of a family who happened to hold a single foot of ground over one rood, was put outside the pale of relief, with his whole family.  A more complete engine for the slaughter and expatriation of a people was never designed.  The previous clause offered facilities for emigrating to those who would give up their land—­the quarter-acre-clause compelled them to give it up, or die of hunger.  In the fulness of his generosity Mr. Gregory had, he said, originally intended to insert “half an acre” in the clause, but, like many well-intentioned men, he was over-ruled:  he had, he said, been lately in Ireland, and people there who had more knowledge of the subject than he could lay claim to, told him half an acre was too extensive, so he made it a quarter of an acre.  It is not hard to conjecture who his advisers were on this occasion.

This clause met with more opposition than the former one, but only from a small band of kind, good-hearted men, Smith O’Brien called it a cruel enactment; but as he had heard the Government were for it, he knew, he said, to remonstrate against it was useless.  Mr. Curteis, the member for Rye, said the clause was meant for the benefit of Irish landlords—­a class that deserved little sympathy from the House or the country.  Sir George Grey, one of the Secretaries of State, supported the clause, because he had always understood that small holdings were the bane of Ireland; from which observation it is clear he accepted it as an exterminating clause.  Now, suppose it is admitted that small holdings were the bane of Ireland, who, we may be permitted to ask, created them?  The very landlords who now sought to abolish them, at the expense of millions of lives.  Again, if small holdings were the bane of Ireland, was the midst of an unparalleled famine the proper time to remove the bane?  Ought not such a bane be the subject of legislation, when society was in its normal state?  Sir George thought not, and hence he virtually says to the landlords, “Now is your time to get rid of the people; they have served your purpose; they are useful to you no longer; why should they cumber the ground?” Mr. Poulett Scrope objected to carrying the clause so suddenly into execution, as it would be a complete clearance of the small farmers of Ireland, and would amount to a social revolution in the state of things in that country.  Mr. Sharman Crawford said he would divide the House against the clause, which he did.  Strange as it may seem, some Liberal Irish members present supported the clause.  Mr. Morgan John O’Connell said he looked on it as a valuable alteration in the bill.  Alderman Humphrey said the phrase “quarter-acre” ought to be changed to five acres; whereupon he was told, almost in terms by Sir George Grey, that he did not understand what he was talking about.  Sir George said “he was afraid his honourable friend, Alderman Humphrey, did not really see the effect of his own amendment.  All holders of land, up to 4-3/4 acres, would, according