that day, his hon. Friend had spoken 15 times. He thought the Committee had wisely decided that the Bill should be a terminable Bill, and the only question remaining on this clause was as between three years and seven years. He thought that anyone looking at this question practically would see that three years would be too short a term; while, on the other hand, there were several precedents for seven years. If he were to launch forth on the general question, he, too, could speak almost interminably upon it; but he thought it better to move his Amendment to the clause as briefly as possible.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "eighty-one," and insert the words "eighty-five,”,"—(Mr. Sullivan,)-instead thereof.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in rising to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, said, it was only fair to the Committee that he should explain the reason why he did so. He had no desire that the Business of the Committee should be in the least degree delayed, and although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), had some warranty for saying that he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had spoken on several occasions during that Sitting, he had taken up no longer time than was requisite in addressing himself to the subjects under discussion. In the present instance, he thought the Committee had not had time to consider the principle of the clause. He had not been in favour of the second reading of the clause just passed, and he did not think that the limit of three years was a satisfactory one. In his opinion, next Session, or the Session afterwards, if the measure did not turn out to be a success, it ought to be repealed. His hon. Friends who usually acted with him had thought it best to accept a limitation, and the only period before them then was that contained in the clause; but the whole principle of that clause would be utterly set aside and subverted if the Bill were to be extended over the approaching Dissolution of Parliament, and, probably, over even the next subsequent Dissolution. He accepted the three years' principle unwillingly, and, if it were not assented to, he should persist in his Motion for reporting Pro

gress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)

MR. J. LOWTHER said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion, because he considered that the present was by far the most convenient time of any that was likely to be at their disposal for settling this question. There had been considerable discussion on the point already, and he thought the Committee was in a position to decide it. He must add that he was rather surprised to hear the promoters of the Bill making the suggestion which had been put forward, that the limita

tion of the measure should be seven years.

MR. SULLIVAN wished to say that he was not a promoter of the Bill, and that he had made his suggestion emphatically in disagreement with the too conciliatory views of his hon. Friends behind him.

MR. J. LOWTHER said, if the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had not been authorized by the promoters of the Bill, he presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman would not expect the Committee to support his Motion.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA offered, if the principle of three years were accepted, to withdraw his Motion.

THE O'CONOR DON thought the opponents of the Bill were pressing their views very hardly. They seemed to think that the promoters were to have no opinion at all as to the length of time the measure should be in operation. He had accepted the principle of the clause, because he thought that by so doing he should be met in a conciliatory spirit by his opponents. At the same time, he had distinctly stated that he thought three years too short a term; and what he would now venture to suggest was, that the limit should be five years. He believed that this would meet a great many of the objections on both sides. If the term were three years only, the agitation for the renewal or discontinuance of the measure would commence almost immediately; but if it were five years, the agitation would not begin until a short time before the expiration of the term. His desire was that the agitation should be put an end to, and he also wished to

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN wished to know whether, in the event of the hon. and learned Member for Louth not carrying his Amendment, it would be competent for the hon. Member for Roscommon to move that a different date be inserted.

THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee decide to omit the words "eighty-one," it will be open to the Committee to insert "eighty-five," as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, or "eighty-four," or "eighty-three," or "eighty-two."

Question put, "That the words 'eighty-one' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided :-Ayes 143; Noes 176 Majority 33.-(Div. List, No. 156.)

THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now is that the words "eighty-five" be here

inserted.

THE O'CONOR DON moved that the words proposed to be inserted should be "eighty-three."

THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth is before the Committee, and must either be withdrawn or negatived before other words can be proposed.

MR. SULLIVAN begged to withdraw his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN said, if the Amendment were withdrawn by permission of the Committee, it would be open to any other Member to move the insertion of other words; but, by the usual courtesy of the House, the priority of moving an Amendment would be given to the promoter of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE O'CONOR DON begged leave to move that the words "eighty-three" be inserted.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING complained that the front Opposition Bench had not assisted the minority to gain any concession.. He thought they were much mistaken if they expected to gain

they had adopted; and he trusted that when that Bench did yield something to a large and influential minority, it would be remembered that they had, from beginning to end, supported a Bill which, in his opinion, was utterly opposed to the traditions of the Liberal Party. He hoped the Committee would now consider that if not three years, at least, some shorter period than five years, should be agreed upon. He would suggest that four years should be the period.

MR. STACPOOLE said, a fair compromise having been offered but not accepted, negotiation ought now to be at an end. He moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Stacpoole.)

MR. J. LOWTHER hoped the proposal would not be persisted in. There had been great complaints that the Bill was brought in for consideration at late hours. He himself joined in these complaints, and it would be wrong now to acquiesce in the proposition to report Progress. If any hon. Member objected to the term of years proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon, he might move another term that would commend itself to the Committee as the more reasonable course.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING intended to move that it should be 1882.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent to move that until after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon has been disposed of.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, remarking that he might address himself to the general Question as there was a Motion to report Progress before the Committee, urged his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) to make a small concession by adopting the date suggested by the hon. Member for the County of Cork. Otherwise, it would be impossible, in the time left for debate, to make further progress that night.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN thought that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon were carried, it would not be competent for the hon. Member for County Cork to move the

insertion of 1882. He would take this opportunity of expressing his concurrence with the hon. Member for County Cork in the observations he had made. As one who had been a strong supporter of Liberal opinion in that House for over 25 years, he must express surprise at the manner in which, en bloc, the front Opposition Bench had gone against the expressed opinion of many men in the House who, in times of difficulty, had supported them.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS said, it appeared to him unfortunate if, when the Committee were upon a basis of compromise, some middle term could not be agreed upon. He suggested the 1st August, 1882.

THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the words 31st December were already adopted, and it would be impossible to go back to alter them.

THE O'CONOR DON thought the hon. Member for Londonderry had not fully comprehended the effect of his Amendment, which would be to make the period even shorter than was suggested by the hon. Member for County Cork. He presumed that he meant to suggest August, 1883. If a compromise of that kind would meet his hon. Friends, if they would consent that the Bill should continue in operation to the end of the Session which succeeded 1882, then he would not object to the compromise. That would be, say, four years, and a Session of Parliament.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING was not decided whether it was open to him to move an Amendment on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon. If so, he would propose the end of December, 1882.

THE CHAIRMAN directed that the hon. Member could say "No" to the Amendment, and if it were negatived, he could then propose his own words.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon insisted on dividing on this, they might as well go on with Progress. If the hon. Member would agree to insert December, 1882, the clause would be passed and the thing would be done. If not, it would be necessary to take the sense of the Committee.

MR. J. LOWTHER said, it appeared to him that the proposals of the hon. Members for Youghal, Cork, and Londonderry were exactly the same; and

as the hon. Member for Londonderry had been a staunch supporter of the Bill, perhaps his suggestion would carry some weight with the promoters of the Bill. The hon. Member for Roscommon had suggested an Amendment which could not in Order be put; but did he think it worth while to endanger the passing of the Bill after all that had taken place for the sake of a question involving a few months? He understood the clause would be allowed to pass if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Londonderry were taken.

MR. O'SULLIVÄN did not believe the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) would ask to report Progress. An element of dissension had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). A great many Members thought the feeling of the Committee was in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna); but when the front Opposition Bench was against them, it was impossible for them to carry their Amendment. The hon. Member for Ennis was quite right in introducing his Motion to report Progress. It was well known that the feeling of the Committee was in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Youghal, and yet no concession had been made; and, under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Ennis was quite right to proceed with his Motion.

THE O'CONOR DON held that he had made concessions. He had conceded the principle that the Bill should be terminable, and then an hon. Member moved to report Progress. He wanted to show that he was desirous of meeting the proposal now made. He would accept the proposal_of_the_hon." Member for Cork County. He begged to omit 1883, and he would accept 1882.

MR. STACPOOLE thought the feeling of the Committee was decidedly in favour of three years. He would withdraw the Motion to report Progress. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING proposed that 1882 be substituted for 1883.

Motion made, and Question proposed, Chair."-(Major O'Gorman.) "That the Chairman do now leave the

MR. J. LOWTHER trusted the hon. and gallant Member would not perse