presented a Petition from Cranbrook, in the County of Kent, which referred to the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and prayed that the House would investigate the case stated in that petition, and give satisfaction to the parties. This Petition was signed by 150 persons, who had directed him to refer to the hon. member for Kent for testimony of their respectability. He had, on former occasions, taken up so much of the time of the House on this subject, that he felt he should not be justified in trespassing further on the attention of hon. Members upon this occasion. His opinions, with regard to this case, were well known. He must, however, take this opportunity of correcting a misstatement which had gone abroad. It had been said in a powerful and popular publication, that he had kept the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in his pocket for three weeks before he presented it. Now this was not the fact. He had received the petition on the Thursday, and presented it to the House on the Monday.

confirmed the statement of the hon. and gallant Member as to the general impression which the case of the Deacles had made on the country. The petitions which were forwarded showed that the subject was forcing itself on the attention of the House: and he was of opinion that something ought to be done, if it were only to satisfy the public mind.

agreed that this case had produced great excitement in the country. He understood, however, that the defendants in the action intended, in the next Term, to challenge the verdict that had been given against them. Now, if that verdict were confirmed, or if the defendants neglected to apply to the Court upon it in the next Term, no doubt the House ought to do something in the matter; but until these facts were ascertained, it would be at once premature and unjust for the House to interfere. At the same time, he was perfectly ready to admit, that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had been most unjustly prejudiced by what had been said in that House by persons who, being all- powerful there, had not recollected that the other party was weak and powerless. He would recommend the gallant Member (Colonel Evans) to keep his eye upon the proceedings of the defendants, and if they did not apply to the Court in the next Term, or if the verdict against them were not shaken, to bring the matter once more before the House without delay.

said, that being appealed to, he was bound to state, that he knew several of the petitioners, who were most intelligent and respectable persons.

said, if the public feeling on this subject was as had been represented by the hon. members for Rye and Boston, he could only say, that it was in a very morbid state, which he attributed to the manner in which the Press had fastened upon this case. There was nothing in the case itself to call for the interposition of the House. It most assuredly could not be said these persons had received a denial of justice. Their cases were still before the judicial tribunals; the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Baring) was compelled to vindicate himself; he had been dragged by the Press most unwillingly before the public, and compelled to vindicate himself. He hoped that the House would not interfere further with the business.

said, that he had received petitions from Wolverhampton, in Staffordshire, and from a place in Kent, to the same effect as the present petition. He stated this now, in order that he might not intrude the subject a second time upon the House. It was impossible to deny that this case had excited a very strong sensation out of doors—so strong a one, indeed, that it was quite clear the subject would not be allowed to rest where it was. It was quite right, however, that they should wait the result of the legal proceedings to which the hon. member for Colchester had alluded: and while he felt assured that justice would be done to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, he was equally confident that the respectable parties who were opposed to them would court the fullest inquiry.

thought, that the Deacles had been very unjustly treated, not only in the transaction of which they complained in their petition, but also by what had passed in that House, where assertions criminatory both of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, had been stated by persons who could not by possibility have any personal knowledge of those circumstances. He could not join in the opinion of the hon. member for Selkirkshire, but on the contrary, he conceived that the feelings of the public did them honour. Certainly, however, the House ought to wait the result of the defendants' application to the Court to set aside the verdict.

said the Deacles were grossly injured individuals, and nothing could be more unfounded than the imputation that they deserved the harsh treatment they had received. Their case was an instance of as gross and cruel oppression as was to be found in the annals of county magistracy.

said, that if the Deacles had been unjustly treated, no man could desire more heartily than he did, that reparation should be made to them. He must, however, beg of hon. Gentlemen to recollect, that at the time of the occurrence of this case, the Hampshire Magistrates were placed in a situation of danger and difficulty, which required great firmness and extraordinary measures. Although there were at that time in Hampshire no less than seven mobs, some amounting to as many as 1,500, while others were, of course, much smaller—although these mobs were abroad, and riots, fires, and pillage were of daily occurrence in almost every village in the county, yet there were Members of the House of Commons who were unreasonable enough to complain, that the Hampshire Magistrates had not been, under such circumstances, as cool as Magistrates might be expected to be when they were sitting quietly in their magisterial room, and adjudicating an ordinary occurrence. He knew nothing of the case of the Deacles, except what he had heard in that House, and he could not, therefore, be prejudiced either way. Neither was he a Hampshire Magistrate, but, living on the borders of that county, and having been placed in a situation similar to that in which the Hampshire Magistrates had found themselves, he had thought it right to say thus much in behalf of his brother Magistrates of the next county. In the situation in which the Hampshire Magistrates were placed, they could not have been influenced in what they did by a mere desire of personal safety. If that had been all they wanted, they might have mounted their horses and ridden away; but they did not; they remained and faced the danger. Was there any military to assist them? No; though he had no doubt the Hampshire like the Berkshire Magistrates, applied for soldiers, and were told, as the Berkshire Magistrates were, that there were none to send to them. Now he need not remind the House of the nature of the outrages which the mobs committed; and he would put it to any hon. Member who had not forgotten those outrages, whether, if the Hampshire Magistrates were told that Mrs. Deacle was riding at the head of one of the mobs on a gray horse, those Magistrates were not quite right to secure her, and even to put her into a cart without springs until a post-chaise could be procured?

said, that if there was to be no further inquiry into the case of the Deacles, he must put it to hon. Members what good end could be answered by debating the merits of it; and if there were to be any further inquiry into the case, he felt it his duty to remind hon. Members, that discussions like the present must necessarily prejudice one or other of the parties concerned. He should not have made this observation but for the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Reading, who, though doubtless with the best intentions possible, had trenched very far upon provoking others to rip up once more all the circumstances of the case, and to re-discuss the individual merits and demerits of each of the parties concerned, and that, too, while legal proceedings on the subject were pending.

said, that after the judicious observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he would make but one remark. It was this. He was extremely sorry that Gentlemen who now complained that prejudice had resulted from the discussions upon the subject in that House, should not have foreseen this result before they brought the case forward. If the Gentlemen did not exactly know who would be prejudiced, it might at least have occurred to them, that when parties were charged with acting with the greatest brutality, some one must suffer by having his case prejudiced.

was happy to hear, that the case was to be brought before a Court of Law, and if he had known that fact before, he should have abstained from saying a word upon the matter. Until the legal proceedings were disposed of, he should join with the hon. member for Colchester in deprecating any further discussion upon the subject; and he now begged leave to present, without one word of comment, another petition, to the same effect as the last, from Leamington Priors.

rose to present a Petition from Sir William Macmahon, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, setting forth, amongst other matters, that there had been for many years a controversy between the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor respecting the appointment of the Secretary to the former Judge. The Master of the Rolls in the one country possessed as high and as extensive an authority as in the other; but from the time of James 1st to the Union, the office in Ireland became, in a great degree, a sinecure, and the Masters received letters of license to be absent; but the increase of Chancery business at that period rendered its revival necessary; and though the original patent gave the Master of the Rolls in Ireland the same power as that enjoyed by the Master of the Rolls in this country, yet the statute under which the revival was effected took no specific notice of the right to appoint a Secretary. In the year 1806, the late Mr. Curran was appointed to the office of the Master of the Rolls, and he appointed his own Secretary, but Lord Chancellor Ponsonby made an order that the Register of the Court of Chancery should not receive or file any petition which was not signed by his Lordship's Secretary, thus completely nullifying the appointment made by the Master of the Rolls. To this order Mr. Curran submitted. The present Master of the Rolls, however, was determined to assert his right to the appointment of his own Secretary, and, with the view of trying the right, appointed Mr. Shaw, the member for Dublin. This occurred during the chancellorship of Sir Anthony Hart, and that learned individual met the appointment in the same way as Mr. Ponsonby. The Master of the Rolls was thus precluded from trying the issue in the manner most usual in cases where a right of appointment is controverted, and was driven to the necessity of arguing his case by Counsel before the Lord Chancellor, who decided against him. He had now, therefore, no alternative but to apply to the House, praying that an Act might be passed, removing the barrier which interposed between the petitioner and a legal ascertainment of his right by putting the question in a course of trial. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the petition be brought up.

observed, that it was a case of some difficulty, and one on which the ablest and most learned lawyers might differ. The question which Sir Anthony Hart had to determine, on going over to Ireland, was, whether his own rights were to be conceded in favour of the Master of the Rolls. He (Mr. Crampton) did not intend, on that occasion to go into the law of the case; but he was bound to state, that in his opinion, Lord Chancellor Hart had taken into consideration the customs and usages of the place, which certainly did not require him to give up the fees of his own Secretary in favour of the Secretary of the Master of the Rolls. That was the question which Lord Chancellor Hart had to decide; whether he had decided it rightly or wrongly, he (Mr. Crampton) would not take upon himself to pronounce; but, at all events, this he would say, that it was not of that plain and easy decision that had been assumed by his hon. and learned friend. He admitted the antiquity of the office of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland; but, on the other hand, it was to be observed, that up to the beginning of the reign of George 3rd, such a person as Secretary of the Master of the Rolls, distinct from the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor, had never been heard of; and the first time that a claim to that effect was made by the Master of the Rolls, who, at that time, was Mr. Curran, the demand was immediately repudiated and put down by the Lord Chancellor Ponsonby. Another point that particularly weighed upon Sir Anthony Hart's mind was, that when a return of the fees of his office was required from Sir William M'Mahon in 1821, he made no mention whatever of a separate Secretary of his own, or of his fees. With respect to Lord Plunkett, he would not take on himself to say what would be his decision on the case, should it come under his notice; but at all events he might remark, that the Lord Chancellor had no power of his own to reverse the decision, till it was legally brought before him by one of the parties in the shape of a rehearing; and that had not been done; so that, at present, of course, the two previous judicial orders of Lord Ponsonby and Sir Anthony Hart remained as they did. With respect to arbitration, he thought that it would be highly indecorous to refer the decisions of those who had been the highest law authorities of the country to a subsequent arbitration. As the question now stood, he thought that the only way of carrying it further would be, by a distinct legislative enactment; for he did not see how Lord Plunkett could with any decency take on himself to reverse the decrees of two of his predecessors on this subject.

said, the whole question was simply this:—The Master of the Rolls claimed a privilege which the Lord Chancellor denied; then, if this was the case, why was it not tried at law, and so settled? Because the Lord Chancellor, by his order, put a veto upon it. Surely that was not a right state of things—and yet that, if they talked for ever, was the whole state of the case. Having investigated this question in his judicial capacity as a Member of Parliament, he was bound to say, that in his own mind he had not the slightest doubt that the Master of the Rolls possessed the right which he claimed. He admitted that the Master of the Rolls had acted injudiciously in suffering his right to lie dormant for so many years; but that was accounted for in the petition on the score of delicacy; and though a man's duty—and this was one—ought not to have been sacrificed to motives of delicacy, still it was a feeling that demanded respect. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Crampton), in admitting that the Master of the Rolls' office was one of prescription, had admitted the whole of his case.

thought, that the question of the Master of the Rolls' right on this point hardly admitted of a doubt; and he said this after having looked into all the papers on the subject. The question was one of importance to the public, because the attendance of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary, or his deputy, in the Rolls Court being very irregular, it frequently happened that the Court was actually obliged to stand still. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consider this as a case which called for legislative interference.

said, he did not understand that his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General for Ireland had resisted the prayer of the petition. His was undoubtedly a difficult and painful situation, but he had acted prudently. For his own part, he had formed a decided opinion upon the merits of the case, and he was bound to say, he had not a doubt that the Master of the Rolls, as the independent Judge of an independent Court, ought to appoint his own Secretary. The present state of things, by which he was deprived of that right, ought to endure no longer.

thought, that the House was agreed as to the fact, that the Master of the Rolls ought to be allowed to try the right. The Master of the Rolls did not ask the House to give any opinion on his right, but only that he might be enabled to try it.

hoped, that the present Lord Chancellor would co-operate with the Master of the Rolls to have this question investigated. He was, however, strongly inclined to believe that the right of appointment rested with the Master of the Rolls.

said, the ground of complaint was, that Sir Anthony Hart had decided a case in which he was himself interested. This was against all the rules of dispensing justice. In saying this, he knew if any person could deserve to be trusted with such power, it was Sir Anthony Hart, than whom a more high-minded and upright Judge never sat upon the Bench. He rejoiced that the petition had been brought forward, and hoped the parties chiefly interested would come to some agreement, so that there should be no necessity for the House interfering.

said, that it would be no difficult thing to put the question in a shape to have it decided. It might be taken before the Privy Council for decision; but what he would suggest was, that it should be placed in a train of legal investigation by the parties, without the House interfering in the affair.

thought, from the character of the noble Lord who was now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that he would at once yield the point without carrying the case to trial.

in support of the petition, said, that the reason why the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had, up to 1801, exe- cuted all the functions of the Master of the Rolls was, not that there was no such officer, as had been asserted, but that he generally resided in England, under a constantly renewed license of leave, it being considered more a political than a legal appointment.

complained, that the improvements promised by the Government, were neither more nor less than the turning out one set of Commissioners to make way for another. He thought that the claims of a man like Mr. Payne, whose abilities were acknowledged, and who had been thirty-three years a servant of the public, should not be passed over; and he moved, therefore, that the word "three" in clause 5th, should be left out, for the purpose of substituting "three of the present," meaning Commissioners of Inland Navigation.

repelled the imputations of the right hon. Gentleman with great indignation, and said, that instead of these gentlemen being all friends of the present Government, one of them had been absolutely promoted to office by the right hon. Gentleman himself, whilst Secretary for Ireland.

defended the conduct of the Irish Government in the appointments referred to. He himself had the blame or merit of them, such as they were. One of the parties he had never seen, to his knowledge, to that hour, and he had only appointed the gentleman from the account he had received of his diligence and activity in the discharge of his public duty. He utterly disclaimed the imputation of having made the appointments from personal or party feelings.

did not mean to deny the activity and intelligence of the gentlemen appointed; but those who had been passed over had equal, if not superior claims on similar grounds; and they had the additional claim of having been much longer in the public service. One of the gentlemen so passed over had been for thirty-four years an able, active, and in- telligent public servant; another had served in the office he had held with credit to himself and advantage to the country for sixteen years; but the gentlemen appointed had not seen any thing like that length of service—one of them having been in office only six years. He did not blame Ministers for serving their friends, but they ought not to do injustice to others who had long been employed in important situations, the duties of which they had discharged with zeal, ability, and fidelity to the public.

opposed the Bill, but not on the grounds alleged by the hon. Gentlemen below him. He did not attribute to his Majesty's Ministers any partiality or favouritism. God knew, any thing but that. It was the conversation in every place, on every day, that his Majesty's Ministers were more incapable of distinguishing between their friends and their enemies, than any men who had ever sat on the Treasury benches; and it would be a miracle if they could carry on the great measure which they had undertaken, against the exertions making in hostility to it by official men. Why, there were the recent occurrences at the Dublin election. If he had been in the situation of his Majesty's Ministers he would have removed half the persons in office who had opposed them on that occasion. He hoped they would not continue to be so weak as to be advised by their enemies; but that they would rally round their friends. He was borne out in these observations by everything that occurred. The majority of the Lord-lieutenants of the counties of England were opposed to his Majesty's present Ministers. [Some Hon. Member exclaimed, "That's in The Morning Chronicle!"]. To be sure; it was in The Morning Chronicle, He wished his Majesty's Ministers would take a leaf out of The Morning Chronicle. They would consult the feelings and advantage of the country by doing so. He repeated, that his Majesty's present Government had acted with more partiality towards those politically opposed to them, than any Government that had ever preceded them. It was not, therefore, on the ground of the political partiality of Ministers that he opposed the Bill. He opposed it because the appointment of the Board under the Bill appeared to him to be a great waste of the public money. He wished to have the advances for public works for England, Ireland, and Scotland, all under the disposal of the unpaid Commissioners of London. Those Commissioners had disposed of 3,285,000l., with no expense to the country but the trifling one of clerks and house-rent. Why not place at their disposal the 500,000l. for Ireland? Why have a local Board? If it were necessary to employ engineers in Ireland, let them be employed under the Board settled in London. He had no objection to the consolidation of the Boards of Inland Navigation and Public Works in Ireland, but he did strongly object to a Board of paid Commissioners for applying 500,000l. for Public Works.

said, that not withstanding the observations made by his hon. friend, and his desire to have all the public business conducted in London, he must be permitted to say, that although he was a decided enemy to all jobbing, yet it would be wholly impossible to conduct the business which it was the duty of this Board to perform by persons resident in London. It would be necessary on any applications being made for money, to send to Ireland, and make inquiries, to wait for answers, by which means several weeks at least would be wholly lost. This delay would tend to defeat the beneficial measure itself; he had always felt an objection to the constitution of the Board of Inland Navigation. The Commissioners had little else to do but receive their salaries. He therefore supported the measure, and was sure that it would be most beneficial.

said, that the Commissioners of Inland Navigation had never performed any services to the public, and he saw no reason why any of them should be appointed to a situation where real and efficient services would be required. He should have liked the Bill better if none of the old Commissioners had been placed on the new Board. He was confident that a sufficient number of gentlemen could be found in Ireland willing to perform the duties of Commissioners gratuitously.

said, that he saw no reason to doubt that a sufficient number of gentlemen could be got in Ireland to perform the duties of a Commission, without salary, if it were deemed expedient to adopt that course; but he acknowledged that he did not possess sufficient information to enable him to pronounce upon its practicability. He was sure, that in the proposed diminution of the number of Commissioners, his right hon. friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, consulted the interests of the public.

did not approve of the system proposed to be established by the Bill. He thought it exceedingly cumbersome, and very unlikely to produce the desired effect.

remarked, that he thought this clause objectionable, as it contained an oath which he saw no necessity for, and it was a bad practice to multiply oaths in legislative enactments. The oath was simply this—"I—do swear that I will faithfully and impartially exercise the powers vested in me by this Act." He hoped this might be left out of the clause.

concurred in the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman; it would have the effect of increasing the horrible practice of oath-taking. As his Majesty's Government had, in one year, abolished such a vast number of unnecessary oaths, he hoped they would not resist a similar improvement in the present Act.

observed, the oath had been introduced in conformity with established custom, but he had no objection to dispense with it in the present Bill.

objected to the clause which gave power to the Grand Jury to raise money by loan for the purposes of these works. Such a power was a dangerous one, and likely to lead to extravagance. The effect of it was visible in the heavy burthens which the public had now to bear from the facility of borrowing money for unlimited periods. If a person borrowed money for three or four years, he might reasonably be supposed to make some provision for repaying it, but if he borrowed for many years, he became callous and indifferent as to the payment.

considered this clause to be the most unexceptionable part of the Bill. He could by no means believe any Grand Jury would abuse the powers intrusted to it. Parliament might have the conduct of the Grand Jury brought before it, besides which, there was the superintendance of the Treasury.

agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex in the opinion that the power given by the clause to Grand Juries would be exorbitant, and might be exercised to the prejudice of the community.

also thought, that the clause was one from which mischief would arise. He considered that the proposition manifested a spirit to trifle with the country which Ministers professed to serve. It was at best nothing more than a species of quack medicine, and held out to Grand Juries a temptation to make places and emoluments for themselves and their friends.

said, that one of the great wants of Ireland was the want of good roads from one part of Ireland to the other. In many districts the roads intersected each other, and the travelling was rendered, by that means, extremely difficult. The clause, he thought, ought to be adopted, as it would furnish a means of repairing and making these roads, and promoting the improvements of Ireland, while it gave employment to the people.

supported the clause, although he thought it would give facilities for corrupt practices. The repairing of the roads he looked upon as a paramount object, and would compensate for the abuse which might grow out of the experiment. The Grand Jury system needed a total Reform. In fact, it was fraught with more dangers and evils than any other system from which the population of Ireland was suffering so grievously; and if that system were effectually reformed, it would be a great benefit to the people of Ireland. As to the Bill itself, he must say, that it had much disappointed him.

objected to giving Grand Juries any additional powers. At present, it was only necessary to ask Grand Juries for money, and it was sure to be granted. The clause would operate as a tax on the occupiers of the land.

thought the clause was a salutary one, and that the objections which were made to it would extend to the whole Grand Jury system. Without the clause the Bill would be inefficient.

said, that on principle he could not consent to Grand Juries having the power to mortgage the revenues of the county. As an instance of the way in which such things were managed, he would refer to the parish of St. Marylebone, in which he resided, and which was governed by a self-elected Vestry, who, in the course of a few years, had spent upwards of 200.000l. In one instance they had built a new court house at the cost of 60,000l., while there was already one in existence which answered all the purposes required. He wished that the power of issuing money should be limited to five years.

said, that the Gentlemen who opposed the clause proceeded upon the assumption, that Grand Jurors had no interest in the soil, but only in the misapplication of money. The hon. member for Middlesex had compared their constitution to that of the Select Vestry of Marylebone, but the cases were very different. In the Select Vestry case the complaint was, the people had no control over their own affairs, while, under this Bill, every inquiry and examination must be gone into, before any advance of money could be had. The Board was to see it properly applied, and that the security was adequate. The excellence of the plan, in his mind, was, that while it gave every encouragement to judicious improvement, it provided for the repayment of the money expended.

said, his great objection to the clause was, that it seemed to encourage a feeling which was already too prevalent, viz., that because persons had a power to borrow they must necessarily be rich. If persons could easily get money, they were always careless as to their payments; but as the general feeling of the House seemed not to go to the extent of his Amendment, he would content himself by moving an Amendment, the effect of which would be, to secure the repayment of the money in five years instead of ten.

said, as Grand Jury jobbing had been referred to, in illustration of that he would instance one fact in the county of Kildare: two gaols had been built at opposite extremities of the county where one in the middle would have answered every purpose.

observed, that the building of gaols did not rest with the Grand Juries. They could not be erected without an Act of Parliament, by which the power was vested in the Judge to say in what case a gaol was necessary; therefore the instances of jobbing introduced by the hon. member for Downpatrick, only went to prove, if there was jobbing, that it rested with the House of Commons. All the Grand Jury had to do was, the levying money by the authority of Act of Parliament.

thought, that as some alteration was to be made in the Grand Jury system, it would be better to wait till then before they granted a sum of 500.000l. to be placed at the disposal of a Grand Jury, which was, at present, an evanescent and irresponsible body. At the same time, he thought that in legislating for Ireland, they often made three holes in attempting to mend one. He wished to see the nature of the system to be substituted, for at present, he viewed the expediency of granting money to Grand Juries in Ireland, to be expended on public works, with some doubt. He was more anxious to grant money for Ireland than for England, because it was more wanted; but he wished it to be expended on some sound principles of economy.

hoped, that he should be more fortunate than his predecessors in the Bill which it was his intention soon to submit to the House, for amending the Grand Jury-laws. He admitted, that the great defect of the Grand Jury system was the want of responsibility and of publicity. That defect he hoped to remedy in his Bill. At the same time, practically, the Grand Juries could not now be called evanescent, as it was rather matter of complaint against them, that they were generally composed of almost the same persons.

said, if it were necessary to vest the power created by this Bill in some hands to have it administered, he knew no other body likely to exercise it with more discretion than Grand Juries.

said, he had not heard a single reason to make him alter his opinion on this clause. He thought it ought to be rejected. It was a mere delusion to make the Irish people believe there was any great advantage to be derived from the advance of money which was to be repaid again with interest. He was surprised to hear Gentlemen call out "money, money," upon all occasions. He was afraid this measure would merely give the country the appearance of temporary prosperity, to end in disappointment and vexation when the amount advanced was to be repaid.

said, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee on the clause, which he thought would lead to abuses. He had served himself on many Grand Juries, and had always observed, there was a greater inclination to expend large sums of money when the repayment was spread over a great many years.

was of opinion, with other hon. Gentleman who knew the constitution of Grand Juries, that too much power was to be given to them under the clause. He knew several cases in which they had encouraged a most lavish expense of money. If the hon. member for Cork, therefore, persisted in dividing the House, he must vote with him.

said, that expunging this clause would destroy the effect of the Bill. The power could not well be granted to individuals, but must be given to public bodies, and there was no other public body equal to the Grand Jury, which was generally composed of the gentry of the county, and, in fact, taxed themselves. All the evidence before Committees, and past experience, had proved, that public works wherever they had been carried on in Ireland, had produced great public benefits. The public would have a control over the money; there was to be no clandestine appropriation of it.

was of the same opinion. He had not intended to vote against the clause. If the alternative were offered him, either to reject the clause, or let it stand as it did, he should adopt the latter, much as he disliked the intrusting this grant to Grand Juries. He had thought it would be an improvement of the clause to substitute five years for ten.

hoped the hon. member for Cork would not press his Amendment.

said, that in deference to what appeared to be the wish of the Committee, he should not persist in his intention to divide on the clause, and he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex.

thought it was absurd to expect that a country would derive any permanent advantage from a loan of money to carry on public works, unless it could be shewn they were of such a nature as would yield a surplus after the repayment of the sums employed in them.

was afraid, by enacting the advances to be repaid within five years, such hard terms would be enforced on Grand Juries as would effectually retard the promotion of public works.

said, it was only by a steady increase of employment the country could be permanently benefitted. It was an erroneous system to lay out as much in one year as could be repaid in ten; he should certainly press his Amendment.

thought five per cent interest was too much to be charged on these advances, when the interest on Exchequer-bills was not much more than half that amount; he should therefore move as an Amendment, that four per cent should be substituted for five per cent, as the interest of loans made under the Bill. He wished to inform the House, that nine millions and a half of money had been expended in England for public purposes at an annual expense of 2,700l.

said, the clause was precisely the same as that contained in the English Bill on the same subject; the Commissioners had precisely the same powers.

thought it was impossible that the clause could stand as it was. The advances were to take precedence for repayment of mortgages and all existing encumbrances. The present claimants on property would be wholly forestalled by the Commissioners for money lent on the speculation of improving the property. Suppose land was mortgaged to a considerable extent, and advances made by the Commissioners on that land were to take precedence of such claims, the effect of the clause would be in such cases most unjust.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider, that as the value of the land would be most materially increased by those advances, it was by no means unjust that the Commissioners should have the first claim.

said, he must wholly protest against such proceedings and doctrines: the Government undertook to advance money on land, whether a person who held a considerable claim on it approved it or not, and then said, we have the first claim; why, this was interfering with private property in a most unfair manner.

said, his hon. friend had left one part of the case out of view, if he would but consider how much the property would be improved, he would see that the security to the holder of the mortgage would be increased.

remarked, that it was possible that the proprietor of the land might borrow money from the Commissioners merely for the purpose of evading the payment of a mortgage, and in some cases it would be impossible that the land could be so much improved as to recompense the mortgagee for this inconvenience.

said, in consequence of the objections that had been made, the clause should be withdrawn for the present. In the next clause he begged to inform the Committee, an Amendment had been introduced; it had been originally intended, that where the extension of any work was proposed, the Commissioners should not be satisfied with the security of such extension, but that they should require security for the performance of the whole work. It had been suggested, that such a clause might in certain cases be very inconvenient; for instance, suppose a canal of thirty or forty miles in length which produced an annual return of 10,OOOl., was proposed to be extended, it would be most unreasonable to require security for the amount of the whole work.

inquired, if any part of the money was to be advanced to forward manufacturing improvements?

replied in the negative.