and the numbers were

For the Amendment
Against it

Majority

The

the arguments pro and con, as represented in some of the more prominent speeches. On the 27th of March the second reading of the Bill was moved by Sir W. Somerville. Mr. Hamilton, Member for Dublin University, then moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Corry seconded the amendment. opposition was followed up by Lord Jocelyn, Mr. F. French, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. P. Scrope, Sir John Walsh, Mr. Stafford, the Marquis of Granby, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bateson, and several other Members, both English and Irish. The measure was defended by Sir W. Somerville, Sir George Grey, Mr. Shafto Adair, Mr. William Brown, Sir Denham Norreys, and Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Napier contended that the principle of the Bill was the very reverse of that of the law of Elizabeth, and proceeded to show that the extension of the area of contribution, so as to draw money from one union for the relief of another, or from one contributory district of the country for the relief of another district, must necessarily be attended with injustice. If he was right in this, the inference was irresistible that it would be unjust to tax the north for the support of the poor in the south of Ireland. Limited responsibility and local supervision were the principles of the law of Elizabeth and the Act of 1838-principles from which this Bill was a manifest departure. The area of liability was already too large in Ireland, and to make it commensurate with the whole country would be a fatal course. His main position, with regard to the working of a Poor Law, either in England or Ireland,

The

already insolvent. consequence would be that the quantity of land thrown out of cultivation would be increased, whilst every acre SO circumstanced would aggravate the sufferings of the poor. In contemplating a remedy for all this, let them place no hope in a good potato harvest for the coming year. They might have such a harvest, but let no false reliance be placed on it. If they did, although it might be productive of immediate relief, it would assuredly lead to future evil. Nothing seemed to offer a satisfactory remedy but the gradual introduction into Ireland of a cereal crop, which would afford a more certain means of subsistence than the potato. He was aware that, for this purpose, any one measure would not be adequate. Some advantage might be obtained from the Government taking the supervision and management of the distressed districts. He had suggested a Commission for this purpose some nights ago. Subsequent

reflection had since confirmed him in the opinion which he then held, that some such measure was absolutely essential, if any remedy was to be applied to the present state of Ireland. He would have the distressed districts subjected to

supervision of the Commission. In addition to public works, fisheries, and drainage, in the distressed districts, all of which, he thought, might advantageously come under the supervision of the Commission, the means of improving the country by emigration, subject to certain conditions, should also occupy its attention. But all these measures would be ineffectual unless they could cure, in some way or other, the monstrous evils which arose from the present condition of landed property in Ireland. He would not have the Commission embark upon unprofitable works. The principal end of its appointment should be to revert to the principles of 1838, and make the workhouse the test of destitution. (Cheers.) Nor would he be averse to some efforts being made by the Government by which examples might be set of improved cultivation. He would advise no harsh or hasty measure for the transfer of property. To throw a great deal of property upon the market at once would be impolitic, for it would flood and depress the market. But they might do much more than had been done to encourage and facilitate the voluntary transfer of property. This they endeavoured to do last year, but by a measure so cumbrous that it had defeated its own object. He then proceeded to point out a variety of ways in which, in his view, the land of Ireland might be released. If technicalities and legal difficulties stood in their way, they should cut the Gordian knot and release the land. Sooner than let the present state of things continue, he would altogether oust the Court of Chancery of its jurisdiction over the subject. They might reject his plan, but they should not

like a permanent regeneration of Ireland. To do so was no doubt somewhat difficult; but there were modes in which it might be speedily done-modes which he proceeded to point out. The occasion was one which required a great statesman. The hour had come; but where was the man? He feared he was not on the Treasury Bench. But it was time for the House to bestir itself, and to adopt such a course towards Ireland as would ensure to both countries the benefits of a fair, thorough, and substantial union. The honourable Gentleman, on resuming his seat, was greeted with cheers from all sides.

Mr. Disraeli commenced by paying a high compliment to Mr. Bright. He then proceeded to recapitulate the leading features of the Government policy towards Ireland since the beginning of the session, and strongly censured Ministers for their obstinate persistence in temporary expedients, unaccompanied by those remedial measures, the introduction of which should have been simultaneous with the proposal of palliatives. Reverting to the Bill before the House, he observed that the first duty of the House was to consider whether the proposition which it embodied was or was not an adequate proposition. For reasons which he stated, he believed it to be utterly inadequate to the purposes it was intended to effect. If the Government really expected that it would effect its object, the proposition must mean more than it expressed. In addition to its being inadequate, it was also impolitic. The evil from which Ireland suffered was want of capital. Was a measure which would reduce the amount of Irish capital a wise one? Besides being

fiscally inadequate and politically indiscreet, the measure was obnoxious to other objections. His strongest objection to it was that it was illusory, being essentially a deceptive proposition for levying a national rate, to which the whole nation could not contribute. The measure was also unjust, and the English Members were warring against their own interests in lending it their countenance and support. These being the reasons why he opposed the measure on the table, he came to the consideration of the plan submitted by Sir R. Peel. It was important that the House should at once consider whether or not that plan was entitled to its confidence. The characteristic feature of the scheme was, that, in some way or other, the State was to appropriate to itself those vast regions which were now the scenes of so much misgovernment and misery, and which, under a happier management, might lead to the regeneration of Ireland; in other words, the regeneration of Ireland was to be effected by a change in the tenure of the land. He could not but infer from the scheme, as developed, that Sir R. Peel anticipated a considerable home colonization in Connaught. But he (Mr. Disraeli) saw great difficulty in the way of planting forced colonies in the west, and extreme danger in the consequences if they could succeed in so doing. The colonies planted by James I. were sustained, in the midst of difficulties, by a community of religious feeling and sentiment. But no such element of success would enter into the colonies anticipated in the west. The farmers who would be planted there would be mostly Protestants, and a religious