MR. O'DONNELL asked 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. PARNELL moved to add at the

end of the Amendment, after the word "emigrants," the words "also for their "emigrants," the words "also for their maintenance for one year after their landing, in case it should be necessary.'

Amendment proposed,

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 ?"

66

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. DAWSON said, 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. PARNELL said, 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 Amend

ment.

MR. O'DONNELL said, 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, Member for the City of Cork (Mr. as it had been pointed out by the hon. 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.

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. PARNELL said, 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

Mr. W. E. Forster

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'DONNELL said, 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. THOMPSON expressed 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

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 verbaMR. 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'CONNOR rose 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