rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the more public and deliberate investigation of Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. The hon. gentleman stated, that, in making this motion, it was not his intention to interfere with any measure which it might be the intention of a right hon. gentleman absent (Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald) to introduce, but merely to render it necessary that the House should consider some measure of this description during the present session. That there existed some necessity to place a more effectual control on the disposal of public money in local grants in Ireland was admitted, and what remained to be done was to adopt local or baronial arrangements, by which the public expenditure would be properly directed and applied. The hon. gentleman then moved for leave to bring in a bill to carry this purpose into effect.

alluded to the measures which had been already taken on several occasions to ameliorate the practice and mode of doing the business of the grand juries in Ireland, according to the laws under which these bodies acted. He had himself been chiefly instrumental in the years 1812 and 1813 in bringing this subject under the consideration of the House. In the former year, his proposition was carried; in the latter, in consequence of the introduction of an amendment in the House of Lords, the bill, being a money question, was necessarily abandoned. But the attention of the House being drawn to the subject a great result followed, and through the exertions of a most distinguished man, now unfortunately no more (Mr. Horner), that essential measure was carried which placed grand juries in Ireland on the same footing as those of England, namely, admitting them to receive vivâ voce evidence, instead of being, as was the case before, restricted to written informations. This act had been most beneficial in its operation, and it was his intention to have recommended farther measures, one of which he last session willingly relinquished to a right hon. gentleman not now in his place.

observed, that when a certain return which had been ordered was laid before the House, it would be seen, that the abuses of the Irish grand jury system had rather aggravated than abated since the subject was brought before the public through the proceedings of parliament. According, indeed, to his information, and he had reason to believe it, those who had the power, through this abominable system, to exact from the tenantry of Ireland, had only become more rapacious as the termination of their power appeared to approach. But it was impossible that such a system of depredation and abuse could be much longer tolerated. The whole of this depredation and abuse fell upon the occupying tenants, who were of late subjected to a degree of taxation not at all in the contemplation of the original grand jury system. That system was confined to presentments for roads and bridges; but of late, grand juries imposed taxes for the maintenance of infirmaries, dispensaries, and fever hospitals, &c. The support of hospitals was, however, become in dispensable, especially of late. But all the expence was charged upon the occupying tenants, while the great landlords, who lived in this country, and drew their revenues from Ireland, contributed nothing. Many of those landlords, and some of them the most affluent of the absentees, had actually refused to contribute any thing to the maintenance of the fever hospitals in Ireland, notwithstanding the notorious prevalence of a contagious disease in that country for some time back. The House must hear of such a fact with surprise. The generous people of England would hear of it with horror; and what must be the feeling which it would excite among the people of Ireland, he need not describe [Hear, hear!]. The resident gentlemen of Ireland had done all in their power to mitigate the calamity which afflicted their poor countrymen; but what must they think of the insensibility of the wealthy landlords to whom he alluded? He mentioned the conduct of those landlords thus freely, and gave it so much publicity, in the hope that such publicity might, by exciting some sentiment of shame, produce a disposition to remorse and atonement.

agreed in the necessity of amending the grand jury system in Ireland, but yet he submitted to the gentlemen who undertook the task, whether it were not better to proceed step by step in such a course. The system was too wide and complicated to be swept away by a cut and dry measure of this kind. The edifice, they all agreed, wanted repair; but instead of being thrown down as a whole, the repairs should be gradually and successively applied. They would then avoid that sort of precipitate legislation into which they had fallen not a long time past, where the first act of one session was to repeal the last of the preceding one. A gradual course would be found more practically effective; and this mode of proceeding had the concurrence of that distinguished individual, whose loss every good man deplored (Mr. Ponsonby), and who was in fact taken from them on the night that a measure of this kind was under consideration. The plan of gradual amelioration had the sanction of the lamented individual to whom he had alluded, and no man was a better judge of the propriety of proceeding in this respect. He who wished to go safely and surely through the business, must adopt a gradual and practical course. The hon. gentleman concluded by pointing out the propriety of some measure which would leave the grand jury presentments from one assizes to the next, for the purpose of admitting intermediate inquiry into the proposed works.

was glad that something was likely to be done this session for Ireland—a country that could not bear the heavy charges entailed upon her local arrangements. He particularly condemned the arrangements proposed, but not carried into effect, in the case of the thirty-five civil engineers, who were to guard, to overlook, and control the business of the grand juries. This unjustifiable mode of control was found so absurd and impracticable, that it became necessary, when parliament re-assembled, immediately to suspend it. He expressed his readiness to support any measure which went to ameliorate and improve the machinery of the grand jury system, without at the same time going to its total subversion.

regretted that the laws of Ireland were not more closely assimilated to those of England, now that both countries were united; at least so far as the assimilation could be made consistently with local arrangements. He thought, for instance, it would be desirable that the spirit and system of both should be made to correspond, by the enactment of some standing order, which would render it imperative upon any member introducing a new measure at variance with this principle, first to show a sufficient reason for departing from this salutary course, and admitting the distinction in the particular case. He particularly regretted the difference there seemed to be in the structure of grand juries in England and Ireland: in the latter they formed a sort of provincial parliaments, exercising the power of levying money as they pleased; while, in the former, they were the grand inquest of the county, detecting and preventing abuses where they were found to exist, and acting under the eye of judicial authorities. Grand juries were the last of all bodies who should have the power of levying money for public purposes. Their very constitution was an objection to their having this power. The sheriff nominated the grand jury, and was himself the nominee of the Crown. Besides, the grand jury consisted of a limited number; enough perhaps, in some cases, for obtaining and exercising local information, but not so in others, where a greater variety of attentive duties should be performed. If they were to have this power, instead of emanating from the Crown, the grand juries should be elective. Those whom they have the power to tax should have some share in the election of those who were to enact the impost, or else the two duties of taxing and correcting abuses should be kept wholly distinct, and a different body appointed to execute them. He was for a gradual amelioration of the system. When grievances became complicated and of long standing, a gradual abolition was perhaps the surer way of remedying the evil, a sweeping course often did more harm than good. All agreed that the edifice was ill constructed, and the only question was, how it should be pulled down.

, in allusion to the sums expended in making roads, thought that where these improvements were wanted, the levying of money to carry them into effect was a local advantage, and immediately repaid the original expenditure. He concurred in the propriety of proceeding gradually and effectively in the progress of this subject.

expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the hon. member for Northumberland, when he stated his wish, that all legislative measures for Ireland should be considered by the House, not as mere local questions, but that they should in all cases be framed in the same spirit, and with the same principle, which pervaded the laws of Great Britain. He could not, however, agree with him in his general remarks, with respect to the powers which had for so many years been vested in grand juries, of local taxation for county purposes. The money so levied returned to the districts from whence it had been received, and the Works directed by the grand juries, by affording labour and occupation to the poor, contributed greatly to their benefit and support. He was not aware of any discontent existing in those counties with which he was immediately acquainted, from the exercise of those powers, which he trusted might be so regulated and guarded by the proposed bill, as to be in every respect unobjectionable.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

observed, that although he had not had the opportunity, when the measure was discussed, to proceed at length into the detail of his opinions, he begged now to state, that his objections to the plan remained unchanged. He could neither congratulate the right hon. gentleman nor the country on the merits of the financial arrangement which he had concluded. His principal object in rising then was, to give notice of his intention to move in the committee, that the clause granting to the Bank of England the sum of 20d. on every 100l. of the loan for three millions, and of 10d. on every 100l. of the twenty-seven millions of exchequer bills, be wholly expunged from the bill. He should then prove to the committee, that no adequate service was performed by the Bank, which could in justice entitle them to such a remuneration; but that, trifling as it was, it ought, with reference to the other very large sums paid by the country to the Bank, to be performed gratuitously. When the finance committee was appointed, he, in common with many other gentlemen, expected that the transactions between the government and the Bank would be fully investigated. In that hope, at least for a time, he had been disappointed. The consequence was, that he was actually forced, as occasions presented themselves, to take up the subject by piece-meal. Under that impression, when the clause to which he alluded was under consideration, it was his intention to take the sense of the committee upon it.

availed himself of the present opportunity, it being the last that would offer, not only to state his decided objection to the financial arrangement of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, but to express his Surprise that now, in the third year of peace, the country was about to incur the burthen of an increased debt of fourteen millions. In the first year of peace we had borrowed fourteen millions, though there remained seven millions of the unappropriated grants from the former year; in the second year we borrowed between twelve and thirteen millions, and in this year the right hon. gentleman proposed to borrow 14,000,000l. while the income of the country available to the public service did not exceed 6,700,000l. And yet, with this state of things pressing on his consideration, the right hon. gentleman had not thought proper to furnish parliament with any statement of his intentions, or how provision was to be made for future years. Was the country to proceed funding loans in a period of peace; while the only satisfaction that it received was, to know that the interest of such loans was provided for, not by taxation, but by the proceeds of the sinking fund? Was it possible to go on under such a system, with an income not bearing a proportion of one-third to the public expenditure? It was too much to hope, indeed there was no hope, that such a system could continue. Without any settled plan of apportioning the expenditure to the income, he could not conceive what advantage could be derived from a nominal sinking fund, where the country was obliged to borrow what it paid off. No man of common sense, in the affairs of private life, could be imposed on by such a delusion. He entertained the highest respect for the intentions of the right hon. gentleman, but at the same time he felt that it was impossible the country could continue every year borrowing for the expenses of the year. By the present arrangement, the right hon. gentleman levied three millions at a very large rate of interest, and he presumed he would issue eleven millions additional exchequer bills. To what purpose all this complicated machinery? It was to throw a veil, and that a very thin one, over the country. He felt it to be his duty to remove that veil; not for the purpose of inspiring fear, but of imparting confidence—a confidence that could only be revived by at once looking the danger in the face. If the least prospect had presented itself of its being the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to propose any permanent arrangement, he should not have troubled the House; but as from any thing that had been stated, or could be gathered, there was no prospect of such intention, he must again protest against a system calculated to plunge the country into still greater difficulties.

observed, that the hon. and learned member had for several years been in the habit of making similar observations to those he had just made. For his part, he only knew two ways of obtaining money for the public service, namely, levying taxes or obtaining it as a loan. Let it be inquired then, what had been the result of those financial measures with which the hon. and learned member had found fault. It was true, that within the last three years, the unfunded debt had increased 18,000,000l., but within the same period, there had been cancelled a sum of 15,000,000l. of capital debt, and it would be found that on looking to the difference of the money price of stocks since that period, and taking every thing into account, it would be found at the end of the year that there was a saving of 40,000,000l. to the nation. The hon. and learned member had put a case to the House, from which he endeavoured to show that there could be no saving. In the event of a man in debt borrowing annually 10,000l. and only applying a single sum of 10,000l. to pay it off, there certainly would be a saving equal to the debt. But if that man were to show that in three years he had borrowed 30,000l. and that within the same period he had liquidated a sum of sixty thousand, it would make a case different from that which the hon. and learned member pointed out. By the operation of the present system, although a fresh issue of exchequer-bills would be thrown into circulation, a very large amount would be withdrawn, and converted into stock. At the end of the year he calculated that the result of the accounts would show a reduction of the funded debt to the extent of 15,000,000l., and of the unfunded, to that of all the addition which it was now receiving. As to what was said of his concealing his financial plans, he had only to observe, as he had said on former occasions, that he would at a proper time lay them before the House; and however terrible the predictions of the hon. and learned gentleman might be as to the future, he should not be deterred by them, and would only observe, that that hon. and learned member was rather unhappy in his attempts to remove the veil of futurity.

The House then resolved itself into the committee. On the clause respecting the allowance to the Bank for management,

said, that in order to impress the committee with the particular nature of the clause to which he felt it his duty to call his attention, it was necessary to state the subject historically. He believed, that in all former bills of that kind, it had generally escaped the notice of the House. What the nature of the service was for which the Bank required this remuneration, he was enabled to state clearly, having been a subscriber to most of the loans that had been negociated. The Bank were in the habit of receiving the deposits of the subscribers to the loan, at the periods fixed for that purpose, and of giving them receipts, which were subsequently made available. This constituted one branch of the service. The remaining duty was, when individuals were enabled to anticipate their deposits, to calculate the discounts, and allow them. Such was the sum of service performed by the Bank. When, therefore, the committee recollected the nature of the other transactions existing between the country and the Bank—when it recollected the millions upon millions of the public money that it had at various times in its hands, belonging to the public, and for which no interest was paid—when it recollected the sums paid for the management of the debt—but, above all, when it recollected that every new loan laid the foundation for a permanent charge, it must feel surprised at hearing that a remuneration was also to be paid for the trifling service which he had stated [Hear, hear!]. The committee were not probably aware of the total amount of what the Bank had received under this head, for the last twenty-five years. He had not himself, at present, an account for that length of time, but he had the account for the last 17 years of the war, and the committee would hear with surprise, that under the head of fees, there was paid out of the public purse to the Bank of England, no less a sum than 324,000l. Such was the amount paid for this inconsiderable trifling service. Originally these fees were intended for the Bank clerks. They now were shared amongst the proprietors. It was his wish, that the nature of the arrangements with the Bank should have been discussed in a committee of the House. During the two former sessions, he had pressed the subject on the consideration of parliament. That year he had abstained from the discussion, under the belief that the subject would be investigated in the committee of finance. From the very nature of its construction, he was justified in that expectation, confirmed as it was by what had fallen last session from his hon. friend the member for Corfe Castle. He had, however, since been given to understand, that, in consequence of the earnest suggestions of the chancellor of the exchequer, the committee were not likely to enter on that investigation, on the ground of its interfering with certain negotiations. He was, therefore, as he had before stated, driven to take up the subject by piecemeal. He trusted that the vote of the committee would altogether expunge the clause from the bill. The whole amount of what was proposed to pay to the Bank on the 3,000,000l. loan and the 27,000,000l. exchequer bills, was 13,200l. No inconsiderable sum. Besides, it was to be borne in mind, that this was the first time a charge of fees was ever made on the funding of exchequer bills. Whether this was to mark the determination of the Bank to evince that all opposition to their system was useless, and as a triumph over him, he did not know; but he trusted the committee would expunge the obnoxious clause. He concluded with moving to that effect.

said, it was never in his contemplation to withhold so considerable a branch of the public expenditure, as the transactions between the country and the Bank, from the investigation of the finance committee. Though he felt that it would be inexpedient, from the delay it would produce in certain arrangements, to enter on that investigation at present, he still felt that there was no place where the subject could be more accurately and impartially investigated than in that committee. With respect to the clause particularly adverted to in the motion of the hon. member, he had to state, that the charge made by the Bank was sanctioned by invariable custom. Since the Revolution, in all transactions of the kind it had been allowed, and indeed a higher rate had been allowed when loans were negociated with the South Sea company. He did not therefore feel himself justified, without inquiry or previous deliberation, to refuse a charge which could thus plead immemorial usage. The Bank not only received the deposits, but were judges of the whole transaction. It was true that there was a new feature in the present arrangement, in the allowance on the funding of exchequer bills. Were it an ordinary case of funding, no charge would have been made or allowed, and the duty would have been performed at the exchequer office. But the present was a complicated case, where, by the transfer of stock, a new fund was created. The Bank would have to Keep the accounts, and to incur a great responsibility for which they were entitled remuneration. They would have would have to form a new office, and to provide other clerks. When the whole of the service was considered, there existed even plausible reasons for regulating the charge as if it were on the loan of thirty millions, but to that view he had objected.

observed, that he knew the present financial system was a complicated one, and on that ground it was that he objected to it, as its complicated nature was injurious to the public, by throwing the management of dealings in the funds into the hands of jobbers and others, who would be likely to deceive the public. Such was the management of the chancellor of the exchequer, that he, to-day, presented one plan, tomorrow another, and so on, till the public could not form any idea of what his measures were. Such a system was undoubtedly a bad one, and one which he could not support. He thought it was not necessary to allow the Bank the proposed sums, and he would therefore support his hon. friend's motion.

observed, that whether a more open loan would have been better or not in some respects, the charge in that case for management would have been considerably greater. With regard to the right hon. baronet's observations on the subject of the jobbers of the Stock-exchange, and the influence exercised by them on the conditions of the loan, he could fairly state, that there never was an operation of this nature effected more completely in defiance of their endeavours. He did not wish to speak injuriously, but the whole difficulty which had been experienced proceeded from the machinations of that class of persons. The modifications which had been introduced into the original proposals had not increased the charge for the public a single shilling; on the contrary, they had caused upon the whole transaction some diminution of incidental expense.

said, that by transferring the three per cents to the three-and-a-half, there was no gain to the public. On the three million loan, and the funding of 27 millions of exchequer bills, the Bank were allowed a certain sum. The question then was, whether, on the whole, there was a less expense incurred to the public than by the ordinary means of raising a loan?

observed, that it was impossible to have a loan by the ordinary means at a lower rate than that he had proposed to them. There were three sorts of allowance on loans, first, on the loan of 3 millions; second, on the funding of exchequer bills, and third, on the tranfer of stock. On the two latter of which the allowance to the Bank was at half the usual sum.

observed, that the chancellor of the exchequer had stated, that this was a charge established by immemorial usage. Now, if this charge was founded on any thing like equity or justice, let it remain; but if antiquity only could be urged in its favour, he, for, one should object to it. Did not the right hon. gentleman know, that at the rate of 34 millions there would be a permanent charge of 10,000l. per annum on the country? This was a charge contrary to every principle of justice, moderation, and equity; nay, he would say, that it was strongly indicative of that rapacity which had long characterized the whole of the transactions of the Bank. The term "rapacity" might appear harsh to some, but it was an expression which he had borrowed from a lamented friend, a great ornament of that House, (Mr. Horner), and he could use no other word on this occasion.

said, that the hon. member had fallen into an error. He had stated that the charge to the country would be 10,000l. per annum; but, as 27,000,000l. of stock would be cancelled, on which the Bank would lose their charge, the increase would be only 2,000l.

said, he did not understand this argument. It was true that 27,000,000l. of 3 per cents would be converted, into 27,000,000l. of 3⅓ per cents, on which there would be no charge; but, then, there were to be funded 27,000,000l. of exchequer-bills, which were equal to 34,000,000l. of stock; and calculating them at 300l. a million, it was evident that the Bank must receive something like 10,000l.

rather believed that he was wrong in his former statement. He had mistaken the 27,000,000l. of exchequer bills for stock.

was of opinion, that the allowances made to the Bank for their conduct of the pecuniary concerns of the government ought to be investigated, and it appeared to him that more particularly the commission to be granted them in the present instance, on funding exchequer bills was a fit subject for inquiry; but he did not think that the powers of the Finance Committee were sufficient to enable them to sift the subject thoroughly.

A division then took place: For the clause, 46; Against it, 31: Majority, 15.