon. Member whether he had a right to rise on a point of Order?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. Member for the Borough of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) knew the Rules of this House, he would be aware that an hon. Member is not bound to yield to another hon. Member unless he chooses to do so; that is a Rule of debate, and I say that the majority of the Committee will not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Durham in his denunciation of the sesquipedalia verba of the Prime Minister. I venture to say that the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to this Committee with a view of getting the Business of the country done is one which will commend itself to the majority of this House, and I will also say that the unbecoming language the hon. Gentleman has used towards the Prime Minister to-night will be condemned throughout this country to-morrow. With reference to what hon. Members opposite say, I can only state that if they desired to have a full debate on the clause at a more convenient time, they might have had it any time these last three days, because it is the course they have taken in moving to report Progress over and over again upon the clause that has brought us and them into the situation of which they complain. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has ap-

  967
  pealed to the House of Commons tonight to show that it intends to go on with the Bill, and to finish the particular Business before us with regard to this clause of the measure for the reform of the Land Laws of Ireland by passing that clause this night; and I feel confident that the great majority of this Committee will support the Prime Minister in the declaration he has made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) says he wants to show where the majority of the Irish Members are on this question. I assume that if he had a majority of the Irish Members with him on this subject they would have been here to-night. There was a statement made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) in the course of this debate that struck me very much. He said—"Who are our leaders on this question of emigration? What are the counties to which the clause is to be applied?" and he named the counties of Mayo, Galway, and Kerry. I have looked back on the divisions that have taken place to-night and during the last three days, and I find conspicuously absent the hon. Members for the counties of Galway, Mayo, and Kerry from the ranks of those who claim them as their leaders. Therefore, I meet the hon. Member who made that statement by a direct contradiction. The town of Galway, which I observe does not claim a very large number of voters, is not entitled to be heard on the subject of the emigration of the tenants of the county of Galway. Where, I ask, are the Members for Galway, and Mayo, and Kerry? Are they the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork? Not a bit of it. I do not think that one of them has been in any one of the divisions to-night; and, therefore, I think we are entitled now to ask the Committee to come to a decision on this question. We know and can measure exactly the character of the opposition that has been offered to this clause, and that if it should be allowed to go over to another day, we shall have the same story and the same excitement it may be for three days more of no progress. ["No, no!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "No, no!" but we have had experience to go upon, and this Committee has now, I firmly believe, on the invitation of the Prime Minister, made up its mind as to the
  968
  course it will take, and I hope it will continue sitting until it has come to a final decision on the clause.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not think the debate would gain much by what had just been said; and if he were appealed to on the question of the individual to whose eloquence the phrase sesquipedalia verba was most applicable, he should say it was not the Prime Minister, but his right hon. Colleague who had just spoken. He thought they might now discuss this question in a calmer spirit than had hitherto prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had endeavoured to repeat the effect that had been produced on the House by one who was a greater master than himself. The grand dramatic scene of that evening had been conjured up by an artist who was capable of producing a sensation that could not be achieved by one who tried it at second hand. The question was whether this clause was to be discussed or not. Amendments upon it had been discussed; but hon. Members had not been allowed to touch on the merits of the clause at all. If a division were taken, many hon. Members who had taken no part in the discussion would be found voting against the clause; but it was impossible to take a division at that time, when many hon. Members had gone home—under the impression that the clause, as a whole, and the division would be taken to-morrow. If the Government brought their majority to bear, it would be idle for the Irish Members to oppose them; but the opinion of the Irish Members could not be expressed in debate if the clause were now forced on the Committee.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he very much regretted what had taken place during the last few days, and wished to make a suggestion to the Irish Members and to the Committee generally. If, before this clause was taken, the Government had proposed to spend during the next 12 months a certain amount of money for emigration, that would have been received with approval, for there was no Irish Member who did not know that, in the present condition of Ireland, such an expenditure would be a blessing to the country. He believed a great deal of the discussion had proceeded from the idea that a great

  969
  scheme was brewing for the deportation of the Irish people; but under the circumstances, and after the discussion that had taken place, he thought the sensible and practical plan would be to go on with the discussion of the Bill upon the other clauses; and then to take the division and say whatever else might be necessary on the Report.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he would suggest that hon. Members should let the clause pass without a division, for he thought a division would be misleading. They should consider whether they could afford to spend another day on this clause, in view of the condition of Ireland. They had still to consider the constitution of the Court, the questions of leases, labourers, and arrears, all of which required a good deal of consideration; and now, on the 14th of July, could they spend another day on this clause? On Report, they could very easily discuss this question, if they got through the other clauses of the Bill in time; but if not, he ventured to say this clause was the least pressing and the least important clause upon which to imperil the Bill.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he should vote for Progress, because he thought this was a very big subject, which ought to be discussed during the day. He had refrained on several occasions from voting for similar Motions, because he did not wish to delay the Bill; but with regard to emigration, the Committee must have regard to the sentiment and feeling of the people. With them sentiment was very strong, and he did not think it would do any good to Irish Members or to the Government to facilitate, in any way, a decrease in the population.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that so far the Irish Members had not been able to discuss the real policy of the clause, owing to the ruling of the Chair; but now he wished to ask the Government whether they intended to call upon him and other hon. Members to discuss the clause at 3 o'clock in the morning? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them they might have done that hours ago; but what answer was that to him? He had moved no Amendment and had taken part in no dilatory Motions that evening; but why was that to force him to enter at that hour upon the discussion of a matter of such importance to him
  970
  and more serious to his constituents? Here was a clause which could stand upon its own bottom, and which did not in any way affect the welfare of the Bill. It was outside the legitimate scope of the Bill; but although it might form an excellent additional or supplementary Bill, which the Government would do well to introduce if they had time, the failure or success of this clause had nothing to do with land tenure in Ireland. Here was a great measure for settling land tenure in Ireland, and yet the Government were going to imperil it for the sake of this Emigration Clause. Was there ever anything so preposterous? Was this clause necessary to the settlement of land tenure in Ireland? Certainly not. Emigration might or might not be a useful thing; but the Committee were put in a position in which a proposal, most odious to the Irish people, was being forced upon them at that hour without any opportunity of debating it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) had said the Irish Members dared not vote against the clause; but what was the fact? Not only had the Irish Members led the way in protesting against it, but not a public body in Ireland representing anything like public opinion, whether a Home Rule or a non-Home Rule body, nor a single public man in Ireland had spoken in favour of the proposal. On the contrary, they had raised their voices against it; and yet, in the face of that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the Irish Members dared not vote against it! He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), friend as he was of the Bill, dared do anything against the clause that a Member of the House might legitimately and reasonably do. But the Government had friends. Ought they not to have been taught a lesson by the joyous enthusiasm with which the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose to pat them on the back and cheer them on? When they were unanimous, it was wonderful how unanimous those two Front Benches could be. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) recognized the good and kindly intentions of the Government in the Bill, and if any harm came to the country through this clause, as he thought would be the case, it would not be through any intention on the part of the Premier; but the Government ought to look well to

  971
  see who befriended and who protested against the Bill. Who befriended it? The men who thought Ireland wanted another 2,000,000 of her people swept away? He did not wish to say of any man in that House that he was wanting in kindly feeling; but some hon. Members were wedded to the dreadful thought that the famine in Ireland was a God-send to the country. In the debates on the Encumbered Estates Bill would be found the utterances of public men who described the destruction of 2,000,000 of people by plague and hunger and pestilence as a Heaven-sent blessing, which gave such a noble opportunity for re-populating Ireland with the Anglo-Saxon race. Those were the memories that were going through Ireland now. They did not stop at the good records of this Government since it came into Office; the people looked at the Bill as a whole, and they observed that the Government had steadily refused to permit the sub-division of the 1,000-acre farms, and had resisted every effort of the Irish Members to open up the vast areas of fertile land. With these things in their hearts, the people of Ireland were not to be blamed if they were apprehensive of the possible working of a gigantic scheme of State-aided emigration. He admitted that that arose more from their bitter memories of the past than from anything they could lay to the charge of the man who would probably for some years have the direction of the scheme; but he asked the Government, in view of all this, whether they would now take the responsibility of forcing on a discussion and a division upon this clause at such an hour in the morning? If his hon. Friends would take his advice, they would take a division on Progress; and he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) to bear him out, that when, on an almost similar occasion, he had said—"I trust to the honour of the Irish Representatives," their pledge was honourably fulfilled on the morrow. He would ask his hon. Friends to give a pledge that to-morrow no dilatory tactics would be undertaken, adopted, pursued, or encouraged, if the Government would allow them, at 2 o'clock, to begin the discussion upon this clause. He was nobody's ambassador in this matter; but he believed he had a little of the confidence
  972
  of his hon. Friends, and that if he gave that undertaking for them they would do their best to discuss the clause to-morrow in a bonâ fide spirit.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped after the eloquent speech they had just had from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) he might be allowed to offer a little piece of advice, which he gave with perfect sincerity. He quite understood the position of those who wished to discuss the clause as a whole; but the Committee had been occupied for three days in the discussion of the clause, not as a whole, but upon Amendments, varied with a considerable number of Motions for reporting Progress, during which the discussion of the clause was more or less possible. Undoubtedly, this had not been a mere barren discussion; because, in the course of it, the clause had been most materially modified, and the last Amendment was really of such magnitude as to reduce the clause to very moderate dimensions indeed. When the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a gigantic scheme of emigration, he went rather beyond the description most people would give of the clause. As it stood, it was more fairly described by the Minister who spoke of it as a mere tentative proposal, made for the purpose of endeavouring, by a proper system of management of emigration, to deprive it of those dangerous consequences to which the hon. and learned Member so eloquently referred. An attempt had been made to provide for a certain number of poor people, and to provide not only for their transport across the ocean, but also for their reception and proper location in the country to which they went. That being so, the whole subject, no doubt, might be discussed more fully than it had been, and he did not much wonder that there should be a desire still further to discuss it; but it must be borne in mind that the main reason why it could not be done now was that a great deal of time had been taken up in the preliminary discussion of various Amendments. If the discussion had been confined carefully to the subjects of those, the Committee, probably before this time, would have had a better opportunity of a full discussion of the whole subject. He did not say that in any way as casting a reproach on those taking part in these discussions; but

  973
  he made use of the argument for what it was worth. There were a large number of important matters to be settled—there was the constitution of the Court, there was the question of arrears, and there were other matters which he need not recapitulate, that would require further consideration. But what would happen if the Committee went on spending more time on this clause? Every day was very precious, and when they reached these important matters they would be told there was no time for these important questions; therefore, with the desire to devote time to this Emigration Clause, which had really been reduced to a very small question, they would diminish the time that ought to be employed in the careful discussion of other matters. Now, let the Committee consider whether it would not do wisely to take warning from the position in which it found itself, and avoid those dangers for the future. There had been a good deal of talk about the importance of a division to test the sentiments of Irish Members, and they had been told that a division now would not afford fair evidence of the balance of opinion. Well, he did not know what was to be gathered from a division; there had been a good deal of expression of opinion from Irish Members in different senses; but if it were true that it would not be convenient to take a division, why take it—why not, to avoid a wrong impression, allow the clause to be taken without a division, and reserve a general challenge to another stage of the Bill—the Report? It seemed to him a wiser course and more in the interest of all parties. He did not say it was necessary to discuss it on Report; but it would be wiser, he thought, to pass the clause now, and proceed at subsequent Sittings to make progress with those parts of the Bill that really required consideration.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he felt he could address the Committee without any real anxiety as to a possible imputation of Obstruction, for though he represented a constituency particularly interested in any Bill relating to the tenure of land, it being entirely agricultural, he had, up to that present moment, taken no part whatever in the discussion of the Bill before the Committee. He did not rise on the second
  974
  reading, or put his name down for a single Amendment; but as to this clause, he was convinced from the first that it would be necessary to place his opinion before the Committee, and he was prepared to show what he believed to be reasonable cause why the clause should not be included in the Bill. It would not be difficult to show it was bad in principle, bad in policy, and that the money proposed to be spent under it could be much better employed. The result that was anticipated to ensue from the carrying out of this scheme of State emigration would not at all correspond with the intentions of the framers of the Bill. But on a Motion to report Progress, of course, he would not be in Order in entering on an argument of this kind.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is not that I report Progress, but that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he understood it was a Motion to report Progress. But that being so, and it being now past 3, and the House having to meet again at 2 o'clock, it did seem to him that it was scarcely an hour when it was fair to Irish Members, who, like himself, had not delayed the Bill by one minute, to expect them to deliver their views on the clause. Under the circumstances, and considering that the suggestion thrown out was a very reasonable one—namely, that if the Government would consent to report Progress now, and devote the Morning Sitting, not the whole day, to the discussion of the clause on its merits, they—the Irish Members—would be prepared, so far as they could, to give a bonâ fide undertaking that the discussion should not go beyond the Morning Sitting. This being a reasonable proposal, he begged to move—[Mr. PARNELL: No, no! do not do that.]—Well, he found that his hon. Friends did not desire that he should do so, and as it was perfectly useless to attempt to proceed now with a full discussion of the merits of the clause, though he was prepared to do so earlier in the Sitting, he would confine his remarks to saying that he was perfectly convinced that the clause, with the limitations that had lately been put in it—namely, that the total expenditure should be £200,000, would have nothing at all like the effect the Government antici-

  975
  pated. The result would be, he believed, that whereas the voluntary emigration, which had increased in two years from 45,000 to 80,000, and was likely to reach 100,000 in the present year, had been carried on at the expense of emigrants, those, finding that the money was forthcoming for their passage, would draw on the public funds placed at their disposal, and the public money would, therefore, be spent upon paying the passage of men who otherwise would spend their own. It appeared to him that the clause would be futile, and he should certainly vote against it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, they could not, of course, accept the suggestion to allow the clause to pass without a division; they must divide against the clause now, and also on Report; but the Government must expect that a discussion would be taken on the Report stage because they unjustly refused it now.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not in favour of a postponement, the only effect of which would be that to-morrow some half-dozen Members who had taken no part in the struggle would take the opportunity of making their last speeches. He was in favour of disposing of the clause now, and it was not the Government clause now, it was the clause such as the opposition of Irish Members had made it.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he was sorry the Government had not acceded to the suggestion for reporting Progress; for, if allowed to take it up on the morrow, Irish Members would have been bound in honour to allow it being finished. When he saw the Secretary of State for the Home Department rise his hopes were dashed, for the right hon. Gentleman was nothing if not angry; and sometimes, when not really so, he pretended to be, and he (Mr. R. Power) thought there was a great deal of that on the last occasion. To-morrow might have been devoted to a fair and legitimate discussion, and they would have pledged themselves to allow a division; but now the discussion of the clause must be postponed to Report. There had been a sort of wild discussion on the clause for the last two hours; but it would be found that it had not in any way facilitated the Bill. He was not ashamed to say he had taken a rather prominent part in what right hon. Gentlemen might call Obstruction if they liked;
  976
  but he (Mr. R. Power) did not give it that term, except in the manner in which the Prime Minister gave it in the celebrated article quoted to the Committee early in the evening. But he felt strongly that the clause would work injuriously to the people of Ireland, particularly to the farmers in the West of Ireland, who originated and brought to its present stage the land movement in Ireland; and though he had not taken a prominent part in that agitation, still he could not forget the service it had been, and the sacrifices these poor people had made. There was another reason why he asked for a postponement of the clause. The Prime Minister made rather an extraordinary statement, when he said that a majority of Irish opinion was in favour of the clause, and Irish Members undertook to prove that this was not the case. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and even insisted, if this were not the case, that the clause should be inserted. He (Mr. R. Power) thought at the time this was an extraordinary statement to come from the right hon. Gentleman, who at one time declared his intention of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. Then, when the Government refused one proposition, Irish Members made another—that the clause should be postponed until the end of the Bill. That was also refused, and they found themselves in the unpleasant condition of being forced into a position which he, for one, did not in the least enjoy. But now the struggle was over, he, for one, was very glad of it. But there was another reason why they asked that the clause should be postponed to the end of the Bill. They were very anxious that the country should have the opportunity of declaring its opinion on the question, and that opportunity would have been afforded by a postponement. This Emigration Clause was not expected to be pressed, and his hon. Friend said he did not believe the Government had any sinister intention in this clause; but if the Government, at the beginning, had told the House that they only intended to devote £200,000 to the purpose, that would have changed the position he had taken; but the Government foolishly held back, never saying the amount they intended to spend, and he was afraid that in Ireland the people would really believe that the Government had had a dark and sinister motive. Because they

  977
  must remember it was not the first time in their history that emigration had been proposed as a cure for the evils of Ireland. He was old enough to remember a Whig Lord Lieutenant, who, when the people were fleeing from the country by thousands, declared in Dublin Castle that it was a healthy wholesome sign. He had only to say, in conclusion, that he had done what he believed to be his duty on this occasion, and a more troublesome and painful one he had never had to perform; and when the Prime Minister taunted them with obstructing the Bill, he quite forgot that in every division taken on the Bill they had voted in support of the Government. He had an Amendment to the Bill which would have raised great and vital issues, and which would have taken up two or three nights; yet, in order not to retard the Bill, which he would admit was, in many of its provisions, a good and sound measure, he took off his Amendment. Then, during the whole of the discussion, he had never raised his voice to delay progress; and he deeply regretted that the Prime Minister should have gone out of his way, because he, with others, conscientiously believed that this clause would be ruinous to the people of Ireland, to say, therefore, they did everything in their power to obstruct the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 23: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, notwithstanding their reduced numbers, and the fact of the division being taken at a time when it was not expected, the Irish Members who voted against the clause were in a majority of three over those who voted in its favour.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would remind the Committee of what the hon. Member had himself stated—namely, that the division would not be the real expression of the views of Irish Members.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was sorry to discover that, in that forced division, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had not dared to vote,
  978
  and that after he had accused Irish Members of not daring to go to a division.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was glad the Chief Secretary for Ireland had left the House, for, according to Dr. Johnson—"Where there is shame, there may be virtue yet," and he had not the slightest doubt that he was ashamed of the proceedings of the Government. Let Progress be reported, that the Government might not have to display, in the full light of day, the imbecility of their tactics. Now, at the end of three days, it had come to this—that they were going to spend £200,000 on emigration from Ireland. From a large scheme, it had been reduced to a miserable petty peddling sum, that it was not worth spending half-an-hour upon. That was the result of the tactics of the Treasury Bench.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITEE—Claims of Peerage, &c., nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Central Criminal Court (Prisons)* (162); Pedlars (Certificates) * (163); Metropolitan Open Spaces Act (1877) Amendment* (164).
Second Reading—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order*(132); Alsager Chapel (Marriages)* (153).
Committee—Report—Petroleum (Hawking)* (139).
Report—Water Provisional Orders* (102).
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (135); Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amendment* (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.)* (121), and passed.
The House met at Five o'clock;—

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (PRISONS) BILL
[H.L.] (No. 162.) A Bill to remove certain doubts as to the application of section twenty-four of the Prison Act, 1877, and enactments amending the same, to the Central Criminal Court District: And

PEDLARS (CERTIFICATES) BILL [H.L.]
(NO. 163.) A Bill to amend the Pedlars Act, 1871, as regards the district within which a certificate authorises a person to act as pedlar:
Were presented by The Earl of DALHOUSIE; read la.

CLAIMS OF PEERAGE, &C.
Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:
832

M. Abercorn.

L. Balfour of Burley.

E. Airlie.

L. Stewart of Garlies.

E. Mansfield.

L. Inchiquin.

E. Belmore.

L. Watson.

E. Redesdale.

L. Brabourne.

V. Sherbrooke.

The Committee to meet on Monday next at Four o'clock; and to appoint their own chairman.
And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.