said, he had to bring under the consideration of the House a circumstance, which, it appeared to him, required to be immediately adjudicated, more especially in a session where so much private business was before the House. He alluded to the division that had taken place to-day in a private Committee on the Trinity Harbour Bill. Counsel having been heard on the question of adjournment, the Committee came to a division. He (Sir A. L. Hay) having been chairman of that Committee, appointed tellers on each side, and then having quitted the chair, he had voted against the adjournment of the Committee. On the tellers having taken the numbers, there were found to be five on each side, including himself (Col. Leith Hay). He then considered that he had a right to give a casting vote as chairman, but was informed that he had no right to do so. The authority of Sherwin and another was in favour of that opinion, that the chairman could give a casting vote as well as his individual vote. The House would agree with him that that was a question which ought to he decided, and the practice, when once established, should be strictly adhered to. It was the duty of the House to decide what the course should be on all other occasions, instead of allowing the Committees in each session to make regulations which would be overruled in the next. If it had been merely a private bill, and that the adjournment did not interfere with the object of the projectors, he should not have pressed the matter further, but would have allowed it to rest there. But it appeared to him to have a very different construction. The question submitted to the House was discussed in the Committee, and involved an adjournment of at least eight weeks, as it extended to the 16th of May—one party wishing to wait until they had the decision of one of the courts in Scotland. The question he had to submit to the House was, had the Committee a right, from the usage of the House, or the practice of private Committees, to have an adjournment for such a length of time? He found by referring to the Reports, that, in the session of 1S05, in the case of the Committee on the Camberwell and South Lambeth Water-works' Bill, they adjourned for a considerable time, and were ordered by the House to meet again and proceed. Again, in the session 1825, in the case of the Bucks and Herts Canal, the Committee also adjourned, and were ordered to re- assemble; and in 1835, in the case of the Medway Navigation, the Committee there adjourned sine die, and were ordered to meet again and proceed with the business referred to them. He, under those circumstances, had to more that the Committee on the Trinity Harbour Bill be instructed to re-assemble, and proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

wished to say a word upon the question, as he was one of those Members who had been upon the Committee, and had taken a different view of the question from the hon. and gallant Member. He was surprised at the existence of any doubt on the subject, for he had never heard the right of a chairman to a second vote put forward before. There were other opinions of equal weight with those of Mr. Sherwin—there was the opinion of Mr. Dwarris, who said the chairman of a Committee was placed in the same situation as the Speaker of the House. In the case of Election Committees, where the Members sat as a jury, the power was expressly given to the chairman to give a casting vote in the absence of a Member, and the votes being equal. Now, if the general law had been such as laid down by Mr. Sherwin, it would be perfectly unnecessary to introduce such a clause; but, according to the opinion of all other writers on this subject, the Chairman of the Committee was precisely in the same situation as the Speaker. He begged leave to state, that in the early period of the History of Parliament a doubt existed as to the right of the Speaker to give two votes, for he found in 1601, upon a division, the number being, noes 106, ayes 105; the ayes knowing which way the Speaker's mind leaned, called upon him for his casting vote. Upon this being objected to, the ayes said that they had, by the Queen's pleasure, been allowed to elect a Speaker, and that he had the right to give the casting vote; the Speaker and Sir Walter Raleigh were of opinion that he could not do so. With regard to the other question as to expense, he thought that great expense would be spared by adjourning to the time the Committee had done. He trusted, therefore, that the House would rest satisfied with the decision of the Committee.

thought that that which had been referred to by the hon. Baronet was very much in favour of the decision of the Committee, The Chair- man of a Committee, by Act of Parliament, had a right conferred on him to give a casting vote. In the Glasgow election that had been done. The noble Lord, the Chairman, then voted as an individual Member of the Committee, and the parties being then equal, he gave his casting vote in favour of the sitting Member. There were two points before the House: viz. whether Sir A. L. Hay had a right to give two votes; and, supposing that to be decided against him, whether the Committee had a right to adjourn to the l6th of May? He thought that the better way would be to decide first as to the power of the Chairman to give two votes; as, if he had that power, the other question would not arise.

said, that the simple question was, who was to take the votes if the chairman left the chair? He had never known the chairman to leave the chair for the purpose of voting, except when the parties were upon an equality. He thought that, under all the circumstances, they could not take a better example than that by which the Speaker was guided in the divisions in that House.

though his experience was not so great as that of many members whom he saw present, could confidently state, that during the period he had sat in that House, eighteen years, he had never seen a chairman leave the chair for the purpose of giving his vote. It was very desirable that, as the hon. Member for Finsbury recommended, they should decide these points separately. It was very desirable, in the first place, to settle the point of practice. As the hon. Member for Surrey had sat so very long in that House, and had very great experience in Committees, he would appeal to him to state what the practice had been.

concurred in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, and as he had been appealed to by him, he did not hesitate in stating, that he did not recollect an instance where the chairman left the chair for the purpose of voting, and he considered that the only case in which he had a casting vote was where the numbers on both sides were equal. That was the custom which he had always seen observed.

trusted that the Speaker would, in the first instance, give his opinion as to the point of practice, and he would then submit his motion for the Committee to re-assemble.

In this case there are conflicting authorities, and there is also, as I am informed, conflicting practice. The gallant Officer, the Member for Elgin, has cited two authorities, the one that of Mr. Sherwin, and the other, anonymous. On the other side, the authority of Mr. Dwarris has been cited by the hon. Member for Mid-Lothian, and also an anonymous writer, who takes the same view of the question. In number, therefore, the authorities are equal. But I confess that I do not attach any great weight to these authorities, because they do not rest their opinions on any rule or principle that can he adopted as a guide. The only safe and intelligible principle, as it appears to me, is, that Committees should be regarded as portions of the House, limited in their inquiries by the extent of the authority that is given to them; but governed in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail either in the House or in Committees of the whole House. This is the opinion which I have always given when I have been referred to by Members, and I believe that any other course would lead to a variable and uncertain practice. The rules by which the House and Committees of the whole House proceed are known, and an adherence to them leads to uniform practice. There is, I believe, no doubt that there has been conflicting practice, in this matter, in different Committees, and that has probably arisen from the opinion expressed by Mr. Sherwin. It is, therefore, most expedient that the future practice of Committees should be regulated by the opinion and authority of the House. For the reasons which I have stated, I am of opinion that the rules followed in the House, or Committees of the whole House, ought to regulate the practice in Select Committees, whether sitting on public or private business. The reason and justice of the case are also in favour of holding that a Chairman ought not to vote except when the voices are equal. A Chairman generally acquires some influence and authority in a Committee in which he presides, and if in addition to that he is to have always one, and occasionally two votes, he is invested, especially in small Committees, with undue power. There are other circumstances connected with the station and duties of Chairman which equally favour this view, but it is not necessary to dwell on them in a case which appears to be so plain. The question was afterwards put, on the Motion that the Committee do re-assemble which was agreed to, and the Committee ordered to assemble on the following day.

presented the following Petitions from 350 individuals, the tenants of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow:

said, he scarcely felt himself called upon to make any reply to the statements contained in the petition from Mr. Woodcock. As, however, that gentleman was an old acquaintance, he would say a few words, more for the sake of letting the House know who the petitioner was, than by way of entering into any explanation of the reasons why he (Colonel Bruen) had chosen to ask a tenant for his rent, or making any apology for so doing. He would, however, first just mention that the animal rent payable by the tenant whom Mr. Woodcock had taken under his protection was 83l. 12s., and arrears were now due by him to the amount of 185l. 19s. The petitioner stated, that promises were made to the tenants in debt to their landlords (a pretty numerous body), though with the greatest caution, that their arrears should be forgiven if they voted for the Tory candidates. Now, all he (Colonel Bruen) could say on this point was, that so extreme were the caution, prudence, and circumspection used in communicating this secret to such Members, that he for one never heard of it before—and if he had been intrusted with the secret, assuredly be would not have been a party to the agreement. If he were disposed to speculate in a matter that had since been found so safe and easy, and not unlawful, he certainly could have obtained votes on better terms. This Mr. Woodcock was, as he had already said, an old friend of his—he was one of the very few persons that in the course of his life he had been obliged to prosecute for poaching—and to this circumstance, no doubt, was he (Colonel Bruen) indebted for the honour now conferred on him by the allegations set forth in this petition. He had heard that this Mr. Woodcock was on the half-pay of some dragoon regiment, and if unceasingly inflaming the bad passions of the multitude, haranguing and urging them on to violation of the law, heading tithe and election mobs, and keeping a remote and extensive district for years in a state of terror and disturbance, were services in which those receiving half-pay should be employed, no person earned it better than Mr. Woodcock. With respect to Mr. Alexander's petition, it was unnecessary for him to say much; indeed, he would only refer to a single point. Mr. Alexander complained of having been accused-of ruining his tenantry by vexatious litigation. The facts were these—he became responsible for the tithe—be let his land accordingly, reducing his rent in proportion, and so had given full value for the tithe to the tenants. They, of course, thankfully undertook the payment of a very moderate rent. However, they were prevailed upon, or obliged, after a time to refuse. Mr. Alexander, after repeated friendly applications on his part, and reso- lute refusals on theirs, and after waiting for months, at length was obliged to institute legal proceedings. Even then, his kindness and good nature were conspicuous; for after all this he prevailed upon them to go in a body to Carlow during the quarter sessions, and take the advice of a counsel professing very liberal opinions. The consequence was, that they returned satisfied of the folly and illegality of their conduct, and paid his demand. Mr. Alexander forth with stopped the legal proceedings, and finding that each had incurred costs to the amount of 2l. 15s. he came forward and paid out of his own pocket nearly one-half for each. For this most uncalled-for, and it would seem, ill-judged act of generosity, these very tenants now assailed him as a tyrannical landlord. In conclusion, he begged publicly to express his thanks to the numerous petitioners who had come forward to relieve him from the unjust attacks by which his character had been assailed.

was desirous of taking this occasion to explain some part of the conduct he had pursued on a late occasion. He had then been pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Dublin; and he should have replied at the time, but for the retirement of that hon. Member from the House. The hon. Member had complained of an assertion made by him, viz.—that the hon. Member had received a copy of the petition from Bath before it was in his hands. He had been informed that such was the fact. He had letters to prove that a printed copy of the petition from Bath was sent to the hon. Member for Dublin; and if he had not received it, it was at this moment in the dead-letter office. The hon. Member had also remarked, that it was extraordinary that he had brought forward the case, as they had formerly met in the Temple. He remembered meeting the hon. Member in the Temple; but he did not remember that they had ever been at the chambers of each other.

spoke to order; submitting that this course was inconsistent with the rules of debate.

decided, that any reply to what had been said in a former debate was undoubtedly irregular.

urged that he was only pursuing a course due in justice to him-self. Me had understood that he was to be afforded an opportunity of explaining certain matters with which he had been charged. The hon. Member for Dublin had accused him of having been guilty of bribery at Pontefract. He could only say—

again interposed.

could only say in explanation of his conduct that he had lost his election.

spoke to order.

rose, but could not proceed on account of the cries of Chair! and Order.

again decided that the course the hot). Member was pursuing was irregular, although the House might grant him the indulgence of being heard.

hoped, then, that the House would grant him the indulgence.

complained of this delay of public business.

thought the character of an individual Member a paramount subject. It might be irregular to refer to former debates, but he had never known the House refuse to a Member who had been attacked an opportunity of explanation. The hon. Member for Bradford would have vindicated himself on the former night had not the hon. Member for Dublin retired. He only claimed for the hon. Member for Bradford the usual courtesy.

When the hon Member claims courtesy, he should take care that he shews it himself. I did not retire to prevent the hon. Member for Bradford from making a speech, but I withdrew at the suggestion of the Speaker.

rose amid cries of Chair, Order, and Hear. He was prepared to meet the hon. Member for Dublin at any time. With regard to the Pontefract election, he hoped that the hon. Member's veracious and sapient informant had also told him that he Mr. Hardy lost his return because he was the advocate of Catholic Emancipation. He hoped that the informant had also stated—[the hon. Member was inaudible from the interruption. Considerable confusion ensued, which lasted some time.] The hon. Member then stated he had understood not only from the other side of the House, but from the lips of the Speaker, that the fit time for him to vindicate himself would be when certain petitions were presented, and for that reason on the former night he had sat down waiting for this evening.

agreed that he had told the hon. Member that he could revert to the subject when the subject was again introduced. The subject would again be introduced, and then the proper time would have arrived, and not on the presentation of a petition.

was perfectly satisfied.

said, that he did not mean to allude to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bradford [Cries of Spoke.] When he before rose, he had only spoken to order, and not to the question of printing the petitions now before the House. He did not mean to oppose the printing of them, on the contrary, he had himself several to lay before the House, which he hoped would also be printed. He did not think it worth while to complain—he merely noticed that the hon. and gallant Member, in defending himself, had had the presumption (so he thought he might best call it) to introduce an allusion to him. The hon. Member [had not yet been tried—he had not challenged investigation, or said one word to show that he wished for a committee to inquire. The hon. Member had not imitated his conduct—he had not dared the production of evidence, and yet, after the committee had made its report, he had presumed to throw out insinuations against him. The motive was obvious, hœret laleri lethalis arundo. Some of the hon. Member's tenants had voted against him, but none of Mr. Kavanagh's tenants had voted against him. What was the reason? Mr. Kavanagh was an excellent landlord; his tenants, Catholic as well as Protestant, supported him; but a number of the hon. and gallant Member's tenants had voted against him. He would pledge himself to no facts; but this he would say, that he was in possession of documents which, if verified, would establish a case of the grossest cruelty against the hon. and gallant Member. But he and his friends were wiser than to court inquiry; they would shrink from it. If the hon. and gallant Member had, indeed, so complete a vindication, no man would more rejoice at it than he would. Yes, he should rejoice at such a vindication, He perceived the sneer on hon. Members' countenances, but it afforded only one more proof how people judged of others by themselves. He had always treated the gallant officer, and even his prejudices, with respect; he would do so still; and, he repeated, that no man would rejoice more at the establishment of a complete vindication. If it were a calumny, let it be defeated and ex- posed, and the calumniators punished to the utmost extent of the power of the House. All he said was, that the petitions contained allegations which demanded inquiry. He wanted to know if the hon. and gallant Member had not let his lands at war rents, and, giving no receipts, if any of his tenants voted against him, did he not call upon them for arrears of those war rents? He had no right to call for payment of those nominal rents because the tenant exercised his franchise as his conscience dictated. He did not assert that the allegations were true, but that their truth ought to be investigated.

could not help adverting to the manner in which the rules of the House were disregarded by the hon. and learned Gentleman, while, at the same time, he complained of others being disorderly. It appeared, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman might get up and make attacks on the character of Gentlemen on his (Colonel Bruen's) side of the House, and when they rose to vindicate themselves from the aspersions cast upon them, they were interrupted by Gentlemen opposite.

The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken on the question that the Petition do lie on the Table.

again repeated that the rules of the House had been sacrificed by the learned Member in the attacks made by him. Was it impartial justice, then, that a person should be interrupted when he got up to defend himself? [cries of spoke.] He defied the threats held out by the hon. and learned Member, and was fully prepared to vindicate his conduct, and was anxious that the subject should be brought forward. He had repeatedly urged the hon. Member for Greenock to bring forward a Motion on the subject, and could not help complaining that that hon. Gentleman had inserted his notice of motion at the bottom of the list, instead of getting it placed at the top, as it should be, involving as it did, serious charges against the character of a Member of the House. He had no hesitation in saying that there was no wish whatever to bring the subject forward. He challenged them to do so, but he believed that they had no wish to do so. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to the proof of the assertions he had made against him.

The hon. and gallant Member is clearly out of order, as he has already spoken on the motion before the House.

said, that he apprehended that he was in order in making an observation on that point. He would then tell the hon. and learned Member that the statements made respecting him were without foundation. These were only a number of old stories which had often been brought forward during the last four or five years, and had repeatedly been shown to be groundless. He had no hesitation in saying that the story about his persecuting his tenants in consequence of their voting against him was totally false. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Kavanagh) as being a good landlord, and the consequence was, that he was supported by the whole of his tenantry; but that was not the case with him. He admitted that his hon. Friend was deservedly respected as a good landlord; but it was notorious that many more of his hon. Friend's tenants voted against him than his (Col. Bruen's) tenant's voted against him.

wished to assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had not brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, because he had no opportunity of doing so; but he would arrange with the hon. Gentleman, in the course of the evening, to fix on the first convenient day.

said, that he should be very glad to know the principle upon which this Schedule was formed? As to Schedules A and B, the first (A) was composed of places containing above 20,000 souls—and B, of those above 15,000; but with regard to Schedule C, it was impossible to discover any principle upon which it was drawn up. [[Viscount Morpeth: the principle was to preserve all boroughs that had existing Corporations.] Then that principle had not been followed; for, from the list in the Commissioners' Report answering that description, which amounted to sixty in number, eight boroughs had been omitted, and two had been inserted which were not to be found in that list.

could not understand why Midleton should be omitted if Belturbet were to be kept, inasmuch as they appeared in the same list in the Report, but Midleton was above Belturbet.

said, that although the population was not so large, they were in the possession of property to the amount in value of 200l.

said, that the Commissioners reported but 9l. per annum, but that clearly property was not the principle upon which these places had been selected.

stated, that the Corporation of Belturbet was practically extinct. The late provost had died more than a year ago; but since, the Report of the Commissioners had been drawn up, and so many of the forms had been disused, that the patron Lord Belmore, as he was informed, found he had not the power of re-appointment to the office, which remained vacant. Of the 2,062 persons who were returned as forming the population of Belturbet, nearly 500 lived in a different parish, out of the corporation bounds, and divided from them by the river. Certainly, no town of equal size in Ireland contained a greater number of respectable inhabitants, every way qualified to possess the privileges and discharge the trusts of a Corporation; but he rather thought that if their opinion were ascertained, the majority of the better and more independent householders would be glad to be without the necessity of frequent elections, with their accompanying excitement and bad feeling, and to have the property of the corporation vested, as it ought to be, in Commissioners, for the use and benefit of householders, for charitable purposes, and the general improvement of the town.

begged that the Committee would just observe the extreme absurdity of giving a Corporation to Navan, which had neither tolls nor corporate property. It once had both, he admitted; that is, it certainly had tolls, but the limits of the corporate property and the titles to it, in the Corporation, were very undefined and obscure. Navan had a Bienzi, a highly patriotic individual, of the name of Farrell, he believed, who, in 1827, got rid of the tolls altogether; and the same pa- triot had also the honour of rescuing a part of what was believed to be corporate property from the fangs of the Corporation. Now, as to this property, it was supposed once to have been as much nearly as 1,200 acres; but not above 118 acres of it could be recovered. A vast number of most wretched cabins had been built by persons settled thereon; and if this Bill should pass, and the recommendation of the corporation Commission be adopted, about ascertaining the limits, these unfortunate creatures would, by the philanthropy of the charitable Attorney-General, be turned out of house and home, and their only subsistence taken from them. But, again, by the very Report of the Commissioners, it seemed that there was no borough court now—that the portreeve received but 5l., wherewith to pay the salaries of the corporation; and hereof the two town-sergeants claimed an arrear upon their dues, they being entitled to 4l. annually, and a hat and cloak. All the corporate offices had fallen into disuse, and what was more, there never could have been the least necessity for them. He had some right to know something about that town, and he knew that its streets were part of the county roads, and provided for by the grand jury. As to lighting, the town never was publicly lighted; and as for a watch, what, more could be wanted than the constabulary as at present, or as they would be under the Bill now passing through this House. He therefore moved, that Navan be struck out of the Bill.

said, the question was not whether Navan had considerable property, but whether Navan was entitled to collect tolls. It was the opinion of Sir Anthony Hart that tolls should be devoted to public purposes, and that a receiver should be appointed. If tolls were to be so applied, instead of being placed in the hands of corporators, they would unquestionably be paid.

did not think any person apart from political feeling, would deny that the abolition of tolls would be a greater public benefit to the place where they were collected, and particularly to the lower orders, than any possible appropriation of tax that could be devised.

entirely agreed that tolls should be abolished where the party did not get value, but he thought they would be found extremely useful under proper management, and if applied, for instance, in establishing markets and hambles, and erecting public scales for the benefit of the poor. If the poor could get these advantages at the expense of the wealthier classes who pay tolls, it would be a great matter. The question depended altogether on the application of the tolls. If the public refused to pay them it was because they were to be paid into Corporations, and no matter whether the toll-payer was Protestant, Catholic, or Presbyterian, he withheld it on that ground, and he had just as great an objection to a Catholic toll as a Protestant toll, when he did not get value in exchange for it.

contended that the amount collected was uncertain. Now, if it were necessary to hare market-houses, and scales for weighing goods for sale, established, why should not the inhabitants assess themselves for that purpose, and not do so by making persons who came to sell their goods pay toll, over which they had no check, and which experience had shown was open to considerable abuse and misapplication? As to the hon. and learned Gentleman insinuating that "Protestants" misapplied those funds, did he mean to say that avarice was less predominant in persons of other persuasions? He was disposed to think that the Catholic would act in precisely the same way. He did not mean to deny that abuse to a certain extent prevailed; but what he contended was, that Roman Catholics, placed in similar circumstances—he, however, in saying this, meant no disrespect to the religion—would be found to misapply funds fully to the same extent they were now misapplied, and that it was not at all to be wondered at from the nature of toll itself and from the way in which it was managed, or rather mismanaged, it should be in some degree misapplied. He, therefore, thought that tolls should be altogether abolished.

rose to move the second reading of this Bill. It had been already proved that where public works had been carried on, improvement to a very great extent had taken place in the condition of the people. He would not go through the evidence taken before the Commissioners on the subject—contenting himself merely by observing that the Report stated, that most important results had flowed from the carrying on of public works in the western districts of Ireland. The annual increase in the amount of revenue collected proved distinctly the vast improvement which had been effected in the condition of the people in that part of Ireland. He found also a corresponding increase in Cork, where, under the superintendence of Mr. Griffith, 60,000l. had been expended. The Report of the Committee of last year, of which he was a member, and which furnished the gratifying proof that there was a place where gentlemen of opposite political opinions could meet without political strife—also furnished a variety of valuable evidence. That Committee were unanimously of opinion that an improvement in the condition of the people had taken place under the system alluded to. It was, therefore, he conceived, their duty to remove every obstacle that impeded the further progress of that system, and to establish a kind of administration free from the difficulties that now existed, and from the mischief which resulted from the present grand jury system. He certainly thought that the rate-payer should have a voice in the election of sheriffs—indeed he was borne out by the expression of public opinion in stating that nothing could give satisfaction that did not confer that advantage upon those who paid taxes. The grand jury laws amounted, in number, he believed, to about 100, and seemed, in fact, to have been made upon the spur of the occasion, either to relieve some pressing want, and to impose upon the grand jury some duty which could not be so well performed by any other existing body in Ireland. This fact in itself shewed the necessity for a revision of the grand jury system. By a provision in this Bill it was proposed to vest the entire power and duty of taxation in persons to be elected by the rate-payers. A considerable part of the Bill related to compensation to be given for land required for public works. Another very serious obstacle arose in this respect. At present the entire of the county-rate was levied on the occupying tenant, who was also liable to the heavy expense of a second rate. The Committee of 1830 recommended that part of the county rate only should be paid by the occupying tenant, but that recommendation had not been carried into effect. Under this Bill it was proposed that part of that rate should be paid by the landlord. Committees of superintendence would be appointed in the counties for examining into the different charities in Ireland, and par- ticularly the dispensaries. The principal thing was the election of the County Board, which would be directly under the control of the rate-payers; but having explained the nature of the Bill on a former occasion, he was unwilling to trespass further on the House. He could assure the House that the Bill was drawn up by a gentleman of great experience and well acquainted with the working of the grand-jury system.

before he allowed this Bill to go through a second stage, felt it incumbent on him to inquire from the noble Lord opposite what course, in respect to its future progress, his Majesty's Ministers meant to pursue? He rather imagined they were not aware of the nature of this Bill; it was one of no trifling importance, its object being to supersede the grand juries of Ireland, to take out of the hands of the country gentlemen the administration of fiscal affairs of the country. It contemplated a change of too important a nature for Government to remain neuter on, if such a measure was necessary. He contended it was their duty to introduce it themselves, and to undergo its responsibility. They should not leave the responsibility of a measure, the effect of which would be to repeal 100 statutes, and to put the fiscal system of all the counties on a footing entirely and essentially different from that which at present existed, on any shoulders but their own. Let not the noble Lord be led away by assertion incapable of proof, no matter how often repeated. He would find on inquiry that much had been done for Ireland under a system it was so much the fashion to abuse, from its introduction to the present day—her means of communication had improved in a manner unexampled in the history of any other country, both as to their extent and as to the economy of their execution. He confidently asserted no system had yet been brought forward superior to it either in theory or practice; the noble Lord would probably learn with astonishment, that the sum levied for the making and keeping in repair the roads and bridges of Ireland, did not amount to more than 400,000l. It was true an outcry had been raised about the increase of the amount levied under the sanction of the grand juries; but for that increase the gentlemen composing these bodies were not to blame, it was occasioned by the numerous compulsory presentments sent down under the authority of that House, to be signed by the foreman as a matter of course, over the amount or expenditure of which the counties had little if any control; of such a nature would be the presentments for defraying the expense of the constabulary under the Bill which was now passing through that House. He was not desirous of pressing this matter now to a division, as his hon. Friend the Member for Water-ford had taken so much pains on the subject; nor would be enter on the details of the Bill further than to remark, that the only part of it which appeared likely to prove useful to the valuation of counties, was already in progress, under the direction of the Board of Ordnance; his chief object in rising was to draw from the Government some information as to what their intentions were.

said, that before this Bill proceeded any further, he wished to know whether his hon. Friend would have any objection to let it be sent to a Select Committee? The subject to which this Bill referred was one of considerable importance to Ireland, and although it did not go the length it proposed, yet he must confess it contained many most excellent principles and practical enactments. One of these would be the digesting of that incongruous heap of grand-jury enactments, amounting to upwards of 100 Acts, forty-seven of which were in existence, the others more or less repealed, some of them directly, and some in the worst possible way—by implication. In such a state the grand-jury laws ought not to be allowed to remain. Another advantage, and a very important one, was the reduction that would take place in taxation. The money levied every year in Ireland by means of grand jury presentments amounted to no less a sum than 900,000l. Of this sum between 400,000l.and 500,000l. were levied for roads and bridges alone, thus making the amount levied by grand juries equal to one-eighth of the entire revenue produced from Ireland to Government. This money was placed in the hands of irresponsible persons nominated by the High Sheriff, at his caprice or discretion, or sometimes a worse reason still. These men proceeded to tax the country. There was certainly an appeal given, but it was not from Philip drunk to Philip sober, but from themselves to themselves. He had no objection to leave to the grand jury the power of investigating whether a man was to be put upon his trial or not, but he did object to placing power of taxation in irresponsible hands. He thought that the best mode of legislating on these county assessments would be, by letting those who had to pay them have some voice in the election of those who had to tax them. He was convinced that that would be the best mode of reducing the county rates, not only in Ireland but in England too. He approved of a good deal of the principle of the Bill; and if his hon. Friend would send it to a Select Committee, he would give him every assistance in his power to render the Bill efficacious for the purposes for which it was designed.

observed, that although he concurred to the fullest extent in that principle of the Bill which intrusted the local expenditure to those only who represented the rate payers, yet he could not agree in other portions of it; for which reason he now gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill at the latter part of the present session for remodelling the present grand jury system.

agreed with the hon. Baronet, that no measure for amending the grand-jury laws could give satisfaction in Ireland that was not based upon the principle of representation. This Bill he conceived to be most valuable in that respect, and in its alteration in the mode and principle of assessment. Assessment for county works should undoubtedly be thrown upon the landlord as well as the tenant—a most essential principle in order to give satisfaction in Ireland; and as a member connected with the northern part of that country, he could most confidently state, that there was no subject in which the inhabitants of the north felt at this moment a greater interest than the amendment of the grand-jury system. He could also state that feeling was not confined to Roman Catholics, but was participated in to an equal degree by Protestants. They were all, in fact, united in their call upon the Government for a measure of relief.

had no objection, hut rather wished, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

The power hitherto possessed by grand juries is by this Bill taken away from them. I cannot but consider this as an insult to the grand juries, when such a power is taken from them without any just cause. I cannot understand why such a power as they had formerly is not still left to them, for the grand juries can have no possible motive whatever for decreasing the expense of the constabulary. While then they would be uninfluenced by any such motive, I cannot see why the power is not to be left to them of checking the accounts, and objecting to any improper items that may be found in them. We are obliged to pay one-half of the expenses of the constabulary; the English Members have to pay the other half. What, I would ask of the House is this?—that the grand juries who have to pay one-half of the expenses should have the power of checking the accounts. I do press upon the noble Lord the propriety of conceding this. I wish to have a clause added, declaring that judges of assize may have the power of disallowing items in the accounts of the constabulary that have been objected to by the grand jury. I cannot see any objection to a clause such as this. As to the noble Lord saying that the grand jury can strike out any item that is contrary to law. Does the noble Lord, I would ask, anticipate that the inspectors under the new Bill will make charges that are contrary to law? The hon. Member concluded by moving a clause declaring that judges of assize may disallow items in accounts objected to.

I am very sorry I have not the power to consent to this clause. I mean no disrespect to the grand juries in removing from them their fiscal powers but, at the same time, I cannot help remarking that in the course of the discussion in the Committee upon this Bill, it was admitted that the power of deciding the amount of the police force, and the levying various sums for the payment thereof, should be placed in the hands of the executive government, and not in those of the grand juries. The clause brought in by my hon. Friend opposite gives the power of superintending the arrangements, disputing the items, and altering them to the grand jury. The hon. Member, too, gives a power to the judge of sanctioning the objections of the grand jury. Provided the sums presented are not warranted by law, the judge now has that power. But I could not think it right to constitute the judge of assize the person to determine whether there should be ten or twelve policemen in a barony. I would not give to the one the power of superintending or controlling the constabulary, nor to the other of determining the amount of that force.

I concur in opinion with the noble Lord. I think it is much better to leave the entire business in the hands of the executive government, than to trust it to grand juries who are irresponsible, and to judges equally irresponsible. I do not approve of the Bill altogether, except so far as it is an improvement upon the mode of managing the constabulary force. The time, I hope, however, is not far distant when the Government in Ireland will not be permitted to have a power entirely arbitrary. The time, I hope, is not far distant when both parties that are now contending in Ireland, and to whom the country is a common victim, and to whom, too, the prosperity of the country is sacrificed, will be completely quieted, and both made subject to the common law of England.

The check there ought to be on those accounts is, a return to this House of all the necessary expenses of the police establishment. I do not think that the judges ought to have any thing to do with it. What I must remark upon the clause now before the House is this, by the previous clauses full authority is given to the Lord-Lieutenant, both as to the regulation and number of the police; and this clause, therefore, is rather in contradiction to the rest of the Bill.

The powers which the grand juries have had hitherto, should, at least, be continued to them. In the county Donegal, it occurred at the last assizes, that the grand jury were required to pay an account incurred very nearly ten years ago. This account was incurred under the Peace Preservation Act; and for such an account it was only necessary to have it vouched upon affidavit before a magistrate, that 700l. had, upon such a voucher, to be paid. Now, accounts upon accounts are obliged to be paid that are voted upon the fiat of a secretary. I really hope that the hon. Member for Mallow will divide the House upon this clause.

I have had some experience upon grand juries, and I must say, that I never knew a body of men look with more jealousy to the items of expenditure submitted to them. I have always had a difficulty in getting them to expend enough. If they have a fault it is too great a dislike to lay out money, even where it is required. I am bound to say, that the Bill, as amended in the Committee, has been altered so as to be completely changed from its-original form.

I have only to observe, when it is said by the hon. Member opposite that grand juries are too parsimonious, that he gives a good reason why they should not have that power over the police which this clause would give them. Our wish is to make the police force as perfectly efficient as possible. As the English Members have been desired to look at this Bill, because it enacts that one-half of the expenses is to be paid out of the consolidated fund, and the other half by the county, I would say that, if you enable grand juries to disallow certain portions of the expenses they may throw upon the consolidated fund more than a fair share of those expenses.

I assure the noble Lord he is entirely mistaken, both as to the object and the meaning of the clause brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow; the objection of the noble Lord is, that it probably would lead the grand juries to reject certain items, for the purpose of lightening the expense on their counties, through view of their anxiety to lighten the burdens on their counties, is certainly not in accordance with that wasteful expenditure which the noble Lord, in common with others at an earlier period of the night, seemed inclined to attribute to them; but if the noble Lord had attentively considered the clause, he would have discovered that were they even inclined to act in a manner which had he known them he would not have suspected them of a disposition so to do; no such power was vested or proposed to be vested in them; all sought for in this clause was, in the event of a case being made out to the satisfaction of the judge, of mistake, overcharge, or fraud, the power should be given to him of examining into, and if he thought fit, disallowing the item objected to; the power to object was to be vested in the grand jury; the power to decide in the judge. In addition to the circumstances brought forward by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Derry, proving the necessity of some such power as this sought for to be given, I will mention what had occurred in the county I had the honour of representing some few years ago. At the assizes, on looking over the certificate for the constabulary expense sent down from the Castle, it was remarked the sum was considerably larger than that of the year preceding, although no addition had been made since that period to the force stationed in the county. A reference was made to the Inspector-General, Major Warburton, who happened to be in the town, and a mistake of some hundred pounds was pointed out by him. As I have mentioned the name of that officer, I cannot refrain from bearing my testimony to the eulogy passed on him by the hon. and gallant officer, the Member for Sligo; whatever political differences there might exist in the province over which he so long presided, all joined in bearing testimony to his private worth and public efficiency. I am glad to find, if there is an arrangement, the country is to have the benefit of his services. I know-no person, from his intelligence and courteous demeanour, more likely to fill a public situation with credit to himself, and advantage to the public, than Major Warburton. It was true this mistake was corrected, but had the judge adhered to the strict letter of the law? He had no document to go on save the Castle certificate; he was expressly forbidden to fiat any presentment until the sum mentioned in that document was voted, and the grand jury would have been compelled to present for the entire sum, or let the whole of the fiscal business of their county drop. To give the judge a discretion in cases of this kind, is the object of the clause then before the House, and as I have I trust, satisfactorily shewn the objection of the noble Lord did not apply to it, I trust the opposition will not be persevered in.

No injury occurred in the instance adverted to by the hon. Gentleman. There the mistake was rectified. The accounts are here to be laid before the Inspector, and the presentment is to be made in consequence. The presentment is to be made upon the authority of a responsible government officer. I certainly must object to the powers being given to a grand jury after the expense has been incurred to say, that it was one that ought not to have been incurred. With every respect for the grand juries, I must say, that I am afraid they would throw the payment of this force upon the public.

The Secretary of the Treasury, it appears, would not desire to leave any power to the grand jury of even making an appeal to the judge, that judge having nothing whatever to do with the property of the county, or the payment of its rates. The judge could not be influenced by the motives which hon. Gentlemen opposite are disposed to attribute to grand juries. It is not to them, it is to be remarked, that power is to be given. Whether this clause will be adopted or not, I do not know; but I am prepared to support the hon. Member for Mallow by voting for it. I must take this opportunity for saying, that the grand juries of Ireland are calumniated upon all occasions for a vast expenditure of the public money, when much more than one-half of the sums levied in the counties, are settled by Acts of Parliament, and they are compelled to make presentments for them. I deny, Sir, that the Irish grand juries are justly liable to the imputations or insinuations made against them; that they are either too niggardly or too extravagant; that they in fact levy any sums that are not absolutely necessary. All that is now sought for on behalf of the grand juries is, to have the power of making out a case, to which, after all, the judge may refuse his sanction. I beg of the noble Lord to consider the imputation which is now cast upon the grand juries; that they would throw upon the consolidated fund sums that ought not to be paid by it, to save themselves expense. We pay the half of the expense, and therefore, we claim a fair investigation of the accounts, that we may fairly consider what ought, and what ought not to be discharged by us. It is certainly contrary to the opinions professed by those on the other side of the House, if they will not allow such a power as this to those who are the representatives of the people.

The presenting Grand Juries should, in my opinion, be a responsible body; and if they were so, I would be entirely opposed to the power being conferred upon the Lord-Lieutenant of forcing the presenting body. But, in the present state of the grand juries, I am apprehensive that the clause of the hon. Member for Mallow would not remedy the mischief complained of, and it would be in collision with the other clauses of this Act. I do not see any benefit to be gained by leaving the matter to the decision of the judge. If the clause were so worded as to be consistent with the other provisions of the Bill, and to give a controlling power to the grand juries, it would be intelligible; but, leaving it merely to the judge, makes the clause such that I cannot support it. I would call upon the hon. Member to reconsider the clause.

This Bill gives the power to the Lord-Lieutenant of putting his hands in the pockets of the people, and making them pay certain expenses. Surely, the grand juries ought to have the right of considering the question of what money they ought justly to pay. This power, at least, should be conferred to the grand juries. As an Englishman, I certainly feel bound to support the Irish Gentlemen by my vote when their proposition is, that having to pay expenses, they ought to have the power of inspecting the accounts.

Does the hon. Gentleman know that it is competent for the judge to refuse his assent to a presentment if it be illegal. In the case of an illegal presentment, upon the grand jury showing that it is illegal, the judge will not fiat it; but, then, when the amount is disputed, how are you to ascertain the proper amount? Is it the judge who is to decide the matter of fact? Is it a jury of rate-payers who are to be summoned to determine the amount? Who is to he counsel for the rate? Nobody; but there are to he twelve counsel against it in the jury box. Really, Sir, the Irish Judges have enough to do at present. The Irish grand juries have also enough to do; those innocents, upon whom the hon. Member for Sligo has pronounced an eulogium, have quite enough to do, and they should not be troubled with any more business. Besides, if it so happened that by any chance the police in a particular county were active in a sense contrary to that which a grand jury thought (rightly thought, of course) they ought to be, there would be an infinitely more severe scrutiny into the accounts of that police force, and nothing would more gratify the grand jury than disallowing the items necessary for their maintenance. This is human nature, and I do not think that you possibly could, with safety to the Bill, admit this clause. A portion of the expenses, it is to he remarked, are to he paid out of the consolidated fund. You have, then, in this House the opportunity of seeing those accounts. You must have those accounts annually printed; and some Member, I am quite sure, will tale care to look at them. For my part, I think the entire sum ought to be paid out of the consolidated fund. I think that the general Government ought to pay for the peace of the country, and the expense not be placed upon particular districts.

I think the principle is certainly in favour of the amendment, for I know no more just cause of complaint on the part of the Irish grand juries than the various compulsory presentments which were brought before them, where they could exercise no discretion, while they had to bear all the odium of the heavy charges of which those compulsory presentments constituted the principal part. He thought it but reasonable, that if there was an obvious mistake, or an improper charge in the police accounts, that there should be a power in the grand jury to bring such mistake or error under the consideration of the judge, and that if both the court and grand jury concurred in its impropriety, they should not be constrained to allow it. It was new in hon. Gentlemen opposite to object to this influence of popular control, and the noble Lord seemed so much in love with the increased power the Irish Government was to derive under this Bill, that he was unwilling they should be subjected to any control whatever.

I think it is a great hardship upon the Irish grand juries that they are not to have any control over the police force. Supposing that we had, what we have not now, an arbitrary Government, and the police was entirely at the command of that Government, and it thought fit to increase that force far beyond what was necessary, who could be the proper persons to control them but the grand juries? I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that we ought to have a better control over the grand juries than we have at present, I should like to see them chosen by the people, yet I think it is only fair that they should have some check or control over a police force.

(Dublin U.) There ought to be some power given to the grand juries of reviewing and checking the accounts; one hon. Member has shown the advantage of such powers being exercised by grand juries. There might be a mistake to a very large amount,; and, if a grand jury can point out a very great mistake, surely it must be admitted that the county should not be charged with it. It is said, on the other hand,, that the consolidated fund is to pay one-half; but if there be any neglect in checking the accounts, and the consolidated fund has paid more than it ought, is that any reason that the county should be brought into like mischief? It has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that items will be disallowed, of which there is prima facie evidence of their illegality. But how is the matter to be investigated by the grand jury? They are bound by the accounts furnished to them by Government. The whole onus then lies upon them of satisfying the judge of the mistake. What I desire is, that the grand jury should have the power of satisfying the judge that there has been a mistake in the accounts; that there are items for which the county ought not to be chargeable. I want the opportunity to be given to them of making that case, taking upon themselves the onus of satisfying- the judge. It is a most monstrous proposition that the county is to be chargeable with items that it ought not to pay. It has been said by the Secretary of the Treasury, that after the expense has been incurred, there will be a reluctance in the county to defray it. The grand jury will have no such power; but they ought to have the power of shewing that an improper charge has been made against them, as when there was a mistake of 700l. charged against the county. Surely, in such a case as that, it ought to be left to the grand jury to be able to show, to the satisfaction of the judge, that such a mistake was committed; at least, for the time, they ought to have the power of refusing the item, and affording an opportunity for revision; but the opportunity, at least, ought to be given to them.

:The following clause appears to have been lost sight of in this discussion. The noble Lord then proceeded to read the clause, which was as follows:— "That each such pay-master shall keep accounts of all sums received, and of all payments and disbursements made on account of the constabulary force in each county; and that such accounts shall be made up once in every month, and oftener if required, and transmitted to the said inspector-general; and that all such accounts shall be made up half-yearly, and a copy of each such half-yearly account delivered to the secretary of the grand jury at every spring and summer assizes, and be by him laid before such grand jury, who shall inspect the same, and if they shall so think fit, examine the said paymaster, on oath, as to any matter or thing contained in such account; and such pay-master shall, for that purpose, attend such grand jury, if so required, and submit to such examination; and the foreman of such grand jury shall transmit each such half-yearly account to the said inspector-general, with such re-marks thereon as such grand jury shall think fit to make." Now, I beg distinctly to disclaim any disrespect to the grand juries or judges of Ireland. All I say is this, that I do not think that the judges of Ireland are not as fit persons to confide the peace of the country to as the Government, nor are the grand juries of Ireland such competent auditors of accounts as the Lords of the Treasury.

I think that the Accounts should be submitted annually to the Parliament. With respect to the clause proposed by my hon. Friend, I do not think that he can gain much by dividing the House upon it; and I express my hope that he will not divide the House. I think that the practicable operation of the clause read by the noble Lord will be equal to, and at least as great, as the clause brought up to-night.

I must take this opportunity of repelling an attack made on a gallant officer and meritorious public servant, Sir Frederick Stoven, by the hon. Member for Londonderry. The charge was that of undue favour shown towards the Catholic portion of the police, at the expense of the Protestant. I felt upon the occasion that enough was said of the general character of the gallant Colonel, to satisfy every feeling he could entertain. With that keen susceptibility to reproach, in the discharge of his public functions, for which no one can condemn him, he is anxious to couple with an indignant denial of any improper motive, the fullest explanation of the minutest details of his conduct with respect to which I feel it due to him to submit to the House the following statement. The noble Lord read the following Document:—

"Ulster Police, February 25th, 1836. Protestants, total force 1,048; Catholics, 202; 1 to 5–30. Dismissals since Sir Frederick Stoven took charge in February, 1834:—Protestants, 91; Catholics, 25; 1 to 3–16. Total constables:—Protestant, 196; 1 to 5–48; Catholics, 24; 1 to 8–10 of total force. Constables disrated:—Protestants, 9; Catholics, 2; 1 to 4–1. Constables promoted by Sir Frederick Stoven:—Protestan'ts, 33; Catholics, 8; 1 to 4–1. Cause of promotion of the eight Catholics. One for taking a murderer. One as a reward for honesty, for returning Bank-notes found to the Director of the Provincial Bank, Armagh. One a discharged sergeant of the 65th regiment, taken for a drill, and a remarkably fine looking man, and most respectable in every way. One by the Inspector-general, for his appearance and intelligence, and on the recommendation of a magistrate. Four on recommendation of the sub-inspectors."

In making this explanation, I think I have done more than was necessary. I need not disclaim the wish to revive any irritating discussion, especially as the person from whom the matter of accusation proceeded, is, it appears no longer living; but thus much I have said from a wish to do justice to the upright and high-spirited character, the professional reputation, and the official services of a person to whom I am the more willing to tender this expression of respect, as I fear the Government is likely soon to lose the benefit of his services.

I am very sorry for the absence of my hon. Friend, the Member for the county of Londonderry (Sir Robert Bateson), the more particularly as it is caused by his indisposition; but I do not think the noble Lord has accurately represented the statement my hon. Friend has made on the occasion in question. He (Sir Robert Bateson) did not himself charge Sir Frederick Stoven with any act of partiality, but merely repeated an observation that had been made to him by a chief constable, that it would be in vain to make a complaint of some inferior officer because he was a Roman Catholic. This certainly might be understood to imply an accusation that there was not perfect impartiality observed, as between persons of different religious persuasions. I have not the honour of being personally acquainted with Sir Frederick Stoven, but I have always heard him considered as a military man, an officer of distinguished merit. I must, however, add that, politically speaking, it was the general impression in Ireland that Sir Frederick Stoven was in politics a strong partisan.

The right hon. Gentleman gave Sir Frederick Stoven the best possible character in everything, save that he was guilty of the crime of partiality. But he forgot to state that the Member for Londonderry did not name his informant until some time after. Now, the Northern Whig stated, that the man died so long since as the 5th of November, and it was not till the other day that the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Bateson) thought of hitting upon the dead man as his informant. It reminds me of the story that occurred at Canton. A native was killed by one of the crew of an East-Indiaman. According to the custom there, the man who slew the Chinese was demanded. His commander did not wish to give him up; but, luckily, another man died, and he was sent to the authorities at Canton, the captain of the vessel stating that he had put him to death in consequence of his having slain a Chinese. So it was with the hon. Baronet. When pressed for the name of his informant, he refers us to a dead body. With respect to the relative number of Protestants and Catholics promoted in the police under Sir Frederick Stoven, as read by the noble Lord, I am by no means satisfied with it, as I think the number of Roman Catholics bears no fair proportion to the whole number. But a new system was now about to be introduced, and he hoped all parties would have fair play for the future.

The imputation sought to be cast upon my hon. Friend (Sir Robert Bateson) is most unjustifiable, and like most of the hon. Member's statements is not supported by fact. On the night the debate took place, my hon. Friend told me and other hon. Members near me at the time, that Mr. Curry was his informant; therefore, it was not an afterthought as insinuated by the learned Member for Dublin. My hon. Friend, the Member for the city of Londonderry, is incapable of such conduct. With respect to the statement of the learned Member, that the number of Roman Catholics in the police bears no fair proportion to their numerical force, I must call to the recollection of hon. Members, that no man could be admitted into the police until it was ascertained that he could write a despatch. Now, it is a notorious fact, and I regret it, that the generality of the poorer classes of Roman Catholics could not write at all; and, therefore, many a Roman Catholic who had been recommended for a situation in the police, was rejected in consequence of his being unable to write.

in pursuance of his notice on the paper, rose to move for a Committee to inquire into the administration of the Royal Dublin Society, with a view to the wider extension of the advantage of the annual parliamentary grant to that institution, without reference to the distinctions of party or religion. The society was instituted more than a century ago, having for its object the promotion of literature and science, and the encouragement of agriculture, manufactures, and the arts. It has connected with it a botanic garden, a library, a museum, schools of design, architecture, and drawing, and professorships filled by gentlemen who deliver lectures in the different branches of experimental and mathematical science. He was not disposed to deny, that this society had been advantageous; but he would say, there had been an impression for some time prevalent, that it had not been so advantageous as it might have been made, and that, therefore, an inquiry should take place on the part of this House, with the view of rectifying this defect. This had been his opinion for several years. It was generally thought the society had too much the character of a club, that it was not sufficiently accessible to the public at large, and that, according to its present constitution, a power existed in a certain party of excluding gentlemen, however respectable they might he, if their views were not in harmony with the feelings of that party. He (Mr. O'Brien) felt this so strongly to be objectionable in the constitution of the society last year, that he took the liberty of calling the attention of his Majesty's Government to the subject. He did so upon general principles, not expecting that this evil would be so strongly illustrated as it had been within the last few months, by the expulsion of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin—a man who was respected by all who could appreciate piety and learning—a man so cautious of giving offence to persons of opinions opposite to his own, that he has abstained from taking any part in the great political movements of his day; yet this man, whose conduct was every way so consistent with the true character of the Christian Bishop, had been selected as an object for the exercise of that exclusive power to which he adverted, and had been refused admittance into the society. He was excluded by the exercise of an arbitrary power on the part of a few members of that society, and it was for this House to say whether these persons should be any longer at liberty to apply the grant made to them by Parliament, to such bigotted and party purposes. The opinion he (Mr. O'Brien) entertained was in accordance with that of the Committee which sat in 1829, whose recommendation he would take the liberty of stating to the House. They were of opinion, "that admission to the society by ballot was objectionable and should be discontinued, and that the subscription being fixed at such an amount as might be deemed expedient, any person contributing the same should be considered as entitled to all the advantages the society is calculated to afford." By the authority of his Majesty's Government, Lord Francis Egerton wrote to the society, calling their attention to this recommendation of the Committee, but their answer was, that their mode of proceeding was strictly in accordance with the terms of the charter by which they were incorporated. He (Mr. O'Brien) knew not whether any inquiry had been made by preceding Governments, but the late operations of the society were of so peculiar a nature, that they had naturally attracted the notice of the present Government in Ireland, who having appointed a Committee to inquire into the constitution of it, they submitted to the society a series of propositions, which he would not trouble the House by reading, but simply state what the effect of them was. They proposed, that all elections in future shall be made by the majority of the members of the society, that the terms of admission shall be lowered, that the administration of its affairs shall be vested in the hands of a council, subjected to an audit of their accounts, and that the newspapers shall no longer form one of the accessaries of the institution. These propositions the council have thought fit to reject, he would not say contumeliously, but with the utmost determination not to give any reason for their rejection—it was for the House then to say, when they find a society composed of members whose subscriptions were trifling, compared with the amount of the parliamentary grant, thus setting at nought alike the recommendations of the House and of the Irish Government, whether it was not at least time they should consider of the propriety or impropriety of annexing some conditions to the next advance made to them out of the national purse? it was with this view, and for the other reasons he had stated, he now proposed the appointment of the Committee, a proposition which he considered to be strengthened by the fact, that they were at this moment engaged in a similar inquiry into an institution analogous to the Dublin Society—he alluded to the British Museum. He was happy to find that there was no disposition on the part of his Majesty's Government to oppose the motion. He did not wish to anticipate objections, but he could imagine that possibly there might be some on the part of hon. Members as to the latter part of his motion; if so, and he found them to be urged as important, to avoid collision he should feel inclined to leave out the part which was found to be offensive.

said, that as no member of the Government seemed inclined to rise for the purpose of stating to the House the course which they intended to pursue with reference to the present motion, he felt bound to say a few words on behalf of the society to which the attention of the House had been drawn, and which he considered to have been very unjustly as sailed. The Dublin Society was, he believed, the only public institution in Ireland supported by any grant pf the public money, which had for its object the diffusion of scientific knowledge, the encouragement of the arts, and the cultivation of the native talent, energies, and industry of the people of that country. The society had existed for above a century; it was incorporated in the year 1749, expressly "for promoting husbandry, and the other useful arts in Ireland." It had enjoyed the bounty of the Irish Parliament before the Union, and since had received comparatively small annual grants from the Imperial Legislature. He (Mr. Shaw) did not believe that it was even alleged that there had been a misapplication of the public money intrusted to its charge—as for the newspapers which had been mentioned, the society declared that the expenses of the news-room were defrayed by private contribution, of which a very large proportion went to the support of public objects—but the accusation which the society had to meet was, that it was a bigotted and intolerant political body. It was not, he apprehended, denied that the schools, the lectures, the library, the museum, the exhibitions, and all the public departments of the institution, were accessible, and to the utmost extent rendered useful, to all classes of society in Ireland, without distinction of party, politics, or religion. The charge, in short, resolved itself into one having reference to the admission of members, and amounted in fact to this—that although within the last thirty years eight hundred members had been admitted indiscriminately as regarded religious and political opinions—five only having been rejected during that entire period—yet that of those five the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell), was one—and Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, another—thereby hung (without meaning a pun upon the word) the tale of the present opposition—and it meant neither more nor less than that the society was to be sacrificed, because these gentlemen were black-beaned. An excellent letter had been addressed on the subject to the Lord-Lieutenant, by a gentleman much more competent than he (Mr. Shaw) was to speak to the merits of the society, and [who would be much freer from the suspicion of political partiality—he meant Dr. Meyler, and he would beg to read the following extracts. The letter was in answer to the charge that the Dublin Society was "an intolerant political club." Upon this point Dr. Meyler observed—

"This is so much the country of reckless and unfounded assertion in the absence of all knowledge or inquiry, that perhaps it may not be improper of me, in the first instance, to state to your Excellency my sources of information on the subject that I now take leave to have the honour of addressing you. I have been for the last twenty-five years, an active member of the Dublin Society, I have constantly attended its meetings, sat on its committees—I have been practically conversant with all its internal and external arrangements—I am neither an Orangeman nor Conservative, but on principle strongly adverse both to the views and measures of both these associations, I think, therefore, I may claim for myself being a competent as well as an impartial evidence. The Dublin Society, like similar associations, necessarily consists of individuals of all creeds and of all shades of political opinion. If the society, had, as a body, identified itself, by passing resolutions or otherwise, with any of the religious or political opinions of its members, it would then be liable to the charges that have been made against it. In the first place and in the most explicit terms, I deny that it has ever done so. Let those who say otherwise, and thus calumniate the society, substantiate the charge. I have looked over the printed proceedings of the society, and I have not been able to find in them the expression of any religious or political opinion whatsoever. During the period that I have had the honour of being a member of the society, I can distinctly aver I never knew of a religious or political opinion placed before the society for their discussion. I never in the Board-room heard even the most remote allusion to those unhappy questions of national disunion. Nay more, I am in the habit of frequenting the library and conversation-room, where the members of the society may be said to meet only in their individual capacity; such perfect good-breeding prevails in this so called intolerant society, that I can declare that these subjects are more unpleasantly alluded to, and I never heard an observation that the most sensitive Roman Catholic could be offended at."

The letter continued—

"I regret that Dr. Murray was not, on the late occasion, admitted a member of the Dublin Society; not because he happened to be a Roman Catholic bishop, but because he is an amiable individual, whose manners qualify him to move in any station—whose fine and well-cultivated intellect would render him a valuable acquisition to any literary or scientific society in whose proceedings he would interest himself; in fact, Dr. Murray ought to rejoice in the vote of those gentlemen, when even the representative of majesty thought it a becoming occasion to take the unusual step of descending from the vice-regal pedestal to reprove the society in his behalf. It would appear also from the uncalled for" [he (Mr. Shaw) hoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord Morpeth) would excuse him for quoting the following passage]—"and exceedingly ill-judged letter of Lord Morpeth—that your Excellency had contemplated to offer up to him the society itself as a propitiation and a sacrifice. The country is to be deprived of the society's professors—the museum is to be closed—the drawing and modelling schools are to be shut on the mechanics—the valuable light afforded to the arts is to be extinguished—the plough-share is to be driven through the botanic garden—the Dublin Society itself is to be extinguished—its members, its objects, its labours are as nothing—because it blackbeaned Dr. Murray."

He believed, as was stated in another part of the same letter, that at the period at which Dr. Murray offered himself to the society was very unfortunate for his prospects of success. He had connected himself with the publication of a work which had justly caused much public excitement and disgust in the minds of the Protestant population in Ireland, and he had stepped from his former comparative retirement to become the political partizan of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, by subscribing to what was termed his tribute; but, at all events, was it fitting that a mere personal matter of that nature between the society and an individual should have been made the ground of attack by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland upon a useful public institution? He must say, for one, that he considered the course taken by the Lord-Lieutenant in this instance unbecoming his station, derogatory to the dignity of his office, and much more suited to the atmosphere of that noble Lord's former government, than to the free spirit of a body of independent Irish gentlemen. As regarded the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland personally, he made these observations with regret, as both personally and officially he (Mr. S.) had experienced courtesy from the noble Lord—but, both as a Member of that House and as an Irishman, he considered it his duty plainly to speak his sentiments of the conduct that had been pursued by the Irish Government in respect of the transaction then under consideration. He would ask the noble Lord opposite, (Lord Morpeth) would such an interference have been used in the affairs of the Dublin Society had it been a Protestant instead of a Roman Catholic Bishop who had been rejected? He (Mr. Shaw) was persuaded, that had any propositions been submitted to the Dublin Society by the Irish Government in a spirit of candour and fair dealing and with a bonâ fide view of improving its regulations, or to a wider extension of its advantages, they would have been enter- tained with the utmost respect, and received the fullest consideration; but he must say, that considering the trifling and vexatious nature, and the unworthy object of the recent interference on the part of the Government, and their obvious attempt at arbitrary dictation to the independent gentlemen composing that society, they were, in his opinion, perfectly justified in acting as they had done. He (Mr. Shaw) would not have objected to the present motion, if he believed that the object was inquiry; but he certainly would object and divide the House upon it, because he was satisfied that censure and not inquiry was the real object intended.

did not wish to put himself forward in the present discussion, the more particularly as it might be said the Government was in a state of collision with the society. He considered that the Committee proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick, would be the proper tribunal to mediate between the two parties; and, therefore, it was that he regretted that from the turn the debate had taken, he was forced to take a more prominent part in it than under the circumstances he could have wished. It was his opinion, that if certain objections to the society could be removed, it might be continued so as to be most advantageous to Ireland; but he did not believe that the society was conducted at present so as to insure in the most satisfactory manner results so desirable. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had read several extracts from a letter published in the newspapers by Dr. Meyler. It was Dot his intention to enter into the lists with Dr. Meyler; but he must be permitted to say, that he did not think Dr. Meyler was accurately informed when he denied that the society had devoted some portion of its funds in supplying the reading-room with newspapers. In 1829 a Committee of the House of Commons sat to inquire into the Irish Estimates generally; and it appeared in evidence before that Committee, that the newspapers and reviews furnished to the reading-room were paid for out of the private subscriptions; but since that period he was informed that the expense was defrayed out of the public fund. Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) asserted, that this attack upon the society had proceeded from the Government solely on political grounds. He must deny the justice of the statement; for independently and antecedently to the rejection of Dr. Murray, when, in fact, he (Viscount Morpeth) had first arrived in Ireland, his attention had been called to various improvements which it was considered were capable of being effected in the society, and which, if successful, might have induced Parliament to increase the grant. With this view the Irish Government proceeded to consider what the nature of the proposed improvements were, and a correspondence was opened with the society, with a view of carrying these improvements into effect. But he (Viscount Morpeth) would not deny the fact, he had no wish to conceal it, that his desire to bring the consideration of the grant before Parliament was accelerated by the exclusion of Dr. Murray. He (Viscount Morpeth) would repeat, that the exclusion of such a man, from a society endowed by a grant of public money—that the exclusion of a man so gifted by nature and acquirements, and filling the high station which he did, could not be otherwise considered by the great body of the people than an insult—but, above all, the exclusion of a person so distinguished by his own personal qualifications—by unaffected piety—and by Christian virtue, before whose venerable person even strife itself stood abashed, he would repeat, that the exclusion of such a man, from the society, could only be intended as an insult to the majority of the people. He had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) whether, if a Protestant Prelate had been rejected by the society, the Government would have taken umbrage at such an act? In reply, he could only say, that if such a Protestant Bishop as Dr. Brinkley was, and Dr. Whately is, had been excluded from the society, he should have thought it a ground of just complaint, and should have felt himself bound to ask Parliament whether or no a grant ought to be continued to a literary society that excluded men on the score either of religious or party feeling. In giving his consent to the appointment of the Committee, he did go in the hope that the advantages the society was calculated to confer on Ireland, so far from being checked, would be continued and perpetuated.

said, if the motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of the Dublin Society were really proposed with a view to extend the usefulness of the society, as it professed to be in the introductory part of it; if it were intended to achieve such objects by granting the Committee, he, for one, so far from objecting to such an inquiry, would give the motion his most cordial support. But when he looked to the concluding terms of the notice, he could not but feel bound to resist it. The terms in which the notice was couched were extremely offensive, and too plainly indicated its real object. The terms were—"To inquire into the administration of the Royal Dublin Society, with a view to the wider extension of the advantages of the annual parliamentary grant, without reference to the distinction of party or religion." It appeared to him (Mr. Lefroy) that a direct imputation was cast upon the society, of having misapplied its funds under the influence of party spirit or religious bigotry; there was no foundation for such a charge; the real offence was, that the society had exercised a right of rejection in an instance not quite palatable to certain persons in that House. This, which is the real charge against the society, had been scarcely concealed by the hon. Member who submitted the motion, and had been reiterated by the noble Viscount who had just sat down. What was the ground of charge preferred against the society, which was the front of their offending? It was this—that they had rejected an individual who happened to be thought well of by the noble Viscount (Viscount Morpeth), and by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The Dublin Society had admitted from time to time upwards of 800 members; it had no exclusive rules—and in practice so far from being an exclusive society, they had admitted men of all religions, and of every hue of politics. And was he (Mr. Lefroy) to be told, that such a body were not competent to make rules for the regulation of the society—and that because agreeably to those rules, they had thought fit to exclude a certain individual, that, therefore, they were to be stigmatised by a vote of that House? Was he to be told, that the opinion of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—high in station as he was—that his Excellency's opinion was to be put in competition with that of the whole of this most respectable body? The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, by adopting the course he had done, claimed not merely the right of a veto, but the actual nomination of all the persons who were to belong to the society. Was it, he would ask, just or fair, because the society exercised the right of private judgment, that they were to be dealt with in the manner now proposed? Was it just to subject them to pains and penalties, because in the exercise of that judgment, they rejected an individual whom they considered not desirable to admit into their society? When he considered the usefulness of the society—its long continuance, and that now, for the first time, the exercise of its judgment was questioned, he must say, that the course adopted by the Irish Government savoured of tyranny and oppression. What sort of liberality was this from those who claimed, exclusively, the title of liberals, to make their own judgment the only standard for others? It was impossible any man could imagine that the object of the proposed inquiry was to extend the usefulness of the society the silly and trifling details into which the hon. Mover had gone with respect to the newspapers—the admission of members for pounds instead of guineas, and other equally trivial suggestions, showed that he had no real grounds on the score of misapplication of the funds to sustain the motion. The object, therefore, was manifestly with a view of dragooning the society, and of telling them that if they did not bow down before the dictation of the Irish Government, and make the amende to the Lord-Lieutenant, they were to be deprived of the national grant. If such were not the object, why were the topics introduced into the motion which had been, and why was it supported by the noble Lord? In his opinion it would be much more manly, at once, on the part of the Government to say, we will not give you this grant because you refused to admit Dr. Murray. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by stating his determination to oppose the motion.

said, the rejection of Dr. Murray did not speak the sentiments of the whole society; for, by the rules of the society, a power of rejection was vested in the minority which ruled the decisions of the society. He should certainly, when the question was brought on, vote against granting a sum of 5,000l. a-year to an institution of which the minority (and he knew that Dr. Murray was rejected by the minority) could direct the proceedings for party purposes.

said, it appeared to him that no case whatever had been made out for inquiry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down could not surely have considered the subject, when he said that the minority of the society controlled the majority. It was true that, according to the by-law, a certain number of black-balls excluded, but it was competent for the society to call a general meeting, and rescind that by-law, that is, if the majority considered it advisable so to do. Therefore, according to the argument of the Attorney-General for Ireland, all that was necessary to do was to convene a general meeting of the Society, and the majority of the Society being (as the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. O'Loghlen, said) favourable to the admission of Dr. Murray, the by-law must of course be rescinded, and the reverend gentleman at once become a member. It was impossible to conceal it—indeed the noble Lord scarcely attempted to do so—that this inquiry was sought solely on the ground of the exclusion of Dr. Murray, notwithstanding that for thirty years only five persons had altogether been refused admission. As to the newspapers being paid for out of the public funds, he was sure that the slightest intimation from the Castle would put a stop to the practice. It was, therefore, idle to suppose that a Parliamentary inquiry was necessary for such a subject, and if his right hon. Friends should press the matter to a division, he (Sir E. K.) should certainly support them.

said, before an inquiry were instituted, it was necessary that a case should be made out against the society; but the only complaint preferred by the noble Lord regarded the payment of a few newspapers. The society had existed for upwards of 100 years, and had conferred great benefits on Ireland, For the last thirty years five persons only had been rejected. The learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) was one of those rejected, but surely that was no reason why the despotic interference of the Government should be interposed in the way it had been attempted. It was the privilege of every society to choose their own associates, and no person could surely accuse the society of bigotry, when it was an ascertained fact, that in that period eight hundred members were admitted, and only five rejected. It was not the fact, as stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, that Dr. Murray was excluded by a minority. The by-law was framed by the majority—a bare majority was capable of making it, and a bare majority could rescind it. It was manifest that the object was to give the Lord-Lieutenant the power of nomination of members of the society in the same way as he is to appoint constables. If the society submitted to the dictation of the Irish Government, and that they afterwards elected him, he should consider himself disgraced rather than honoured by the election. The noble Lord said, that if such a Protestant as Dr. Whateley had been rejected, he would have taken equal umbrage at it. He believed Dr. Whately was Archbishop of Dublin; if so, he (Col. Perceval) was not surprised at it, as Dr. Whateley was known to hold opinions in unison with those professed by Dr. Murray and the noble Lord opposite.

said, that an English Member (Sir E. Knatchbull) having spoken, he felt no delicacy in giving his opinion, which was, that a sufficient case had been made out for inquiry, on the sole grounds of misapplication of its funds. It was his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion that the House had nothing to do with the rejection of Dr. Murray, and his vote would be given, if the question were pressed to a division, on totally distinct grounds from that rejection.

said, he should support the proposition of his hon. Friend for inquiry. As it appeared to him, the ballot ought not to be retained in a society obtaining grants of public money. He regretted the mention that had been made of Dr. Murray. If the principle of the ballot were admitted, it was not the province of that House to interfere with its exercise; nor was it a matter of much moment to the House whether Dr. Murray, Dr. Whately, or Lord John Beresford were members of the Society. In his opinion, it would have been more consistent with the dignity of the House, and more in accordance with the feelings of the respected individual, if his name were not introduced.

was bound to admit that the circumstance of Dr. Murray's rejection alone would not have been sufficient grounds for Parliamentary inquiry. The strong case was this, that the Government had proposed a series of regulations to the society which they had rejected; and, therefore, when the Government had to propose a grant for a society with which they were in collision, he thought the House was bound to step in and arbitrate between them.