Sir, the notice which, I have put on the paper must have sufficiently conveyed to the mind of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government the nature of the question which I now intend to put to him. I wish, Sir, to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have decided upon adopting any especial course of conduct in consequence of the resolution come to in the House of Lords on Monday last?

Sir, if the House will allow me, in consequence of the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put to me, I will make a statement in reply to that question. I find, on consulting the Minutes of the House of Lords, that what has taken place in that House is this: that it was moved to resolve—

"That while this House fully recognises the Right and Duty of the Government to secure to Her Majesty's Subjects residing in Foreign States the full Protection of the Laws of those States, it regrets to find, by the Correspondence recently laid upon the Table by Her Majesty's Command, that various Claims against the Greek Government, doubtful in point of Justice, or exaggerated in Amount, have been enforced by coercive Measures directed against the Commerce and People of Greece, and calculated to endanger the Continuance of our friendly Relations with other Powers."

And, after a long debate, on the resolution being put, it was resolved in the affirmative. Now the House will perceive that the resolution which I have just read begins with a general proposition with respect to the right and the duty of the Government. It affirms that it is the right and the duty of the Government to secure to Her Majesty's subjects residing in foreign States the full protection of the laws of those States. Now, Sir, I cannot consent so to limit the right and the duty of the Government of this country. I think, taking these words as being a definition of the right and the duty of the Government of this country, it would imply that any State, however despotic, might make any laws, however unjust and oppressive, and that they might be executed by the most corrupt instruments, and that the Government of this country have no right or duty to make any remonstrance or interference against such execution of these laws. Now, Sir, that is not the way in which the law of nations has ever been put in practice by any of the great nations of Europe, and I may say still less by the United States of America. They have all felt themselves bound to—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to order, and I feel the deepest regret to have to interrupt the communications which the noble Lord feels it his duty to make to the House, in consequence of the question put to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. But I will appeal to the House. A question has been asked of the noble Lord, of a very simple character; and, Sir, the noble Lord, in giving his answer to that question, feels it necessary to enter into certain details connected with that question to which the House would listen, not merely from the importance of the subject, but from the position of the noble Lord, with the greatest attention and indulgence. But I put it to the House, whether the noble Lord, instead of giving an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, is not, on the contrary, entering into a discussion of the proceedings of the House of Lords—these proceedings being a resolution in consequence of a debate on a subject no doubt of the greatest interest and importance. I can assure the noble Lord—I believe I may say for every Gentleman on these (the Protectionist) benches—that we have not the slightest wish to evade or prevent any discussion in this House on this important subject; and if the noble Lord wishes a discussion to take place upon it, the noble Lord, as the head of the Government, has so completely under his control the time of this House, that he can easily fix upon a fair and fitting opportunity for such a discussion. And when I say that on this side of the House there is no disposition to evade or prevent the discussion—[ Loud cries of "Order, order!" from the Liberal Benches. ] I apprehend, Sir, I am strictly in order; I only wish to assure the noble Lord that when I said there was no disposition on this side to evade or prevent the discussion, I think it must be the general feeling of this House that the discussion should be full, fair, and deliberate; and I put it to the noble Lord himself, whether it is fair to the House that the discussion should come on in this sudden manner—is it likely to be a full, fair, and deliberate discussion? I put it, therefore, to the noble Lord whether, instead of discussing the merits of this important question now, he ought not to content himself with giving a plain answer to the plain question that has been addressed to him.

resumed: The question that has been put to me is certainly a short and simple one, but it is a very general one. It is, whether the Government will adopt any especial course of conduct in consequence of the resolution come to in another place on Monday last? Now, I must either make a statement with respect to the course of conduct we intend to pursue, and explain that conduct, or I must remain altogether silent. If you decide, Sir, that I am not to proceed, I shall at once bow to that decision; if, on the contrary, you decide otherwise, I shall go on. Sir, I have stated sufficiently the ground why I think it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to carry into effect, according to their own sense of duty, the first part of the resolution which has been carried in the House of Lords, and which I have read to this House. But the latter part of the resolution, which I likewise read, conveys a vote of censure on the Government for the conduct they have recently pursued with respect to the affairs of Greece. Now, Sir, I am certainly not going to argue that question in any manner. But I must say this, that we are not going in any respect to alter the course of conduct that we have thought it right to pursue with respect to foreign Powers in consequence of that resolution. Now, Sir, if the House will permit me, I will go on; and I will say that there is another question which might fairly be in the contemplation of hon. Members, and that is, whether the Government, thus dissenting from the general rule with respect to the law of nations that has been laid down by the House of Lords, and refusing to conduct itself according to the resolution which that Assembly has carried, it is not their duty to resign the Government into the hands of those who would act upon that resolution? Sir, a question of this kind naturally induces me to recur to different occasions when similar resolutions, in spirit at least, have been carried. One hundred and forty years ago the House of Lords came to a resolution that it would not be consistent with the safety and the honour of this country to make any peace with France which should leave Spain and the Indies in the possession of any branch of the house of Bourbon. The Executive Government, in spite of that address of the House of Lords, which was carried on a division, proceeded to make a treaty with France; and that treaty left Spain and the Indies in the possession of a branch of the House of Bourbon. Not many years ago, in the month of June 1833, no less a person than the Duke of Wellington moved an Address to the Crown on the subject of the foreign policy of this country as regarded Portugal. Earl Grey, in replying to the Motion that was then made, is reported to have declared that he should consider that Address as a vote of censure, and as a stigma upon the Government. That resolution and Address, on a division, were carried. Earl Grey continued in the execution of the policy that he had previously adopted; and my noble Friend near me declared, in this House, that he should not swerve from the policy that had been pursued. Sir, I believe that that conduct of the Executive Government in these two cases was according to the constitution of this country. And I believe that a change of Government resulting from a resolution of the House of Lords with respect to the conduct of the Executive Government of this country would be contrary to the constitution of this country, and that, while it might cause great confusion in the State, it would be to none so dangerous as to the House of Lords. I believe that, placing upon the House of Lords the weight and responsibility of controlling the Executive Government of this country, would soon put the House of Lords in a position which they have never hitherto occupied, and which they could not safely maintain. Sir, if these are my opinions, then I could not consent to surrender the reins of power in consequence of the resolution which has been arrived at by the House of Lords. At the same time, I will not deny that that resolution, carried, as it has been, is a matter of very great importance. I will not deny that it deeply affects the conduct of foreign Powers in their relations with the Government of this country. But, Sir, the remedy, I should have thought, were it not for other circumstances, would no doubt have been easy and obvious. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire is himself in close political and party connexion with the noble Lord, who is reported to have made this Motion in the other House of Parliament. If he had given notice of the same Motion in this House, the House would then have decided on the merits of that Motion; and if this House had agreed with the House of Lords, there could have been no doubt or hesitation as to the course which Her Majesty's Government would pursue. But, Sir, there is a fair and honourable inter- pretation of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman and those who act with him; if they had believed in the soundness and the policy of the resolution that I have read, they would no doubt have found it their duty to bring forward that resolution in this House, in which, besides its being the House where all administration of the Crown is controlled and advised, there is this obvious advantage, that in this House sits the Minister who is charged with the affairs of that department. But, Sir, as I have said, there is an honourable explanation of such conduct, and such explanation no doubt is, that those who share the general political opinions of the noble Lord whom I have mentioned, do not share in the views he has taken with regard to the affairs of Greece. I say, if they had agreed with him, there would have been no excuse for not allowing my noble Friend to make in this House a defence; but if that be the case, I can only say we shall continue in the course we have hitherto followed with respect to our foreign policy. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, as he has intimated, wishes to make any Motion on the subject, he shall have the earliest possible opportunity the Government can give for that purpose. But, Sir, so long as we continue the government of this country, I can answer for my noble Friend that he will act not as the Minister of Austria, or as the Minister of Russia, or of France, or of any other country, but as the Minister of England. The honour of England, and the interests of England, are the matters within our keeping; and to those interests, and to that honour, our conduct in future will be—as hitherto it has been—devoted.

Sir, as there is no question before the House, I wish to know if it will permit me to make an observation on the personal remarks of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has insinuated that no Motion has been brought forward by myself, or by any of the Gentlemen in this House with whom I have the honour to act, on the question that recently engaged the attention of the House of Lords, because we have no confidence in the case we could present to the House, and because the noble Lord in whose department the affairs are particularly administered is here present to defend himself; but I beg to remind the noble Lord of the reason the question was not brought forward here, and of the reception we should have met, if notice to that effect had been given. We should have been told, as others have been told, that negotiations were pending, and any discussion would be deprecated. Why, Sir, in another place that deprecation was made by Her Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty's Ministers cannot sing one song in another place, and a different song in this place. If discussion was deprecated in the House of Lords because negotiations were pending, the same objection would have been made if the question was mooted in this House. I beg to inform the noble Lord, in consequence of the statement he has made, that he is imperfectly informed as to the relations subsisting between the noble Lord who brought forward the Motion in the House of Lords and myself, and the Gentlemen who act with me in this House, in supposing that there is any want of sympathy on our part with him, or any want of agreement between us on this important subject. And though the noble Lord at the head of the Government will not come forward to ask the verdict of this House, but has conveniently thrown out a hint, and obtained an obvious and offered machinery to assist him, I assure the noble Lord that when the occasion is really offered to us, I shall be prepared to uphold, as far as lies in my power, the decision of the House of Lords.

Sir, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words. I agree in part, but not in the entire, of the constitutional doctrine laid down by the noble Lord. I shall propose a resolution Tomorrow, according to the terms in which the noble Lord has expressed himself, because, to my mind, the noble Lord has only stated one-half of what the Government should do. I agree with him that a mere resolution of the House of Lords is not of itself sufficient to cause an alteration of the Government; but I think it is important in our doubly-chambered legislation that both should act, if possible, in accordance; or, if not, that there should be a complete understanding in the public mind wherein disagreement does exist; and any Administration that has been thus censured by the House of Lords is bound not to shrink from an appeal to the House of Commons; and if the appeal, when made, be not successful, then the path is clear before the Administration. Because I believe the Administration is entirely crippled as it now stands, and that the dignity of England cannot be maintained in the present condition of Her Majesty's servants, I will learn what is the feeling of the House of Commons. As I agree in the policy which has been laid down by the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs in this country, I will test the opinion of the House. We will see if we can find a verdict of this House in his favour, and leave it clearly and distinctly for the world to know if Her Majesty's Government has the confidence of the people of England. I beg to give notice that I shall move the following resolution Tomorrow:—

"That the principles which hitherto have regulated the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government are such as were required to preserve untarnished the honour and dignity of this country, and in times of unexampled difficulty the best qualified to maintain peace between England and the various nations of the world."

In conformity with what I have said—though we gave notice for supply To-morrow—I shall willingly waive all Orders of the Day, that the hon. and learned Gentleman may bring forward his Motion.

As the question is of importance, I think Monday should be the day. I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to take the House and the country by surprise.

I only meant to say that it is my wish that the Motion should come on at the earliest possible time. I have no wish to take the House by surprise, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will put the Motion on the paper for Monday, I shall not object.

As far as I am concerned, my only desire is, that the subject should have a perfectly fair discussion; and I think it due to the House at once to say, that I shall be ready to proceed on Monday or To-morrow.

I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will bring forward his Motion on Monday or not?

It was then intimated that the Motion was fixed for Monday.

said, he then proposed most earnestly, and with great confidence, to ask the House to agree to the second reading of this Bill. He was well aware that the subject to which it related did not possess any of that interest which belonged to topics connected with party struggles and party passions; but he would venture to say that no subject could be brought before the House of greater consequence to one of the most important interests in this country. He should state, in the first place, what were the alterations which he purposed to make in the Bill, as it had been printed and laid before the House. He begged the House to do him the favour to recollect that he had always stated, with regard to that measure, that, while he should adhere to its essential principles, he should be ready to give his best consideration to any suggestions that might be offered to him on the part of the shipping interest with respect to the mode in which those principles were to be carried into effect; and that he should rejoice if he could see his way to the accomplishment of the great objects he had in view, by means which would carry with them the support and consent of the great body of the shipowners of this country. He was at that moment in a condition confidently to assure the House that the measure which he proposed that they should then read a second time, was not only brought forward by the Government with a deep conviction of its utility and necessity, but that it also had the warm and zealous support of the great body of the shipping interest. He was entitled to say that, from assurances which he had received, and especially within the last few days—and if he overstated those assurances, he was speaking in the presence of the Members who represented the great seaports of the country, who would be able to correct his mis-statements—he said confidently that that measure, not only in its objects, but in the manner in which those objects were to be carried into effect, had the cordial approbation—he did not say on every point of detail, but in all its main provisions—of the great shipping interest of this country. He might state, in particular, that representations to that effect had been made to him by the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, and by the Shipowners' Association of Liverpool—bodies which, he believed, represented the whole of the shipping interest of that great port, and which had, he believed, unanimously resolved on asking the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill, while they thought that any objections they might have to its details ought to be reserved for the consideration of the House in Committee. He might also state that he held in his hand a printed copy of a petition presented to that House by the shipowners of Glasgow, in which he found the following passage:—

"Your petitioners have given the Bill as amended a very careful consideration, and having reason to believe that the measure will be acceptable to the shipping interest of Great Britain, they would take the present opportunity of expressing their own conviction that the amended Bill, with certain alterations and improvements which are to be proposed in Committee by the President of the Board of Trade, will, if passed into law, be found of the greatest value to the mercantile marine of this country, and will remove any abuses and grievances to which it is subjected under the existing Acts."

He might quote similar statements from other ports; but he trusted he had said enough to satisfy the House that it was not on light grounds that he asked them that night to give to the measure so far their sanction as to agree to its second reading, reserving the discussion of its details until the fitting opportunity in Committee. He implored the House not to listen to the suggestions of those who asked them to postpone at that moment the second reading of the Bill. He owned that at the present period of the Session he should greatly apprehend that such a proceeding would amount to its entire defeat and postponement—a result which he, for one, confessed, after all that had taken place upon the subject, and after the conferences between Her Majesty's Government and the shipping interest, he should consider a very real and grievous misfortune to that important interest. He had said that he had from the beginning been perfectly ready to listen to any suggestions for altering the details of the measure. One of its principal provisions was that which would establish a system of compulsory examination of masters and mates in the merchant service, and would provide that which he held to be an object of the greatest importance, the power of cashiering a master or mate for incapacity or delinquency proved before a competent tribunal. That was the first great principle embodied in the Bill. The second was that which would put a stop to that system of "crimpage," which brutified and oppressed the seafaring population of this country, and which did not prevail in a similar degree in any other country in the world. With a view to put a stop to that system, the Bill would provide for the establishment of responsible public officers who would undertake the duty of engaging crews and of dismissing crews on the return of a vessel from its voyage. That was the second great object of the Bill. The third was to be found in those provisions which were directed to the important purposes of improving the discipline of our merchant navy, of putting a stop to that desertion which prevailed to so great an extent in the merchant service, and of tightening the reins of discipline, which he held to be an object not less important for the welfare of the sailor than for the protection of the rights of the shipowner. Those were the great objects of the Bill; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the great body of the shipping interest not only approved of those objects, but believed that the proposed mode of carrying them into effect would be unobjectionable. With respect to the recent alterations in the Bill, he should observe that he was far from denying that those alterations were of very great importance; but he thought at the same time that they were by no means of that complicated nature which hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to suppose. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that a very few and simple clauses would enable him to effect those alterations; and he felt convinced that the introduction of those clauses afforded no reason for postponing the second reading of the Bill. He should proceed to state what those alterations were. He found that the principal objection entertained to the measure, and especially in the great outports, was, that it would enforce a system of excessive centralisation, and would bring the shipping interest too much under the control of the Board of Trade sitting in London. Now, he had felt that to be a question of great difficulty. He had no abstract reverence for a system of centralisation upon that or upon any other subject; on the contrary, he was anxious to avoid it as much as possible; and still less was he anxious for the patronage which the Bill would vest in the Board of Trade. He believed the shipping-masters would have a most difficult duty to discharge; and he should be most happy to get rid of the appointment of those officers, if he thought he could do so without leaving local bodies destitute of any proper check, and without allowing them to become centres of abuse and agitation. He thought that after a good deal of discussion with parties interested in the matter, he had fallen on a plan which would prevent any system of undue contralisation, and would at the same time ensure an effectual check against local abuses. He proposed to institute local marine boards in all the ports having more than 30,000 registered tons of shipping engaged in the foreign trade; and he further proposed that each of those local boards should be composed of twelve members, six of whom should be elected by the shipowners of the port, each shipowner having 500 tons of foreign shipping, and no shipowner to have more than a certain number of votes; four out of the resident shipowners of the port to be nominated by the Board of Trade, together with the mayor, or provost, as the case might be, and the stipendiary magistrate, to make up the board of twelve. He proposed that those local boards should carry on a good deal of the business and regulate many of the appointments which had before been entrusted to the Board of Trade. He proposed that those boards should have a concurrent power with the Board of Trade of appointing examiners, while the Board of Trade should have the right of fixing the plan of examination, and of assisting by its officers at the examinations. The next point to which he should advert was the appointment of shipping officers. He believed there would be no danger in allowing the local boards to nominate shipping officers, and in making the necessary arrangements for the establishment of shipping offices. It had been represented to him, and with great force, as he thought, that those officers would be placed in a very difficult and embarrassing position unless they could preserve the most cordial good understanding with the shipowners. He would, therefore, give the local boards the power of nominating the shipping officers; but he would take a precaution against any abuse of that concession by requiring that no salary could be given to those officers without the express sanction of the Board of Trade, which would be responsible for the expense of that portion of the proposed system. He would also give the local boards a concurrent power with the Board of Trade of instituting investigations into the conduct of all masters of ships against whom there was primâ facie evidence that they had abused their powers. With regard to the other alterations in the Bill, he should observe that there were only two of them of the slightest consequence; and those two were so simple that the House could at once understand their bearing. He had made up his mind that it was desirable for the present not to include the coasting trade in the operation of the measure; so that the captains or masters engaged in that trade would not be compelled to pass any examination previously to their obtaining the command of a vessel. It might be found proper hereafter to include the coasting trade in the operation of the measure; but he repeated that he did not think it would at present be desirable to introduce into it a provision to that effect. He did not intend now to propose two classes of certificates, but only one. It had been represented to him by the shipping interest that there would be some danger—that sufficient confidence would not be felt by the sailors in a captain with a second-class certificate, and, therefore, he thought it desirable to abandon the distinction. On the other hand, however, he intended to reserve the power, if any captain should display extraordinary merit, to endorse some record of his proficiency on his certificate, and if after a certain number of years he should return to the examiners and desire again to be examined, it would be fair to grant him a certificate of a higher class. To that arrangement he did not anticipate any objection. He admitted that the alterations made were important; but he still trusted that so important a measure, which was so much looked up to by the merchant navy, would not on this account be postponed till another Session. He believed it was the intention of the hon. Member for Dartmouth to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months; and he therefore thought he should adopt the best course if he reserved what he had to say on the principle of the measure till he had heard the objections which would be urged against it. He sincerely hoped he should not be met with the objection that all further proceedings ought to be postponed until the Bill had been printed, so that hon. Members might be able to see the provisions, the general scope of which he had attempted to describe. He trusted also that they would dismiss all party feeling with reference to this question. For his own part he could say, that from the moment when he had approached the subject, he had thrown open the doors of the Board of Trade to all shipowners, to whatever party they might belong, who came to give advice and assistance. He had, moreover, been in communication for the last three months with various seaports, and the result was, that he could confidently state to the House that the measure, such as he should lay on the table for the consideration of the Com- mittee, would receive the cordial assent and concurrence of the immense majority of the shipping interest.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that our maritime law was in a confused and highly unsatisfactory state. A meeting of delegates from shipowners in various parts of the united kingdom was held in London on the 17th April, and they agreed that it was highly important that an inquiry should be made into our maritime laws, with a view to their consolidation and amendment, as far as practicable. Last year the right hon. Gentleman promised to introduce a Bill, full and comprehensive, and affording relief to the shipping interest, and a Bill was laid on the table in the course of February this year, and the meeting he had alluded to was convened to consider what course they should adopt. The House would, perhaps, be astonished to learn that on the very day on which that meeting was held, the right hon. Gentleman gave no notice to the House, but published a letter, stating that he was about to alter nineteen clauses. He had read the various clauses, and they made such an alteration that it was quite impossible to proceed with that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently of the same opinion, for he withdrew his Bill and brought in another Bill; but up to last night, or up to forty-eight hours ago, the association appointed in London to watch this Bill, and to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman, were not acquainted with any alteration intended in this Bill. A deputation, however, from Liverpool, as he was informed, waited on the right hon. Gentleman, unauthorised by the great public meeting he (Mr. Hume) had spoken of, where Liverpool was represented, and made suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman said the Shipowners' Association and the Chamber of Commerce concurred in the Bill. He (Mr. Hume) was informed that the association did not concur.

said, that he was informed the chairman and the secretary stated that they approved of the Bill.

That morning, for the first time, the Bill had appeared with thirteen new clauses. Some of them removed the general superintendence, and gave local superintendence. There were various other enactments of vast importance; and he put it to the House whether these alterations ought not to have been in the usual way printed and sent to every Member? It was quite possible that so many new enactments might be put into this Bill, as to make it desirable to delay it for a few months. Therefore, without condemning the new clauses, for he had not read them, he would move that this debate be adjourned till Friday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

hoped that the hon. Member for Montrose would not persevere in his Motion, as, from his (Admiral Bowles's) experience, he could assure the House that, although reforms had for a long time been urgently required in the mercantile marine of the country, still the increased competition with other countries, consequent upon the repeal of the navigation laws, had rendered it still more necessary to take some speedy and effectual steps for raising the character of the merchant service of the country; and he would most cordially give his support to the measure introduced by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade.

said, the speech of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade was a speech on bringing in a Bill. The printed paper before them now was, by the confession of the right hon. Gentleman, not the Bill upon the consideration of which they were invited to enter. It was against the great and manifest irregularity of that proceeding that he ventured to protest in the strongest degree. The right hon. Gentleman was much mistaken if he supposed that his (Mr. Herries') object in rising was to create obstruction or opposition to the principle of the measure. He admitted the vast importance of every enactment which the wisdom of Government could possibly suggest for the purpose of improving the character of our mercantile marine. But let that be done in conformity with the usual and constitutional mode of proceeding. Let the Bill be produced in the form in which it is now proposed to submit it to the consideration of the House. The Government finding that the first measure did not answer all the objects which they had in view, with great propriety withdrew it and substituted another, called No. 2. Now, he really thought the last alterations as important as the former, and therefore could not see why the right hon. Gentleman did not withdraw No. 2, and propose Bill No. 3. He admitted the difficulty created by the late period of the Session; but that difficulty might have been avoided if the proposed Amendments had been printed and circulated. Hon. Members would then have come prepared with some knowledge of the subject before they proceeded to speak and vote. From what he had gathered, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have made but partial communications of his intentions. He had only communicated them to certain traders, and those not of the highest importance, and then the right hon. Gentleman came down and told them that the measure had the almost universal consent of the mercantile body. The right hon. Gentleman said it had the assent of the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, and he believed of the shipowners of that town; but, if he was rightly informed, there was some doubt about that. Although there might have been some communications with some shipowners and the Chamber of Commerce, if he was rightly informed, no direct assent had been given by the shipowning interest of Liverpool. With Glasgow and Sunderland the right hon. Gentleman had had communications; but he begged to ask him whether he had communicated with the same openness, frankness, and success with the Committee of Shipowners in the City of London—not of the City of London, but in London—representing, as they did, the shipowners of the United Kingdom? Had that committee assented to these alterations? He apprehended he might say they had not. He did not present the petition which he had had the honour of laying before them that evening until some one connected with that body had assured him that they had not had such communications with the right hon. Gentleman as they might have justly expected. Great confusion was sometimes fallen into in speaking of the principle of this Bill. The intentions which prompted the introduction of a measure, were not always identical with the principles involved in it. A Bill might be proposed with the best intentions, but still an attempt might be made to carry them out by unconstitutional enactments. It was not against the objects of this Bill that he protested, but against the irregularity of calling on the House to discuss a measure which, in fact, was not before them. It would have been much better to have withdrawn the Bill, and proposed another. If, however, they should decide upon reading the Bill a second time, notwithstanding the irregularity, he suggested that it should be reprinted, and ample time given between the reprinting and the proposal to go into Committee to enable hon. Members to understand it; and that, when the Motion should be made for the Speaker to leave the chair, hon. Members should be at full liberty to discuss the principle of the Bill—by which he meant the mode by which the intentions of the Government were to be carried into effect. If that were agreed to, he was not prepared to oppose the second reading; because he felt that he should be in the same position on the Motion to go into Committee as he was now.

did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that there was anything unusual in the course he (Mr. Labouchere) had proposed. It was true some alterations of considerable importance were proposed; but he contended that they did not affect the principle of the Bill, and that there was nothing unparliamentary in his asking the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time, although they were aware of the alterations he intended to propose. He was, however, perfectly willing to accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford; and if the Bill were now read a second time, and committed pro formâ, sufficient time should be given between the reprinting and going into Committee for the right hon. Member to consider the Bill with the alterations. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his (Mr. Labouchere's) communications with parties had been partial, and that he had not communicated with equal frankness and success with the different shipowning interests. From the beginning he had been anxious to give every explanation to every gentleman who came to the Board of Trade, on this subject, and had always given as willing a reception to those who had disagreed with his opinion as to those who agreed with it; and if he had held more communications with some parties than with others, it had been solely from the circumstance of the greater willingness of some parties to put themselves into communication with the Board of Trade than others, and not from any indisposition on his part. It was quite true the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool took the greatest interest in the question, and had communicated with him; but as to the shipowners of London, he intended them no discourtesy, and he had every reason to believe they were quite as well aware of the alterations he intended to propose as the shipowners of Liverpool, for he received from the Shipowners' Society of Liverpool a statement that they had agreed to this Bill with these alterations, and had communicated to the Shipowners' Society of London the reasons that had induced them to take that course. He therefore could not but be sure that the Shipowners' Society of London knew as well as the Shipowners' Society of Liverpool all about this Bill. It was his wish and intention to act with the greatest fairness to all, and when Mr. G. F. Young went to the Board of Trade at the head of the assailants of this measure, he had received him with the same courtesy and kindness as any other gentleman.

said, after the fair proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he should have scarcely thought it necessary to trouble the House, had it not been for the pointed allusions which had been made to the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, and the Shipowners' Society. He held in his hand a resolution come to by the Shipowners' Society, in which they said they withdrew their opposition to the second reading, and reserved to themselves the taking whatever course they might think proper in Committee. With regard to the communications which had been made in the early stage of the Bill, the Shipowners' Society of Liverpool entertained the strongest alarm with regard to its provisions; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would do him the justice to recollect that both at the end of last Session and the beginning of this, he (Mr. Cardwell) had stated that he would throw no unnecessary impediments in the way, but would be glad to assist in its future adjustment. At the same time he had stated that the Bill contained a great deal to which the mercantile body could not be expected to consent. When the Bill was laid before the public, the shipowners in Liverpool and London took a very strong view; but the mercantile body representing the great community were disposed to take the course of endeavouring to make it satisfactory to all classes, and the result showed that the Shipowners' Society had met them in the most cordial and candid manner. He would point out the differences between the Bill as now modified, and the original Bill. By the original Bill, general powers of regulation were given to the Board of Trade; under the amended Bill its powers were limited and defined. The fees in the former Bill were in many cases liable to be varied by the Board of Trade; they were now fixed and specified in a schedule. Then as to the examination of the masters, it would be the height of injustice to the shipping interest of this country to suppose for a moment that they were not as anxious as the Government could possibly be, to elevate the condition of roasters and mates, and improve the character of the British sailor, by getting rid of all the evils of crimpage. But the original Bill contained provisions placing all the appointments under the Board of Trade. Now, the matter was left to the mercantile body themselves. He could only say, that, as far as they were concerned, it was from no party spirit, nor a spirit of opposition, but with the sincere desire, as shipowners of men of property, to elevate the character of the masters and the men, and provide for the comforts and moral welfare of the British sailor, that they had voluntarily gone to the Board of Trade, and put themselves in communication with that department, not for the furtherance of particular interests, but for the general good. That being so, he should offer no opposition to the second reading.

supported the Motion for adjournment, and complained of the fashion of committing Bills pro formâ. He hoped the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would see the expediency of doing something with reference to the dues charged by the ports of Dovor and Ramsgate. When the navigation laws were repealed, it was understood that whatever was calculated to fetter trade should be done away with.

thought it was all very well for the hon. Member for Liverpool, who had seen the new clauses, to say he would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but it was a different matter with other Members and their constituents, who had not seen the clauses. An examination of the Bill, as altered, might lead one to form a different opinion of the measure.

thought it but fair that all the important ports of the kingdom should be acquainted with the alterations before the House gave the Bill a second reading. It was now nearly a year ago when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade requested that all hon. Members, especially those who represented seaports, would give their earnest attention to this subject, and consult their constituents. He (Mr. Clay) accordingly went to the borough which he had the honour of representing; he remained there three weeks, and the result of the communication with his constituents was, that No. 1 Bill would be considered as taking the shipowners' business out of their own hands. The Bill was withdrawn, and another Bill substituted decidedly less objectionable than Bill No. 1. He had a few weeks' discussion about No. 2 Bill; and the result was, that unless important alterations were made, the Bill would be one very dangerous to the shipowner. To him it was a matter of sincere regret that he felt himself bound to oppose the Bill No. 2, as it stood. He earnestly wished that the changes would be such as would reconcile his constituents to the proposed Bill. He thought that if these alterations were known, his constituents might be of opinion that this was a valuable measure, and such as he could support.

had come down to the House to oppose the Bill, of which he held a copy in his hand; but it would be useless to discuss it, because it was not the Bill which Her Majesty's Government proposed to pass. He agreed with the proposition made by the right hon. Member for Stamford, and he trusted that a distant day would be named for the discussion.

considered that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose was a reasonable one; but if the House would not adopt it, he trusted that they would assent to the course proposed by the right hon. Member for Stamford. He (Lord J. Manners) had himself given notice of a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and he hoped that in assenting to the second reading now, he should do nothing to prejudice his right to bring forward that Motion.

said, the Bill was very unpopular with many of his constituents, who were engaged in the shipping trade. He had that very day received a communication from the chairman of the Dublin Steam Navigation Company against the Bill. Unless the Government consented to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill.

said, they were now discussing the propriety of postponing the Bill for the present. When he stated that there were no less than 50 clauses altered, 7 struck out, and 13 new ones added, he would ask whether there was any necessity for saying another word to convince the House of the propriety of postponing the Bill? He found that, of all the shipping towns in the kingdom, Liverpool and Glasgow were the only ones that had given the measure a partial support, while several large and influential ones had expressed an opinion decidedly adverse to it.

said, the whole commercial marine of that country, the underwriters, and the insurance companies, were impressed with the importance of having some tribunal for the trial of differences arising between masters and seamen; and he hoped no unnecessary delay would be interposed. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade appeared to him to be a perfectly fair one; namely, that if the second reading was now permitted, the fullest opportunity would be afforded of discussing the principle of the measure. He contended that there was no ground for further delay; and for his part he did give the measure his support, being satisfied that when the Bill went into Committee they would be able to make all the necessary improvements without referring it to a Select Committee.

regretted that so much of the time of the House had been taken up in discussing the question; but he would remind the House that, considering the exciting subjects that came before it, the postponing the second reading would, in all probability, endanger the passing of the Bill during the present Session. He could assure the House that his constituents were almost unanimously in favour of it; and he trusted that no delay would take place in carrying its provisions into effect.

, seeing there was so general a concurrence of opinion on one subject, namely, that the House was losing its time, was disposed to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Montrose, as he was the person who seemed to have the power in his hands, if he were disposed to exercise it with clemency, of determining their fate on this occasion. If the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, he would be acting in accordance with what appeared to be the opinion of the House, and most for the public convenience. The measure was one on which the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had bestowed infinite pains; after struggling, he hoped successfully, against the difficulties to be encountered in framing it, the right hon. Gentleman had brought the measure into a shape in which it might command the approbation not only of the public, but of the shipowners; and the hon. Member for Montrose would see that if his Amendment were acceded to, it would be difficult to pass the Bill this Session, while the hon. Gentleman would hardly deny that there was reason for passing some measure of the present description.

replied, that it was with the greatest reluctance he agreed not to divide the House on his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed.

Considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed as amended; Recommitted for Thursday, 4th July.

blamed the Government that at a time when they were seeking to abolish sinecures in the Army and Navy, they were about by this Bill to establish eighty-eight sinecures in the Church. Clergymen who did no duty would be paid; but worse than that, clergymen yet unborn would be secured their emoluments in perpetuity. He had risen merely to enter his protest against the Bill; it was not in his power to do more, but he could not sit down without tendering his acknowledgments to the Members for Marylebone for the important alterations they had effected by their persevering attention to the details.

wished to make one or two observations previous to the Bill leaving that House. He thought it due to himself to explain why he should not think it his duty to record his vote against the third reading of a measure which he had declared to be so objectionable. He had stated at the commencement of these discussions that he did not object to the principle of the Bill, namely, the abolition of burials in large towns, and therefore he had not opposed the second reading. Pursuing the same course, and having done all he could in Committee to render the Bill as little objectionable as possible, he did not feel justified in detaining the House by any more protracted opposition. He looked upon the measure as an invasion of the constitution, as a violation of the prin- ciples of political economy, as objectionable in placing in the hands of the Government a vast extent of patronage, both in London and prospectively in the provinces, for this no doubt would be made a model Bill; but still, true to his principle, and looking to the events of last year, with a possibility of their repetition in the present, he should not offer to it any further opposition.

wished to record his protest against many portions of the Bill, and expressed his belief that the Government had taken advantage of the strong feeling against intramural interments to entail upon the country a system of unconstitutional Government control and management. The public were beginning to view this odious Bill in its proper character; and he felt certain that, before long, the Ministers would have cause to regret that they had so prematurely carried through the House a measure that was calculated to create a deep and lasting dissatisfaction in the public mind. The title of the Bill ought to have been—"A Bill to prevent all extramural interments, except under the actual management and control of a Government board." His great objection to the measure, however, was, that at a time when the public were regarding with intense interest the subject of the management of church property, it was artfully introduced for the purpose of perpetuating the value of church livings. He did say that this was a case of grievous injustice; and although he had no prospect of offering a successful opposition to the Bill in that House, he hoped the country would take the alarm ere a similar Bill was applied to other parts of the kingdom, and endeavour to procure such modifications as would render any future measure of this kind more consonant at once with constitutional precedent and the religious liberties of the people, than this unfortunately was. He begged to say that so far as it went to secure the health of the community, so far as it went to provide a proper place of sepulture for the dead, and greater decency in the mode of conducting funerals, he approved of the present measure; but so far as it went to mark out every living man as already mortgaged for a certain sum, he strongly disapproved of it. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked incredulous at that remark; but he repeated that, according to the provisions of this Bill, the body of every living man in the metropolis, who assigned to himself a place in consecrated ground, was already mortgaged, and that whenever the vital spark should flee from his mortal body, he would be booked for a certain sum to the clergy, and that in a manner which in many cases would interfere to a great extent with the religious feelings of the people. With these views he felt bound to protest against those features of the measure which he considered to be odious, oppressive, unconstitutional, and unjust, although he could not but rejoice in its success so far as it went to promote the health of the living, and the decent interment of the dead.

said, that amongst his constituents were a large body of Dissenters, who, regarding this as a model Bill for the country, felt very strongly opposed to some of its provisions. They had no objection, for instance, to compensation being given to existing incumbents, but they did complain that compensation was given to incumbents for all time to come. His constituents also thought, and he thought with them, that it was wrong to call upon Dissenters to contribute to a rate to make up that compensation. [ An expression of dissent. ] He repeated that under this Bill such a rate might be levied. He hoped that if the Government brought in another Bill they would take care, or at all events, that the House would take care, that no such provisions were included in it.

also begged to state that, whilst approving of what was called the principle of the Bill, he protested strongly against those provisions which inflicted new and serious injuries on the Dissenters of the country.

Bill passed.

moved that this Bill be read a Third Time.

felt assured that no hon. Members who lived on the sweat and blood of the operatives had better means of forming an opinion on the Factories Act than himself. That House thought itself justified in refusing the suffrage to the people because they were ignorant; but how was it possible for children and young persons to acquire learning or knowledge when the former had to labour six hours and the latter eight hours a day? The Government made an excuse for bringing forward the present project, by saying that the former Bill had been set aside by the Judges giving a certain decision; but he (Mr. O'Connor) wished to know why the Judges should be allowed to set aside an Act of Parliament which had been passed for the benefit of the operatives, for the sake of pleasing those who had jumped from clogs into Spanish leather, and from carts into carriages? The noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, did not pay any attention to what he said; but he would tell them that the feeling of indignation which was rising among the labouring classes would burst on them like a volcano. He denied that no petitions had been presented against this Bill, for he knew that numbers had been sent up for that purpose. The hon. Member for Manchester had been guilty of the impertinence and audacity of saying that he (Mr. O'Connor) had made a furious speech—[ Loud cries of "Order, order!"]

said, that it was clearly out of order for one hon. Member to apply such epithets to the observations of another hon. Member.

said, that under such circumstances he would withdraw the words. If this Bill passed, he would exert himself out of the House to rouse the people, and he would take care they should not be deluded on the subject. He would read to the House a letter, respecting the management of the mills belonging to the hon. Member for Manchester, which he had received from an inspector of factories, who had visited the factory of the hon. Member for Manchester. The report stated, that all the throstle-piecers had had their wages reduced, being the third time since the winter. The best hands were getting only 8 s. and 9 s. a week, while at Wayside mills they were getting 12 s. and 13 s. for working five days. Some of Mr. Bright's hands were only receiving 4 s. 9 d. One overlooker stated that he had worked with the Messrs. Bright for twenty years, and only received 10 s. a week.

asked to look at the letter. On its being handed across the table to him, the right hon. Baronet said that it did not bear the name of any inspector of factories.

stated that the paper he had produced was only a copy of the letter which he had received, but he would produce the original letter. If, however, he gave up the name of the party who had written it, no doubt he would be much injured.

wished to know whether the letter was written by a Government inspector of factories?

No. No reliance could be placed on the reports of the Government inspectors; but the document was written by a most respectable person, who had been permitted by the hon. Member for Manchester to inspect his mills.

wished to know whether the hon. Member had given notice to the hon. Member for Manchester of his intention to make this attack upon him?

had not felt called upon to give any notice on the subject, any more than the hon. Member did when he made an attack upon him (Mr. O'Connor). He did not believe that any other Member in that House would have been allowed to be interrupted in the manner in which he had been that night. Could anything be more monstrous than the treatment of the children in those factories? Would those hon. Gentlemen who had formerly worked as children in those factories, and who now were cotton millionaires, allow their own offspring to be placed in such a situation that their growth would be sure to be stunted and their health undermined, instead of sending them to school? He was sorry he was deserted on that occasion by the landed interest. [ Only two Members were at that time on the Opposition benches. ] Was the House aware of the relative value of human life in the manufacturing and the agricultural districts? In the manufacturing districts the average estimate of human life was twenty-seven years, while in much-abused Dorsetshire and other country districts it was fifty-three years. He knew that it was useless for him to oppose a Bill which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government; but he believed it had been forced upon them by hon. Gentlemen behind them, of whom they were afraid. It was unnecessary for him to trespass further on the time of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew that observation would elicit a cheer, and the only one he had that night received; but he was aware what little power an individual Member had in that House. In conclusion, he would tell them, if justice was not done to the people by that House, they would take it for themselves. He should oppose the Bill although he stood alone.

said, he had the greatest possible abhorrence to anonymous communications, because he had known of his own knowledge that they had often been made the vehicle of destroying private character. As the hon. Member for Nottingham had stated as much, he would assume that he had the original. But he would tell the hon. Member that the manly, straightforward course for him to have pursued on this occasion, was to have brought the original down with him to the House. He would also have acted more manly and honestly if he had given the hon. Member for Manchester notice of his intention to make those charges against him before the House in so unenviable a manner. The hon. Member should recollect that his own conduct had been often made the subject of censure and animadversion in the public papers. He thought that the hon. Member would have had good reason to complain of the hon. Member for Manchester, if, without giving him any previous notice, he had brought forward an anonymous communication in this House containing an exaggerated statement of his dealings in Snig's-end. He wished that the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham had acted upon the Christian principle of "do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you." It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not done himself much credit by the manner in which he had treated this subject, nor in the conduct he had pursued towards an absent Member. He (Mr. Reynolds) knew something of the dealings of the hon. Member for Manchester as a factory owner, and he had found it at all times admitted with respect to him that he was one of the most liberal and indulgent of the manufacturers of Lancashire; and never yet had he heard anything that did not redound to the honour and the credit of that hon. Member. Indeed, he (Mr. Reynolds) might have been saved the trouble of saying so much and of defending him, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had done that which he was bound to do, given notice to the hon. Member that it was his intention to make an attack upon him. He protested against such an attack upon an hon. Member in his absence, and he would not in doing so refrain also from protesting against the aristocratic sneer levelled at Gentlemen sitting behind the Ministerial benches of having jumped from something into a coach. If they had done so, he said the greater was their merit; for it was owing to their exertions and to the exertions of men like to them that this country occupied a high and proud position amongst the nations of the world.

said, that he understood the letter, as it had been first read by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to be addressed to him by a factory inspector in the employment of the Government. He found now that it was not a Government inspector who had written, and he was sure the matter was not worthy of any more observation. He believed that this Bill, which placed a limitation upon the hours of factory labour, would be most conducive to the wishes of the great body of the operatives, and he, therefore, hoped the House would at once agree to the third reading.

said, he now offered the original letter to the right hon. Baronet, and if it were worth his while, he would also offer it to the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin.

wished to say a few words before the Bill was read a third time. He desired to express his regret that Her Majesty's Ministers had not judged it fitting to introduce a Bill containing a better promise for the final settlement of the question. The Bill could be but a temporary arrangement. It conferred one great advantage by the limitation of ten hours to young persons; but then it created the addition of two hours' labour per week. This detracted from its merits, and he apprehended that the operatives could not accept it as a final and satisfactory adjustment of a question which they had agitated so long and with so much earnestness. Whilst expressing his unvarying attachment to the Ten Hours Bill which had formerly been carried, he begged to express his disclaimer of the mode, spirit, and temper in which the advocates of the Bill had been attacked. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham had not been deputed to conduct the case of the operatives on this question, and many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to-night showed that the operatives had acted wisely and judiciously in assigning their case to other hands. Now, for the absent Member who had been assailed, it was needless for him (Mr. Fox) to pronounce any vindication or justification. Every one who knew the hon. Member for Manchester, knew that he was incapable of dishonourable, or oppressive, or cruel conduct. It had been his (Mr. Fox's) fortune to be opposed to that hon. Gentleman once or twice on this Factories Bill; but, whenever he was opposed to him, it had been face to face, and the opposition encountered was that of argument—the only weapon which the hon. Member for Manchester ever used. He (Mr. Fox) begged to express his regret, that feeling as the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham did for the hard labour of the children in factories, he was not in his place to speak and prevent, when he might have prevented, the minority which had taken place on that question. Such a proceeding would have done the cause much more good than the remarks which had, on the present occasion, been delivered. He hoped the Government would accommodate this question so as to satisfy the operatives, and conduce to the prosperity and peace of the country.

said, he had invariably opposed Bills interfering with labour, for he held them to be most dangerous legislation; and he deprecated any attempt by means of them to repress or discourage the enterprise and exertions of men who were the best support of the country, by the vast employment of labour through their capital. Although he admitted that the Bill was now better than before, he would suggest to the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the language which had just been heard in that House might be taken as a warning that when a great principle was once departed from, it was difficult to predicate how far the deviation would go. If there were to be any further proceedings upon this question, it was to be hoped that it would be by the Government retracing their steps, and no longer interfering with the employ of labour by capital, and so discouraging and driving out of the country the chief means by which its wealth and greatness were sustained. Upon that ground alone he must express his deep regret that the hon. Member for Manchester should have been so severely charged during his absence. It would never do for Members of that House to attack one another in that way. That freedom of speech should be accorded was not to be doubted; but then the privilege should be observed with that courtesy which all gentlemen observed in their intercourse. He really hoped that the hon. and learned Member would feel that he had expressed himself in language not consistent with his position as a Member of that House, and not even consistent with the liberal and humane views which he himself had taken upon the subject on which he had spoken.

wished to express his cordial acceptance of this Bill, not as a mere compromise, although that was the spirit in which it had been viewed, but as a real and actual improvement. He regarded the endeavour to improve the state of the law relating to the women, children, and young persons employed in factories, as the successful conclusion of one of the best pieces of legislation for the labouring population that he had ever known. It was a great boon, and not a compromise. He only regretted that the measure had not been extended to those who had a permament claim to the care of the House, inasmuch as they could not help themselves; and in the hope that not even another year would be allowed to pass without this anomaly being cured, he would support the passing of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

The House divided; Lord Marcus Hill and Mr. Bellew were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; Mr. Feargus O'Connor was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but there being no second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.

Bill read 3°.

Amendments made; Bill passed.

moved the Second Reading of the above Bill.

wished to state some objections to the Bill. He had not heard one reason on the part of the Government why these proposed alterations should be made. The measure was against the advice and opinion of at least three of the Judges who presided in the court to which it related. It would be said, perhaps, that as the courts of equity in this country had been dealt with, the House might do the same with those of Ireland. But the two cases were totally different. In this country, the Judges appointed to the courts of common law were generally lawyers whose exclusive practice had been in these courts; whereas in Ireland the Judges in the Court of Exchequer were distinguished as much for their knowledge of equity as their knowledge of common law. When the Government asked the House to abolish a court of this kind with more summary indecency than they would adopt in the case of an ordinary Palace Court, he felt entitled to ask for some reason to enable him to arrive at a conclusion why the Bill should pass. He had heard no such reason: the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had made no statement that he had heard of; there had been no inquiry into the subject, and he would venture to say that there was scarcely a Member of the House who knew anything at all about the measure. The fact was, that this court was one which presented great conveniences both to the profession and to the public. [Here the hon. and learned Gentleman described in detail some of the functions and the mode of jurisdiction of the court; the Judges of which were, he said, particularly well acquainted with what he might describe as local equity.] What benefit could arise to the public he could not conceive, of abolishing a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, when the Court of Chancery was overburdened with business. Thus, they had a Court of Chancery with its hands full, and a Court of Exchequer presided over by three Judges, who now sat in equity, in whom the country had as high a confidence as in any Judges on the Irish bench; and the opinions of these Judges were decidedly opposed to this Bill. Was it right or reasonable to come upon the House by surprise, at this period of the Session, to abolish such an institution as the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, without proper notice given, or reason assigned? He had objections to some details of the Bill, and he could not avoid complaining of the changing and shifting that was of late continually occurring in Irish legislation, so that the profession scarcely knew what they were about. He wanted to know the ground and reason for this Bill, proposed just at the time when the additional business arising out of the sales of the incumbered estates had been thrown upon the Chancellor, and when the Master of the Rolls also had had further duties imposed upon him. Here was a court in a state of full and competent working with excellent Judges, and a full staff of most experienced officers, and this the House was asked to abolish—for what, for whom, for whose interests? Several of the officers had been forty years in the service; and were they to be turned upon the world without provision, or were they to be quartered upon the public for compensation? In this country such an act would not be done without making provision for pensions, and sufficient retiring allowances for the officers. He recommended to the House a more careful attention to legislation for Ireland than had been displayed in such Bills as these, and then perhaps the complaint of that country that her people could not obtain justice from an Imperial Senate would be obliterated. When the third reading of this Bill would be proposed, he hoped to be able to notice in detail the circumstances under which it had been got up.

denied that the Bill had been brought in by surprise. Bills for the transference of the special jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery had been prepared some time ago, and the public mind was prepared for changes to be proposed. One of the learned Judges of the Court of Exchequer approved, he knew, of this measure, and he had not seen a single communication from any one of those Judges disapproving of its principle. One of them had been in London since he (Mr. Hatchell) had given notice of the Bill, but had expressed no dissatisfaction. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had asked why it was necessary that this jurisdiction should be transferred. The equity business of that court had fallen off so considerably within the last two or three years as to render the equity jurisdiction of the court perfectly useless. In the first five months of 1847, 111 bills were filed; in 1840, 80 bills were filed; in 1849, 48 bills were filed, only 19 of which were answered; and this year the number of bills filed had fallen to 29, only four of which had been answered. The expense of the staff maintained for disposing of that business was about 15,000 l. a year, which would be, to a great extent, saved by the adoption of this Bill. It would, of course, be necessary to afford compensation to the officers of the court, some of whom were far advanced in life, their period of service having extended to fifty years. The court, under the existing system, had recently been often obliged to proceed with business promiscuously; the consequence of which had been, that neither suitors, the bar, nor practitioners were able to know when their motions either in law or equity would be called on. Great inconvenience had resulted to all parties from this circumstance, which he had every reason to believe would be avoided by the operation of the Bill. When it was considered that, besides this inconvenience, the business of the equity branch of the court had so greatly diminished, added to the fact, that the business of the law branch had considerably increased, it would be admitted there was an absolute necessity to remove the equity jurisdiction, so that the court might devote its whole attention to the legal department. There was also precedent for the measure. In 1844, the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer in England was transferred to the Court of Chancery; and clauses of the present Bill were almost precise copies of the English Act upon the same subject. He remarked, that the discordant decisions of the equity side of the Exchequer, and of the Court of Chancery upon similar questions, encouraged appeals to the House of Lords. Under these circumstances, he called upon the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill; but at the same time he should be glad to receive any suggestions for its improvement from his hon. and learned Friend.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

objected to the provision in the first clause, whereby it was enacted that trustees might, in certain cases, be removed by the master without any grounds having been laid by affidavit for the order for their removal. This provision was so objectionable that he should move its omission from the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from the word "require" to the end of the clause.

said, his hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. He supposed the object of it to be that the opinion of the master should have the same effect as if it were an order of court. But the simple object of the clause was, in the case of charities whose income exceeded 30 l. and was below 100 l., to give the primary jurisdiction to the master, in order to avoid the expense of first going to the court. The question was referred to the master by the Bill. The clause simply meant that the subject-matter of the petition went before the master primarily, who dealt with it according to his judgment; and he made a special report upon it be- fore it became an order of court. With regard to the incomes, it was impossible to avoid every difficulty unless the Bill was applied without distinction to all charities. Some contest, therefore, might occur upon the question whether the master had jurisdiction, but in such cases the master would make a special report to the court.

said, that in point of fact, the master would have no rules to guide his proceedings.

Question put, "That the words 'and upon the presentation of every such petition, the same,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committeee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 14: Majority 51.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

Clause 8.

said, this clause would place all the smaller charities of the country entirely under the administration of the judges of the county courts. This was open to some objection. As a general rule, the county court judges did not reside in the districts over which they had jurisdiction, and, therefore, they could have no local knowledge of the charities under their control. The consequence would be, that they must obtain their information in relation to them through the medium of their clerks in different towns upon their circuit, who were generally solicitors and attorneys, who had considerable political influence. He feared that in this way the choice and appointment of trustees would fall, practically, into the hands of these clerks, who might—he did not say they would—turn it to political purposes, as the judges themselves would have no local knowledge. He therefore trusted the House would reject the clause, and place charities under 30 l. annual value upon the same footing as charities between 30 l. and 100 l.

said, this question, of which he fully admitted the importance, had been discussed upon the second reading of the Bill. The power must be given to some tribunal, and he was not aware of any so unobjectionable as the county courts, though some objections might be made to them. The fact of the judges not being locally resident was an advantage, because it had always been found that judges locally resident contracted local feelings and local prejudices. They must, however, determine upon the evidence submitted to them. He did not deny that some evil might arise in respect to the appointment of trustees from politi- cal feelings; but he was willing to introduce a provision that the same course should be taken, both with respect to the county courts and the master's office, as prevailed in the Court of Chancery with regard to all charities except corporation charities, namely, that the list should in the first instance be submitted to the Attorney General for his approval.

defended the principle of the clause, and enforced the propriety of the Amendment suggested by the Solicitor General.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 16: Majority 45.

Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 9 to 36 inclusive.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday next.

moved the Third Reading of this Bill.

said, before the Bill was read a third time, he wished to call attention to the case of certain officers who would suffer pecuniary loss by the operation of the Bill. The officers to whom he alluded were the registrars of the Cinque Ports. They had applied to the Treasury, but no answer had been given to their application. He was afraid that according to the forms of the House he could not move that compensation be given to these officers; and, under these circumstances, he could only appeal to Her Majesty's Government, who he trusted would give an assurance that they should be compensated if they could prove that they had sustained a pecuniary loss.

said, he would explain the nature of the claim. He understood that the individuals to whom the right hon. Baronet referred were in the nature of sheriffs' officers, and the complaint they made was that by the operation of this Bill, process being served by the officers of the court, they would lose the service of the processes of the superior courts. Now, the first observation in answer to that claim was this, that this was only an extension of the original Act, and he found no clause in the original Act giving compensation to the registrars of Cinque Ports. But further, if they were to compensate everybody, they must compensate sheriffs' officers and attorneys. He could quite understand that where an office was abolished there should be compensation, but where there was only an indirect loss they could not give compensation.

Bill read 3°.

On the Question that the Bill do pass,

moved a clause to the effect that members of the Irish Bar of seven years' standing should be eligible to fill the office of judges of the county courts in England.

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

said, that if the House adopted this Motion, they would have to go much further. No English barrister could be appointed to an office in Ireland.

wished to know why Irish members of the Bar, with the advantages of a legal education, should not be allowed to fill legal offices in this country?

asked if an English barrister of inferior standing was fit for a high office in Ireland, why should not an Irish barrister of superior standing be fit for an inferior position in England?

said, that the duties of the judges of the county courts had been described as not requiring very high qualifications. If Irish barristers were not permitted to fill these offices in England, why were they dragged from Ireland to England to obtain their right of admission to the bar? Why were Englishmen sent to Ireland to fill judicial offices? He knew that there were persons in Ireland at this moment receiving high salaries, holding offices in the Court of Chancery, who had come to Ireland, holding the offices of clerks. It was most unreasonable for any Member of the Government to stand up and reject this most reasonable proposition.

observed that the Motion was not resisted on the ground of qualification. The Bill was a Bill to amend the County Court Act by extending the jurisdiction of the court. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to put a clause in the Bill which would have the effect of altering the entire system. If it were thought right that all gentlemen qualified for Ireland should qualify themselves for each bar, let it be so understood.

thought it most important to give Irish gentlemen who were obliged to come over here to keep a certain number of terms, an equal opportunity of sharing in the administration of justice in both countries. He should therefore vote for the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member.

Motion made and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read, a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 111: Majority 53.

moved a clause, to the effect that, with the leave of the court for the district in which the plaintiff shall dwell or carry on business, or shall have dwelt or carried on business within six calendar months next before the time of the action brought, such summons may issue in such last-mentioned court.

Clause brought up, and read 1°.

opposed the insertion of the clause, and reminded the House that on its former production it was withdrawn in obedience to the general feeling of the House. He looked upon it as violating the principle which was sought to be established by the Bill.

supported the clause, and hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would withdraw his opposition.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 90: Majority 35.

Amendment made; Bill passed.

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.