Sitting of 3 May 1850

MINUTES.
Reported.—Court of Chancery (Ireland).

THE FACTORY QUESTION.
LORD ASHLEY: As I see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, perhaps he will be good enough to allow me to put the question to him of which I gave notice last night, when, owing to the lateness of the hour, it was impossible for me to introduce the question of the Ten Hours Factory Bill. I then gave notice that I would tonight ask my right hon. Friend for some explanation as to certain rumours which are current as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. It has been reported that Her Majesty's Government have some intention of proposing a scheme of their own in reference to the factory question; and I think it is most desirable that the country should know as soon as possible whether that rumour be true, and that this House should as soon as possible have a general outline of the scheme to be proposed. I therefore take the liberty of asking my right hon. Friend if there is any truth in that rumour, and, if it be true, whether he is willing, in general terms, to give the House and the country an explanation of what Her Majesty's Government intend to propose?
SIR G. GREY: Sir, I have, as was my duty, given much careful consideration to the question of what would be most practicable and least injurious to all classes, in any amendment of the factory laws, and at the same time consistent with the object that my noble Friend himself has in view. My noble Friend stated a few nights

1133
ago very candidly that he had experienced difficulties he had not anticipated in carrying out his own object, and that he had been obliged, after repeated attempts, to abandon the intention he originally entertained of proposing that there should be, practically, a declaratory Act, with the view of realising the intentions of the Act of 1847; and he now finds himself compelled to propose to Parliament new restrictions which were not included in the previous Act. Under these circumstances I think it is my duty, and the duty of the House, to consider what those amendments ought to be, with regard to all the important interests that must be affected by these laws. I stated, in addressing the House upon the Motion of my noble Friend for leave to bring in his Bill, that I did not think it would be possible—at all events I thought it would be extremely difficult—to carry it out successfully while the range of fifteen hours was left untouched, within which the limitation of ten hours, proscribed by law as the time for the employment of women and young persons, was to take effect. Subsequent reflection, and communication with various parties upon the subject—and when I speak of various parties, I mean parties holding different views with regard to the policy of the existing limitation—have confirmed me in that opinion. I therefore feel it my duty to lay before the House a plan, which, after full consideration, I think consistent with the spirit of the Act of 1847, though certainly not with the letter, and which, I think, will more effectually carry out the object of my noble Friend than the Bill he himself proposes, and be more acceptable to the great body of the manufacturing interests. When I say acceptable to the great body of the manufacturing interests, I am also assured, by persons in whom I place confidence, that if passed into a law it will be acceptable to the great body of the operative classes. The plan will be this—to substitute for the existing restriction on the number of hours during which women and young persons may be employed, a new limitation or definition of the hours within which they shall be employed. The House is aware that the law, as it stands at present, fixes those limits between half-past five in the morning, and half-past eight in the evening, during which those persons may be employed ten hours. What I should propose to do would be to substitute for this restriction upon the hours of labour, a limitation from six in the morning
1134
to six in the evening, within which the labour of women and young persons may be legally performed. This would apply to five days only in the week; and, with regard to Saturday, I should propose to fix the limitation between six in the morning and two in the afternoon. Perhaps this plan would be better understood, if I were to state what would be its effect. At present the class of young persons and women may be employed ten hours in the day during five days, and eight hours upon the Saturday, making altogether fifty-eight hours in the week. Under the alteration in the law—if it should be assented to by Parliament—they would be liable to be employed between six in the morning and six in the evening, which would be ten hours and a half, deducting the hour and a half for meals. They, therefore, might be employed during five days in the week fifty-two hours and a half instead of fifty, and on Saturday half an hour less than under the existing law, the day ending at two o'clock. On the one hand, although during the week this class would be employed somewhat more than under the existing law, on the other hand they will gain this advantage—they will have half an hour in the morning between half-past five and six o'clock, at their own disposal; they will have, undisturbed, the whole evening after six o'clock at their own disposal; and on Saturday, after two o'clock, the whole day at their disposal. There will be one or two other enactments that would be consequent upon this, but they are comparatively unimportant; and I do not want now to enter into any argument upon the subject. I am aware that on this question there may be objections which I have not anticipated; but I shall feel it my duty, in answer to the suggestion, to lay this proposal before the House in the form of a clause, which I shall move as an Amendment upon the clause of my noble Friend when we go into Committee. I will only say I make this proposal, believing it to be consistent with the spirit and object of the existing law. I make it in no spirit of opposition to my noble Friend's attempts to remedy existing defects; and I only trust that the question will be discussed in the calm and considerate manner which its interest deserves.
MR. HUMEdeprecated all interference between masters and workmen, and contended that mischievous results would fol-

1135
low from the course proposed to be taken. He regretted that the Government, which had seen the results of interference between capital and labour in another country, should have proved so irresolute and weak as to allow themselves to support such a proposition. It was impolitic to take from the workman the power of regulating his own labour, and he could only deprecate all such attempts in the strongest terms he could use.
LORD J. MANNERS, without wishing to enter into a discussion upon the subject, entirely dissented from the principles enunciated by the hon. Member for Montrose.
MR. EDWARDS, in the name of his constituents and of the factory operatives throughout the kingdom, protested against the course the Government had thought fit to take, and to assure them that no such compromise as that proposed by them, no increase of the daily toil of women and children to the extent of two hours, would be accepted by the people of England. The opposition to an Act passed by large majorities of both Houses of Parliament, originating with a few interested persons, ought not to have been entertained. There could be no doubt as to the intense feeling in favour of this measure throughout the manufacturing districts, where the universal desire was that the Government should, without delay, frame a Bill that would confirm and ratify the real intention of the framers of the Act of 1847.
MR. W. BROWNobserved that the Bill at present stood for Wednesday; but he hoped the discussion would not come on upon that day, as in that case no time would be afforded for the consideration of the Amendments. He suggested that it should be postponed till Wednesday week.
LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said that as soon as he received the printed clauses of the Government he would determine what day he would appoint.
Subject dropped.

DISTRESSED UNIONS ADVANCES AND REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
MR. CLEMENTSproposed to add an Amendment at the end of Clause 3.
Amendment proposed, page 4, line 22, after the word "Annuity," to insert the words—
"Provided always, that at the time such an-
1136
nuity shall be fixed, it shall not exceed sixpence in the pound on the net annual value then existing of the rateable hereditaments of any town-land or other denomination, unless by such limitation the debt would not be paid off in forty years."
He complained that the Government had acted with great harshness in the enforcement of repayments, paying no sort of regard to the distressed condition of the country.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the House whether the conduct of the Government towards Ireland for the last three or four years ought to be characterised by harshness. The limitation upon repayments which had been imposed by the Treasury, had been, on the contrary, marked by the utmost consideration to the distresses of the unions; for whereas, under the Act, the Government was authorised, and indeed called upon, to require repayment in two sums, the Treasury had limited these repayments to 3s. in the pound of the rates collected. He trusted the House would not interfere with the discretion which the Government had exercised with so much moderation. There were parts of Ireland quite as well off as any parts of England, yet the rates were paid here without grumbling.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid, that out of 25,000 l. raised in rates in Leitrim, 13,000 l. was claimed by the Government, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was astonished that the hon. Member should complain. He did not think that, whether or no they agreed to this proviso, they were likely to get more than 6d. in the pound.
MR. TRELAWNYthought that some hon. Gentlemen seemed disposed to repudiate these advances; and the hon. Member for Leitrim had said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to ask for the repayment of more than 6d. in the pound at a time, because he was not likely to get more. If, as they had been told, Irish Members did not regard these advances as a boon, he was quite prepared to reject the Bill.
MR. STAFFORDobserved, that the question whether the Bill was a boon to Ireland or not, stood, as he apprehended, upon this ground—Providence had afflicted that country with so severe a visitation that some of our fellow-subjects were in danger of starvation. The Government, under these circumstances, came forward, and with the consent of Parliament made an advance of money to relieve the distress of Ireland; but how far that measure

1137
was to be considered an act of kindness to Ireland depended mainly upon the value that hon. Gentlemen might attach to their fellow-countrymen. For his own part, he denied that any effort to save the life of a fellow-creature could be regarded as a boon. Some surprise had been expressed that English capital should not be applied to develop the resources of Ireland; but what capitalist would invest money in that country when he found, that after the liabilities of landowners had been, as was supposed, finally settled. Parliament passed now measures increasing those liabilities? He regarded the third clause, to which the hon. Member for Leitrim had proposed to add the proviso, as involving a gross violation of the principle of local self-government; and he was satisfied that no Government had ever asked for such enormous powers as would be conferred upon the Treasury by that clause. He thought the clause most objectionable; and, although he knew its opponents would be defeated on this occasion, he hoped those hon. Gentlemen who might vote in its favour would, in justice to their own constituents and to their Irish fellow-subjects, previously to the bringing up of the report, consider the powers which it proposed to confer upon the Government.
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, it had been stated that there were some districts in Ireland which were as well off as any parts of this country; but it could not be contended that those portions of Ireland to which the Bill would apply were in such a favourable position. He thought it most objectionable to give to the Government the large discretionary powers which this clause would confer upon them, and he would therefore support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim.
MR. CONOLLYconsidered, that it would be manifestly unjust to press the people of Ireland for an amount which had been expended to relieve them from famine while they were still suffering from that painful visitation of Providence; and if it was expected that the Exchequer should be fully reimbursed for money that had been advanced, it was manifestly absurd to demand it at this moment, when the Irish people were utterly unable to pay it. He hoped the Government would consider the expediency of extending the time for repaying the advances over a greater number of years.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 128: Majority 37.
Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
MR. CLEMENTS MR. CLEMENTS moved, that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of introducing an Amendment for providing payment of the clerks of the peace and clerks of unions, for their services in connexion with the making out of the lists of voters. He thought the clerks of the peace were as much entitled to be paid as the town clerks.
MR. F. FRENCHremarked, that the clerks of the peace were already sufficiently remunerated.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEhad no personal feeling in the matter, but it appearing to be the impression of the Irish Members generally, that the clerks of the peace were sufficiently paid, he must decline to accede to the proposition.
MR. NAPIERthought it was desirable to recommit the Bill, as he and other hon. Gentlemen had Amendments to propose which it would be better to discuss in Committee than on the consideration of the report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. M. POWER MR. M. POWER moved a clause to the effect—
"That in all cases of agreement between the landlord and occupier, or (in cases of joint occupancy) the occupiers of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, within any county in Ireland, by virtue of which agreement the landlord is or shall be rated for poor-rates at the annual value of 8l. and upwards, the occupier, or (in case of joint occupancy) the occupiers of such premises, shall have all the rights of registry and voting as if he or they had been rated; and, should the landlord, under such circumstances, refuse or neglect to pay the said rates, the payment thereof by the occupier, or (in the case of joint occupancy) by the occupiers, shall entitle him or them to a right of registry and voting, and also to a right to deduct from the rent the full amount of such rates."
Mr. HATCHELLsaid, there could be no reason that a tenant, occupying under such circumstances, should be deprived of the right of voting, not only as to the county franchise, but also on that of the borough: but he thought the clause as it stood would not fairly carry out the object of the hon. Member, and therefore he should have to propose certain verbal amendments.
VISCOUNT BERNARDconsidered the

1139
clause would give rise to much inconvenience and litigation, and that it would encourage fictitious votes.
MR. GROGANopposed the clause on the ground that if it were passed it would be impossible to know who the voter was. If the landlord did not pay it would be only necessary for the tenant to come forward and claim to vote, and the requirements of the Act as to paying rates would not be followed.
SIR D. NORREYSthought the question was whether the party was in occupation of property to the required value; in that case the occupier would appear on the rate books, and who paid the rates was a matter of no importance.
MR. MONSELLobserved, that the objection was that the party would not appear on the rate books. But he thought fraud might be prevented by the production of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant, by which the landlord undertook to pay the rates; therefore, the clause was not really open to the objections which had been urged against it.
MAJOR BLACKALLdid not consider the clause necessary, because the tenant might, under his agreement, pay the rate to entitle him to the vote, and then deduct it from the rent.
MR. STAFFORDlooked on the clause as a power placed in the hands of the landlord to make faggot votes.
SIR G. CLERKthought that the proper form should be for the tenant to be allowed the right of claiming to be rated, and on doing so, and paying the rate, that he should then be entitled to vote.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, that was precisely the effect of the Amendment which he proposed.
SIR J. YOUNGsaid, a more obnoxious clause than this had never been heard of. If it were moved bonâ fide, it would affect so few votes that it was not worth the trouble of introducing it; but he could easily see that it would open the door to all sorts of fraud.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEdefended the principle of the clause, as putting it out of the power of any individual to disfranchise a voter. At the same time, he should suggest to the hon. proposer that the clause, with the amendments of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, should be withdrawn for the present, and printed, and that it might be discussed on the third reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid: Sir, notwithstanding the determination of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government to oppose the introduction of the clause I have given notice of—notwithstanding he has come to this decision before even he had heard a word of argument either myself or hon. Members may bring forward in support of it; and although I have the highest possible respect for the exalted situation the noble Lord holds in Her Majesty's Councils—still I have a duty to my constituents as a Member of this House, which even this threat of the noble Lord will not prevent my endeavouring to perform. Sir, upon the passing of the Reform Act in 1832, there was naturally adversity of opinion upon that law; and I should not have ventured to bring forward my proposition, were I not supported in my view of the case by many high legal authorities, and amongst others by the often declared opinion of one of the most talented, upright, and consistent Judges that ever adorned the judicial bench, that the disfranchisement of those called "non-resident freemen" was contrary to law, and the spirit of the Act. Now, Sir, were these persons disfranchised by a decision of this House, I should not have hazarded any appeal; but such is not the fact—they were disfranchised by the decision of an Election Committee of this House; and I feel convinced every hon. Member who has had experience here will agree with me, that Election Committees, as formerly constituted, were the most unjust and partial tribunals before which any man could appear. They were restrained by no law—they were guided by no precedent—their decision was final and arbitrary—there was no appeal—and it was by the decision of such a tribunal that so many were disfranchised, and lost a privilege they so much prized, and so long enjoyed. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may imagine my remarks are unjustly severe; but I would ask, was it not a notorious fact, that the moment an Election Committee was struck, its decision was publicly talked of, and anticipated? Very many cases could I quote in proof of this; but I shall only state my own case—
"Quæqua miserrima vidi,
Et quorum pars magna fui."
When I formerly had the honour of being a Member of this House, my return was petitioned against; on the day my Com-

1141
mittee was balloted for, my evil star was in the ascendant, and my impartial judges were ten Radical Reformers, and one Conservative. "Ab initio" my fate was sealed, and I have ever since regretted I did not take the advice of an hon. Friend, and resign at once, and I should thus have saved an expensive and annoying contest of fifteen days, for, after all, the expected result came forth. I trust, then, I am not asking too much in asking for the reversal of what I conceive was an illegal decision of this Election Committee, and restoration of, not altogether, what these persons have been deprived of, but the right of voting, when duly registered, provided they are resident in the county in which such city or borough is situated. I would also pray to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to the expediency of having the word "July" substituted for "June" in the 10th clause, line 22nd, 5th page of the Bill. This change would give more time for registration, as this is about the period of holding sessions in Ireland; the next sessions for the city of Cork, for instance, are fixed for the 1st of June, and as there are a considerable number of persons of all political feelings, who were prevented at the last, anxious to register at this sessions; and as I learn the assistant barrister is desirous to amend some of his decisions, and as this alteration would, by increasing the numbers of the registered, carry out the intentions of this new Reform Bill, or, more properly speaking, this new Democratic Bill, I trust there may be no objection to this change; but should there be, it will answer the same end, as regards Cork, to have the sessions held on the 27th of May, which perhaps the right hon. Secretary may direct. I hope, then. Her Majesty's Government will, as the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown is absent, consider what I have advanced, and withdraw their opposition from my clause, and thus prevent my taking the opinion of the House upon it; and I trust the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland will perform one of the two requests I have made of him. I beg, therefore, to move the clause of which I have given notice:—
"And be it Enacted, That the class of Voters usually called "Non-resident freemen," be permitted to vote at the Election of Members of Parliament for cities and boroughs, if duly registered, and resident within the county."
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, freemen belonged to the county of a town for the
1142
most part, and the adoption of the clause would give rise to very great inequality. He did not think it was worth the hon. and gallant Gentleman's while to divide on a proposition which was to reverse the law settled twenty years ago.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEwas very sorry to refuse the hon. and gallant Member, but the question had been settled by the Reform Bill many years ago.
VISCOUNT BERNARDhoped the hon. Member would not divide the House on the question.
COLONEL CHATTERTONwithdrew the clause.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. C. ANSTEY, in the absence of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who had given notice on the subject, moved the omission in Clause 1, line 11, of all the words which provided that "the voter should, on or before the 1st of July, have paid all poor-rates in respect of his lands, tenements, or hereditaments, which should have become payable from him in respect of such premises previously to the 1st day of January then next preceding." He believed that the retention of these words would restrict the franchise, and that, in accordance with the title of the Bill, and the determination of the Legislature, the possession of property of a certain amount ought to be—whether rightly or wrongly was not now the question—a test of the fitness of the party for the possession of the franchise.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "year" to the word "And," in line 19.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. SOMERVILLEopposed the Motion, because one of the main features of the Bill was, that it insisted on the payment of rates prior to voting.
The House divided: Ayes 106; Noes 26: Majority 80.
MR. FITZPATRICK MR. FITZPATRICK moved, as an Amendment, that a portion of Clause 2 be omitted. It gave votes in right of joint occupancy in counties, and to that he objected.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 18, to leave out from the words "next preceding" to the word "And" in line 31.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided; Ayes 78; Noes 52: Majority 26.
MR. ANSTEYthen rose to move an Amendment to the 6th Clause, with a view to reduce the qualifications of voters in boroughs from 8l. to 5l. He urged that change upon the favourable consideration of the House, for this, among other reasons, that otherwise the effect of the measure would be to increase the county constituency, and to diminish that of the boroughs.
Amendment proposed, page 3, line 41, to leave out the word "eight," in order to insert the word "five."
Question put, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Bill."
COLONEL DUNNEagreed that 8l. was too high a qualification, but he was not prepared to admit that it should be fixed at 5l.
MR. LAWLESSsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal's Motion proved unsuccessful with the House, he should propose a 6l. qualification in Irish boroughs.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEwas opposed to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. When a similar Amendment was moved by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, he entered into calculations and fully stated the reasons against such an alteration of the Bill. He should now, therefore, not detain the House by repeating them, but content himself with recommending that the proposed change be not agreed to.
MR. BRIGHTobserved, that every Irish Member in favour of extending the franchise, was decidedly of opinion that an 8l. franchise was too high. But, as it was now encumbered with a rating for the poor, if the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment was adopted, it would render necessary considerable alteration in other parts of the Bill. He was in favour of the Amendment as an electoral question; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had fully admitted that the state of the Irish boroughs would not be satisfactory, even after the passing of this Bill, he should recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman not to go to a division at present, but that he and all those who were in favour of a 5l. qualification should take the opportunity, when the Irish boroughs came to be re-arranged, of going into the whole question, and then urging their views upon the Government. He moreover did not think it wise to introduce further matter of dispute into the consideration of the measure.
MR. STAFFORDbegged to inform the hon. Member that there would be no difficulty as to the machinery. The noble Lord, though he talked of grouping some of the boroughs, did not, with respect to the franchise, speak of the Bill as a temporary, but as a final measure. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] Then, he was to understand that the Bill could not be considered final. If the Bill were not to be final, the less time they consumed in its discussion the better.
MR. AGLIONBYconcurred in the view taken of this question by the hon. Member for Manchester. He believed that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would be attended with more harm than good. Would any one tell him that if they introduced the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman into the Bill there would be a chance of its passing this Session in another place? He believed it would not. As he was satisfied the Government had gone as far as they could do with safety to the measure, he was ready, on the present occasion, to give them his cordial support.
VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, what had occurred that night convinced him he was right in having always doubted that the Irish Reform Bill was an honest measure. If he had another reason for opposing the Bill—which was but another kind of Reform Bill—it would be from the variation of the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester now from the opinions he had given utterance to at a meeting a short time ago at Crosby Hall. He would read to the House an extract from the hon. Member's speech on that occasion:—
"The Irish Franchise Bill was a proof of the great change which had taken place, not only throughout the country, but in Parliament, proposing, as it did, alterations in the qualification required for voting which ten years ago would not have been tolerated. About ten years since, a Bill not relating to the property qualification at all, but intended to improve the system of registration, was opposed as if the welfare of the empire depended upon its rejection; but the opposition to the present Bill was so languid that an hon. Member, who thought that 8l. was too low a qualification, and wished to raise it, received so little support that he was obliged to withdraw his Motion without going to a division. The only thing complained of, in fact, was, that they had not reduced the franchise in the boroughs to any considerable extent; which, he believed, arose from a mistake, and that the Government were now very sorry for it. Now that Bill, passing by large majorities, and only a few Members attempting to introduce a clause which should in

1145
anyway embarrass its operation, showed a change which it was most satisfactory to see, and which derived the more importance from the fact, that all public men knew that the present Bill was a mere experiment, a getting in of the small end of the wedge, and that it would be certainly followed in the next or the succeeding Session by a proposition for a change in the representation of Great Britain."
The ATTORNEY GENERALhad not the good fortune to hear that part of the hon. Member for Manchester's speech on which the noble Lord had laid so much stress, in consequence of the noble Lord having turned his back when reading it. [Viscount BERNARD: I will read it again.] He thought it quite unnecessary, for the real question before the House was, whether the franchise should be 5l. or 8l. He rose, however, for the purpose of saying that he had intimated dissent when the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire alluded to the noble Lord at the head of the Government as having spoken of the Bill as a final measure—not from any notion that there was to be no finality in the matter, but because he thought the noble Lord had never used those words, and especially when he remembered the use which for many years had been made of that very word "finality." With regard to the question before the House, it had been fully discussed before a Committee, and he thought the House would be of opinion that after what had passed before that Committee—whore unquestionably the general opinion was in favour of an 8l. franchise—it would not be desirable now to come to a decision fixing the franchise at 5l.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had told them that he proposed this Amendment because it was his wish to extend the franchise; and therefore he thought no hon. Member opposite was entitled to attribute to him any other motive. For himself, he must say he did not wish to see a great extension of the franchise. He desired to see monarchical institutions preserved in this country, but he did not wish to see a free democratic social republic established. He was for a full and fair representation of the people, but at the same time he thought what was called a full and fair representation of the people might be carried too far; and, careless of the popularity or unpopularity which he might incur, he felt himself compelled to say that the present was too extended a measure. He saw the hon. Member for
1146
Oldham in his place, and he would read a few words which that hon. Gentleman had addressed to the National Reform Conference, as it was very important at this time, when such great changes were taking place abroad, to know what were the sentiments entertained by gentlemen of the weight and station of the hon. Member. He found that the hon. Member said—
"He considered the extension of the suffrage, vote by ballot, the payment of Members, and the redistribution in the proportions of electoral districts, as all of them mere machinery, and not ends, which any rational man would think worth spending his time upon. In the accomplishment of these objects they should still keep in view their great ultimate object, which he would not hesitate to call a 'social revolution.'"
By "social revolution," he (Lord Castlereagh) supposed the hon. Gentleman meant a socialist revolution. ["No, no!"] He certainly found that the hon. Member afterwards said he wished to see our institutions preserved. But then M. Proudhon had taken nearly the same course as the hon. Member for Oldham had done. ["No, no!"] He did not wish to say anything disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman; but he reminded him of the month of March coming in like a lion, and going out like a lamb. The hon. Gentleman, if he might venture to say so, had come in like a lamb, and would go out like a lion. Let them by all means get a full representation of the people, but let them be careful not to be led away by such doctrines as those laid down by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. W. J. FOXdid not know where the noble Lord had found the report of his speech to which he had referred; but he thought that of the few sentences which he had quoted, or, at least, referred to, there was one that contained quite enough to show him what he meant by the term "social revolution." He (Mr. Fox) had clearly and fully explained that it was not a revolution which had anything to do with bloodshead, plunder, or the destruction of venerated and useful institutions, the redistribution of property, or any such absurdities; but that by a social revolution he meant a change which should put talent, integrity, and legitimate influence in the place of corruption and of intimidation in the representation of the people in that House. The remarks which followed those that had been read had been brought into notice in some publications, so that he should have thought the one part of what he said on that occasion would have been

1147
as well known as the other. The word social had been laid hold of, and, as far as it could be done, it was laid hold of to give it the form which had just now been affixed to it. He had no hesitation, however, in repeating, that he did desire to see such a social revolution as he then described—a revolution which should put talent and honesty and ability in their proper place, and give them their proper influence. And if it was thought there was anything incautious in using either the word "revolution" or the word "social" in such a connexion, he would just say, that these remarks were not addressed to a large and indiscriminate meeting, but to a small number of delegates in a comparatively private place, met to consult on such political arrangements as it might be thought right to adopt for promoting the object in pursuit of which they were engaged. He saw nothing in this for which he needed to make any excuse or apology. The sentiments and the language he was ready to repeat there; and, in consistency with the principles he had advocated, he should, as one desirous to see the suffrage, both in this and the sister country, extended to the very greatest degree that it could be, consistent with order or utility, support the Amendment now before the House.
MR. F. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Oldham required no one to make any explanation in his behalf; but as he had listened with great pleasure to the speech which the hon. Member had delivered before the National Reform Association, he begged to say that that speech was received with the greatest satisfaction by the meeting—not because they were revolutionists, for they desired to carry no object by physical force—but because they concurred in the views so well expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord the Member for the county of Down stated, that he was in favour of monarchical institutions, but that he was not for a full representation of the people. [Viscount CASTLEREAGH dissented.] Well, then, the noble Lord said he was not for a social republic; but he would tell him that the refusal of just concessions to the people was what would lead them to demand a social and democratic revolution. It was only by timely concessions that revolution could be arrested; and for that reason he would support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.
MR. M. O'CONNBLLsaid, that he was sorry to hear the noble Lord revive a cry
1148
which had done more mischief in this empire, and especially in Ireland, than almost any other. He meant the cry of exclusive loyalty. That pernicious assertion had been the bane of Ireland. At one time the only loyalists were said to be one particular party in the country; at another, the professors of a particular religion; but now the only loyal people, it would appear, were those who would support an 8l. franchise. He would give his support to the Amendment.
The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 43: Majority 37.
MR. W. J. FOXappealed to the indulgence of the House to permit him to read the conclusion of the speech the commencement of which had been just adverted to by the noble Viscount the Member for the county of Down. In the few remarks he (Mr. Fox) had made, he did not consult the printed report of his speech which the noble Viscount had quoted, and which the courtesy of the noble Viscount had placed within his reach. The noble Viscount, however, had not quoted his observations with that completeness which was essential to correctness, and he (Mr. Fox) begged to be permitted to read the entire passage. He had said—
"In the accomplishment of these objects they should still keep in view their great ultimate object, which he would not hesitate to call a social revolution—a revolution, however, which would leave intact, in all their sacredness, the principles of the constitution, the maintenance of order, and the greatest possible amount of liberty, but a revolution which should raise into operation the intellectual and moral aristocracy of the country, with ability to govern, and integrity to govern well."
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHhad no intention of misquoting the hon. Member, and had explained the purport of the conclusion of the sentence. He had, however, thought that the expression "social revolution," in the hon. Member's speech, was not sufficiently qualified by the after portion of his speech, because he could not imagine how a social revolution could be effected consistently with the maintenance of order in this country.
COLONEL CHATTERTON: Sir, I beg to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, that he has not replied to my request regarding the substitution of the word "August" for May, in the 10th clause, 15th line of the Act. As I have before stated my reasons for this request, I need not trouble the House at any length; but I really cannot see how

1149
Her Majesty's Government can, with any shadow of consistency, refuse this alteration, when it tends to increase the franchise so much wished for by this new reform, or, much more properly speaking, democratic Bill for Ireland. I therefore beg to move that August he substituted for May in the Bill.
Amendment proposed, page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "May," in order to insert the word "August," instead thereof.
Question put, "That the word 'May' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GROGANsupported the Amendment. The clause, as it now stood, would be an ex post facto disqualification of persons who would be placed upon the register, and who, but for the Act, would have the right to vote until August next.
The ATTORNEY GENERALcould not consent to allow the old class of voters to remain upon the register during the last quarter of the registration year, when these voters were declared by the Act incompetent to vote.
MR. GROGANhad thought the object of the Bill was an extension of the suffrage; but it appeared that the Government only meant to extend the franchise in a democratic sense.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaw no reason for agreeing to the change proposed by the hon. and gallant Member opposite.
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 21: Majority 71.
MR. GROGANhad an Amendment to propose, to the effect that the revision of electoral lists in Dublin should take place a month after the revision through the country generally, so as to allow the barristers of Dublin to attend conveniently to legal duties connected with the registration in the country.
The ATTORNEY GENERALdid not apprehend that any inconvenience would be found to arise from fixing the period of revision for the capital and the country at the same time. In England the London and country registration was effected at one and the same time, and the system worked perfectly well.
Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read 3° on Friday next.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
MR. J. STUARTsaid, he had given notice of an instruction to the Committee to insert a clause that should provide a
1150
remedy for what he thought every body who had attended to the discussions in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and every body who had attended to the state of landed property in Ireland, must admit to be one of the greatest evils that had afflict-ed that country. In the course of last Session, on the Motion of, he believed, the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, the House appointed a Committee to inquire and report on the state and condition of landed property in Ireland in the hands of receivers acting under the Court of Chancery. It appeared, from the report of that Committee, that there was land in Ireland under the dominion of the Court of Chancery, the rental of which amounted to not less than a million a year. The receivers of the Court of Chancery received the rents, and had the management of the property. That all the land so situate was in a state of most deplorable mismanagement, had been acknowledged on both sides of that House. But they wanted no greater evidence than what appeared in the report of the Committee of last Session. Witnesses thoroughly conversant with the subject, including the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, had been examined; and the Committee reported the existence of most gross abuses—that the appointment of a receiver sealed the fate of the debtor and his property, and was, therefore resisted and deferred in every possible way; that the receivers were tempted to collect as early, and to pay over the money as late as they could, themselves using the money in the meantime; and that the tenants had no chance whatever of making improvements. Such was the deplorable condition of property under receivers appointed by the Lord Chancellor; all parties concerned—the debtor, the owner, and the tenant—were injured by the system. One class alone derived a profit from it, the professional auxiliaries. It was a deep reproach in some quarter or other that such a state of things should be permitted to exist. This Bill dealt with the court under which these receivers were appointed; and though he wholly disapproved of the Bill, he wished to call the attention of the House to the necessity of remedying this evil. He had given notice of this, and felt surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitors General for England and Ireland had not directed their attention to the matter, especially as the report of the Committee had been before the House for a twelvemonth. He should move a

1151
clause, having for its object the redress of these grievances. He could anticipate no objection to the principle of such a clause, which simply embodied the recommendation of the Committee of last year. It proposed to give the Lord Chancellor of Ireland full power so to regulate the system of receivers, by orders framed for that purpose, and would meet all the evils which the Committee had pointed out.
The CHAIRMANasked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he intended to put his Motion in the shape of a new clause?
MR. J. STUARTintimated that that was his intention.
The CHAIRMANthen stated that, as a new clause, the proposition must be made after all the other clauses had been disposed of.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that although it would not be necessary for him now to enter into a lengthened reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, yet perhaps it might be convenient that he should make a few observations on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member.
The CHAIRMANsaid, that it was impossible for him to have known what the hon. and learned Member for Newark was about to propose; he could not therefore prevent his proceeding; but now that one irregularity had taken place, he would recommend the Committee not to pursue that irregular course any further.
MR. B. OSBORNEapprehended that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly right in drawing the attention of the House to one of the greatest abuses that existed in Ireland. So far from taking it ill at the hon. and learned Member having referred to the report of the Committee for which he (Mr. Osborne) had moved, he felt grateful to him for having applied his sound and legal mind to the discussion of this question. He did not think any mere forms of the House ought to obstruct a Member from drawing the attention of Parliament to such a question.
The CHAIRMAN: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon, but he is out of order.
MR. J. STUART, while submitting to the better judgment of the Chairman on the question of form, thought they were, in truth and in substance, discussing the question whether a clause to the effect he had proposed should form part of the Bill. He did not think they would be greatly
1152
violating any forms of the House if the Chairman would extend to them a little indulgence on this occasion.
MR. B. OSBORNEdid not claim it as an indulgence, but he claimed it as a right.
The CHAIRMANsaid, he felt bound again to interfere, and to press on the Committee the importance of adhering to those rules, which had always been observed since he had had the honour of filling the office of Chairman.
MR. B. OSBORNE: Then docs the hon. and learned Solicitor General mean to quash all discussion on the Bill?
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, on the other hand, he was anxious for it, but had been called to order. He might state that, so far from the House having taken no step in this matter, they had passed the judgment on Small Titles Bill, which contained some important provisions on the appointment of receivers.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, if the question could not be discussed in Committee, he would move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, an opportunity for the discussion would be afforded after the other clauses were gone through, by moving the addition of a new clause. He hoped the Committee would support the Chairman in adhering to the usual rules of conducting the business.
MR. B. OSBORNEasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark would take the opportunity pointed out of moving his clause?
MR. J. STUART: Oh, certainly; as soon as the other clauses are agreed to.
On Clause 1,
MR. TURNERasked whether in applications made under that clause, the relatora must obtain the sanction of the Attorney General.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, this would be necessary in cases where the suit was instituted in the name of the Attorney General. The clause would give power for a petition to be filed instead of an information, all other matters remaining as they were.
MR. TURNERwould beg to ask another question, as to the proof of service of notice which would be requisite, and pointed out the possibility of a false affidavit of service being made, whereby the parties would be left entirely at the mercy of those pretending to give the notice.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid,

1153
that security would be taken for complete and sufficient notice, just the same as in this country. No doubt the court was very jealous, indeed, about the sufficiency of the notice; and a subsequent clause provided that, subject to the regulation of the court, the notice should be proved in the same way as a subpœna. This clause merely referred to notice of a petition being filed; but the same precautions were taken as in the service of a subpœna or bill of information. In the English Court of Chancery it was not necessary to obtain an answer from a defendant; he might, under certain regulations, be proceeded against pro confesso.
MR. TURNERwould leave the matter in the hands of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 2 to 14, inclusive.
On Clause 15,
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he objected to this clause altogether, because it transferred powers to the Master which should be left with the court alone.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he would endeavour to modify the clause so as to obviate the objections of his hon. and learned Friend, by specifying more distinctly the matters to be referred to the Master. His hon. and learned Friend would have an opportunity of considering the amended clause on bringing up the report.
Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 16 to 29, inclusive.
On Clause 30,
MR. B. OSBORNEobserved, that within the last few weeks the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had given a most extraordinary judgment as to the proceedings of the court in Ireland. There was a case in which a stablekeeper was receiving 10 s. a week from an attorney of the name of Callaghan, who made him swear to the accounts, the man not being able to write. This case was brought before the Master of the Rolls, who wrote to the Lord Chancellor, and recommended that the attorney should be struck off the rolls of the court. To the surprise of the profession, the Lord Chancellor merely heard the case, gave him a lecture, and dismissed him. He wanted to know why the Lord Chancellor was not disposed to move in the business? This solicitor went before the court, and made an affidavit that it was the most common thing for a most respectable man to appoint his servant as receiver. What
1154
was the opinion of Sir Edward Sugden as to this case, which had been passed over in this light way? He was asked, on the inquiry into the Court of Chancery in Ireland, "With reference to the number of receivers, is it your opinion it is a great evil in Ireland? "Answer—"Undoubtedly, the evils are so great, that no country can possibly prosper under them. I cannot conceive any greater evil." That was Sir Edward Sugden's opinion upon this subject. The Master of the Rolls gave the same opinion. Was the House aware of the enormous amount of property under the Court of Chancery of Ireland? If so, the House of Commons would not be satisfied to leave the matter as it was.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, that he could not allow the present observations to pass without placing his protest, on the part of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and on the part of the profession, against what had been stated. Did the hon. and gall nt Member mean to suggest that these abuses occurred in the time of the present Lord Chancellor? [Mr. OSBORSE: They were all equally bad.] The Lord Chancellor who, for some years past, had had the management of the court, had endeavoured to put an end to these abuses, arising unfortunately from the state of property in Ireland. The appointment of receivers, their security, and the mode of controlling them, was all grounded on the practice and precedents of the Court of Chancery in England. They were under the same control, and were bound to account in the same manner. The embarrassments of the estates in the country had led to these abuses. As to the Lord Chancellor, it was perfectly well known that when he came to the bench in Ireland, he used his utmost efforts to rectify these abuses. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland had two years ago tried to get rid of these abuses. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had made some allusion to a solicitor in Ireland having made his stable servant a receiver, and that such a step had been sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. If such a thing were done by the Lord Chancellor, it was done merely on the evidence that came before him, and in accordance with the rules of the court. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had appeared to contrast the conduct of the Master of the Rolls with that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but, while he (Mr. Hatchell) readily admitted the ability and urbanity of the Master of the Rolls, he must also

1155
say, that in the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, no blame whatever could be attached to the Lord Chancellor, who had acted in the strict discharge of his duty.
The SOLICITOR GENERALbegged to call the attention of the Committee to the course which had been taken in consequence of the report of the receivers' committee. Receivers were either receivers under judgments, under what was called Pigot's Act, and receivers under the estates of infants and lunatics. The latter were not mismanaged; but with respect to receivers under judgments, they were really the officers of the judgment creditor, appointed for the purpose of getting execution of his debt. It could not be expected that receivers in such a case would lay out money to improve an estate, as was done by the other class of receivers. The only mode of getting rid of the evil was by getting rid of receivers under judgments altogether. Now, what had been done in consequence of this? The House had passed a Bill by which no receiver would in future be appointed over an estate in Ireland on a judgment. That was a very considerable step in the improvement of the system, and receivers under judgments would rapidly disappear. Nothing gave him greater confidence in the Bill upon which the Committee had bestowed their attention that evening, than the manner in which the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls had done him the honour to consult with him on the subject; and he was satisfied that there existed a sincere desire on the part of both those distinguished Judges to carry out by a series of orders a complete reform of the Court of Chancery.
MR. B. OSBORNE, in explanation, said, that it was supposed that because he had praised the Master of the Rolls he had made an attack on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. But even if he had made that attack, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken offered no defence; no explanation of the case to which he had alluded, of a solicitor having appointed his own stable servant at the rate of 10 s. a week to act as a receiver; that solicitor in palliation stated that he knew twenty-three solicitors who did the same thing.
MR. KEOGHsaid, that he was aware of the facts of the case, and he would by permission of the House explain them, and having a perfect knowledge of them, he felt that not the slightest censure could be with propriety cast on the Lord Chan-
1156
cellor of Ireland. The Master of the Rolls had not sent, as had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, a recommendation that this attorney should be struck of the rolls, to the Lord Chancellor. He merely sent a statement of his own opinion on the subject. The solicitor's statement was that the property in question amounted to about 300 l. a year; and it was a most difficult matter in Ireland to induce persons in a respectable station to undertake the management of estates under the Court of Chancery, for which they would not obtain a remuneration exceeding 5l. or 6l. a year. The solicitor stated that he had not been able to procure as receiver such a person as the Court would desire, but that he had given the best evidence in his power that the estate would be properly managed by himself becoming guarantee for the person he had employed. It appeared, also, that the estate had throughout been well and efficiently managed, and that not one farthing of money produced by the property was lost. These were the facts of the case, and he threw himself on the mercy of the court. Under these circumstances he thought that there was no ground for passing censure on the Lord Chancellor. At the same time that he (Mr. Keogh) stated this he was as willing as any man to admit that the greatest abuses existed in Ireland under the Chancery Courts, and said it was his strong opinion that solicitors should not he appointed receivers.
MAJOR BLACKALLhoped that if the House was to legislate by a clause in this Bill as proposed, there would be time given to consider it. Perhaps the Chairman had better, therefore, report progress.
MR. J. STUARTsaid, he would bring up the clause on the report.
Clause 30 agreed to, and the following clauses up to Clause 37.
On Clause 38,
MR. GROGANobjected, that the word "officers" did not sufficiently specify the persons entitled to compensation, and moved the omission of a part of the clause, in order that clerks who might not be properly considered officers, should have an opportunity of preferring their claim for compensation to the Treasury. He did not wish to coerce the Treasury to grant them compensation, but to place them in a position to demand it. If the clause was not intended to include those persons, he would press his Motion to a division.
Amendment proposed, page 15, line 42,

1157
after "officers of," to insert "or persons employed in."
Question put, "That the proposed words he there inserted."
The SOLICITOR GENERALcould not consent to the addition of the words. The clause did not prevent those persons making their claims if they desired to do so; and it was for the Treasury to determine whether they came within the meaning of the clause, and were entitled to compensation.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 96: Majority 70.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved that the Chairman report progress, intending then to move that the Bill he immediately re-committed with the view of introducing additional amendments, having them printed, and considering them on the further re-committal of the Bill.
MR. KEOGHrose to inquire if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had any intention of introducing a provision for the purpose of giving a Parliamentary title to estates sold under the authority of the Court of Chancery as well as to those sold by direction of the Encumbered Estates Commission?
The SOLICITOR GENERALreplied that it would be quite impossible to introduce any such provisions in the Bill then before the House. The subject was one of great magnitude, in legislating on which many guards and checks would be required.
The House resumed.
Bill reported; re-committed; considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday next, and to be printed.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Indemnity. 3a Pirates (Head Money) Repeal.

IRISH POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHpresented a petition from the board of guardians of a union in Ireland, complaining of arbitrary conduct on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners. The petitioners stated that the Roman Catholic clergyman had applied to the Commissioners for an increase of salary, and several communications had passed between them and the guardians; the latter body remonstrating against the advance of salary, and representing that it was against the will of the ratepayers. The Commissioners, however, issued what was called a "sealed order," which compelled the guardians to increase the salary, no reason having been given for such increase, except the allegation of the clergyman himself, that he was not sufficiently paid for the work he did. The
1132
noble Marquess observed, that it appeared from these circumstances, that the effect of these "sealed orders" was to surrender the purses of the ratepayers to a couple of hooded serpents concealed in Dublin. He bad a great respect for the constitution; but he would rather live under a despotism than in a country where a set of Poor Law Commissioners were invested with an irresponsible power, which enabled them to pick the pockets of Her Majesty's subjects. He moved for the production of the correspondence between the board of guardians and the Poor Law Commissioners.
House adjourned to Monday next.