moved the Second Reading of the Arrest for Debt (Ireland) Bill, which had for its object that no man be imprisoned for a debt under 20l. His wish was to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in this respect. There was no good reason why it should not be so; for Ireland was the poorer country, and, consequently, stood in greater need of the intervention of the Legislature. He had heard no objection urged against the principle of the Bill; it had been published throughout Ireland for upwards of a month, yet there was not a single petition against it. The failure of the potato crop rendered thousands unable to meet their little engagements; and, under the present law, they would be thrown into gaol, or else be compelled to fly from their homes in order to avoid the civil bill process. It became, therefore, the more incumbent on Parliament to interfere at this particular crisis. He did not now ask the House to proceed with the Bill at once, but only to sanction its principle by assenting to its second reading. It might then be committed proformâ, and referred to a Committee up stairs, who would examine into its details. He would prefer the Government taking charge of the measure; and if the Solicitor General for Ireland would do so he would not urge any claim to its paternity. He had consulted several legal gentlemen in Ireland, who were all in favour of it, as was, indeed, generally speaking, the whole Irish bar, even the law adviser to the Lord Lieutenant. He had already postponed it at the request of the Government, and did not think he should be doing justice to the merits of the measure if he asked for a further postponement. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.

did not deem it consistent with his duty to accede to the second reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was by one sweeping clause at once to abolish arrestment for debt in Ireland where the amount did not exceed 20l. Now, those who were aware — as many Gentlemen in that House were — of the number of debts contracted in Ireland the amount of which did not exceed 20l., would at once see what an immense change in the law, and of what had hitherto been the rights of creditors, would be effected by a Bill of this description. He did not mean to say that this was not a matter deserving the serious consideration of any body interested in the well-being of the country and the advancement of the people; but certainly it was utterly impossible that the House could accede to a measure of this description unless they meant to give facilities that did not at present exist in Ireland to prevent the payment of debts to bonâ fide creditors. No one entertained a greater sympathy than he did for the man who in an honest spirit contracted a debt which he afterwards had not the means to discharge; but he had no sympathy for the man who dishonestly contracted a debt which he fraudulently and dishonestly withheld from the bonâ fide creditor. He hoped the House would excuse the deficiencies which he himself felt in addressing them on this occasion. It was the first time he had had the honour to address the House. He had been for so short a time a Member of it, and his time had really been so much occupied since he came from Ireland, that he had not been able to give his attention to the safeguards which it would be absolutely necessary to provide before the principles of a Bill of this description could be acceded to. A Bill precisely similar to that now brought forward by his hon. Friend was passed for England in the 7th and 8th of Victoria; but the country felt that this was such an imperfect act of legislation, that next Session very considerable safeguards were introduced for the protection of creditors—safeguards which, unfortunately, could not at present be extended to Ireland. In England there were commissioners of bankrupts all over the country, and local judges, before whom all cases of debt under 20l. came for adjudication, and by the decisions of which the property of the debtor was rendered available for the payment of the debt. But they had no such judges in Ireland—no machinery similar to that of England to carry out a Bill of this kind. He felt bound, therefore, on various grounds, to oppose the Bill. At the same time, he might state that this matter was under his serious consideration. He could not pledge himself at that moment to any particular course; but he had no hesitation in saying, that he would lay before Her Majesty's advisers a measure to be submitted to that House. If the hon. Gentleman, therefore, would leave the matter in his hands, he would, as indeed he was now doing, give it his best consideration, the result of which would be submitted to Her Majesty's Government, and probably adopted by them. If, however, this suggestion were not acceded to by the hon. Gentleman, he must feel it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

, though generally favourable to the assimilation of the Irish to the English law, must oppose the present Bill, which, owing to the different circumstances of the two countries, would in his opinion operate most injuriously in Ireland. After the statement of the hon. Member, he would not trespass on the patience of the House. However desirable it might be to assimilate the law of arrest in Ireland to the law as it existed in England, he was of opinion that there were faults in the latter which were of great magnitude. He was satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the learned Solicitor General.

thanked the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford for bringing in this Bill, of which Ireland at this moment stood greatly in need. He knew that hundreds were confined in the gaols of that country for debts of 5s., 6s., and 7s., whilst their wives and children at home were in a state of starvation, and had not a farthing to pay off the demand. He hoped the Solicitor General would very soon redeem his pledge, and that the Irish law in this respect would undergo a complete revision and alteration.

said, he had put his name to the back of the Bill because he had himself seen in Ireland the most painful and shocking effects of the present law. He believed the object of the hon. Member who brought forward the Bill was, to a certain degree, to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. The law in Ireland was, it could not be denied, as regarded debtor and creditor, in a deplorable condition, and contrasted most unfavourably with our recent legislation for the people of England in this regard. It was impossible for a traveller in Ireland who entered the gaols there not to be struck with the enormous number of poor people who were confined therein for debts so ridiculously small that the release of them was often a piece of amusement. In some cases persons had been imprisoned in the Irish gaols for two or three years for debts not exceeding 10s.; in fact they were kept there to gratify the revenge of the creditors. At present there was what he might justly term an extreme facility of civil bill process. Fictitious suits were, in consequence of this facility, often got up, and persons often got up a Bill against their near relative for diet and lodging, and placed those persons whom they were bound to maintain in the county gaol. The effect of the present system was, that the Irish gaols were crowded with persons whom public opinion in this country would not suffer to be incarcerated for a single hour. He supposed the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford would not meet with much support among the lawyers on account of its painful simplicity and brevity. He feared that if the matter was now postponed, the Government would avail themselves of the very valid excuse which they would have, that the pressure of public business would not allow them to bring it forward during the present Session, and so the evil would remain to its full extent.

thought a Bill of this kind imperatively called for in Ireland. There was the greatest degree of persecution inflicted on the poor of Ireland by this power of arrestment. To that power was to be traced the fact that no fewer than 2,000 processes had been issued at Castlebar against poor tenants for sums which they were wholly unable to pay, and which might be used against them for the most oppressive purposes. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would not forget his pledge. He felt the need of some such measure for Ireland, and he therefore considered it to be his duty to urge the subject upon the consideration of the Government.

opposed the Bill, observing that the very announcement of the measure spread alarm among the citizens of Dublin, because while it proposed at one "fell swoop" to abolish imprisonment for debt, it did not provide any substitute for recovering just and bonâ fide debts. Still he was glad the subject had been taken up by Government; and he trusted, after the pledge of the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, the Bill would be withdrawn.

hoped the Government would pay attention to this subject. The greatest evils resulted from civil bill process for debt. He had received a letter, which he now held in his hand, from a competent authority, in which the writer stated that the assistant barrister for the county of Mayo was almost wholly occupied with these civil bill processes, by which poor cottiers were turned from their farms. [Mr. SHAW: You mean ejectments.] He meant nothing of the kind. He knew the difference very well, and he now held in his hand three of those self-same civil bill processes. The writer stated, that at Ballina and that neighbourhood the landlords were resorting to the civil bill process in order to clear their estates; for the poor wretched peasant who had, owing to the destruction of his potato crop, no means of paying his debts, flew from his home sooner than be thrown into prison and separated from his wife and children; and in this way the landlord obtained possession, and his object was achieved. This system was in that part of the country to a great extent successful. At the quarter-sessions in Ballina, on the 11th of January, between 1,500 and 2,000 of those civil bill processes were tried, and that number actually proceeded to entry and decree. But there was a far larger number in which the parties did not appear at all, but the same effect was produced, and the same object gained, the clearance of the lands. The usual process was for landlords to distrain for their rents; but this did not take place until after the rent was due for some months. But in the cases he had mentioned, some of the Mayo landlords, by making use of the civil bill process, or threatening arrests for the debt, succeeded much better, more speedily, and effectually in clearing the land, than if the ejectments were resorted to. He was assured that the prisons there were almost full of a starving peasantry, whilst their families and children were also starving outside the walls, and thousands upon thousands were obliged to emigrate from their native place and wander to the quays of Drogheda or Belfast, whence they soon found their way to Liverpool, Bristol, or some other English port. He had received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Neary, the parish priest of Tyrawley, in the county of Mayo, which stated that there were in that parish, in September last, 1,000 families; but at the present moment, owing to the above mode which the landlords of that county resorted to for the purpose of getting rid of the surplus population, there were not more than 500. The rev. gentleman further stated, that not more than thirty families in that parish possessed the means of maintaining themselves; and that he verily believed, if the landlords were allowed to go on, before August next, there would not be two hundred souls there. The poor people so ejected formed a large number of those employed upon the public works; and it behaved the people of England to see that the public money was not spent in ministering to the inhumanity of such landlords, and to put an end to a system by which this country was inundated with Irish labourers, at a time when the English ratepayers were so heavily burdened for the support of their own poor. He called emphatically upon the Government, and upon the people of England to look to this. He understood further, that when the poor occupants refused to quit their wretched houses, the landlords, who were members of the relief committees, refused to allow them to be employed upon public works; so that they had no alternative but to quit the country, and fly, thus increasing the burdens of pauperism, and thus doubly taxing the English taxpayer. He would say only, in addition, that he gave his cordial assent to the Bill.

thought the hon. Member for Waterford would act wisely in leaving this matter in the hands of the Government. His object in rising was to suggest to the Government whether, considering the existing circumstances of the country, some temporary measure might not be introduced with a view of enabling the assistant barristers, upon cause shown, to stay the execution of processes in such cases as those stated by the hon. Member for Stroud, and where parties subject to process were not endeavouring to evade debt, but were bonâ fide unable to pay.

thought this a very good suggestion. Another suggestion he would make was, that provision should be made for the support by the plaintiff of parties against whom execution was taken out personally. With regard to the statement brought forward by the hon. Member for Stroud respecting Mayo, he did not consider that 1,500 or 2,000 processes was so unusual a thing; it might be unusual in Mayo, but it was not unusual in other places. It was not to be supposed that these were all for rent; they included every other species of debt, and the courts discountenanced the civil bill processes as a means of recovering rent. He believed that the reason why there were more arrests for debt in Mayo now, than upon other occasions, arose from the effects produced by the Act of last Session.

hoped the hon. Baronet would consent to withdraw his Bill, and leave the matter in the hands of the Government, who would give their best consideration to the subject. If the hon. Member declined to accede to his request, he should have no alternative, but be obliged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

likewise hoped that the hon. Baronet would not press the question to a division. At the same time, he must say he thought the principle of the Bill must be extended to Ireland. There was no reason why the same law affecting arrest for debt should not apply to Ireland as existed in England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin had said that the alteration of the law of arrest for debt in England had not worked well. He believed the reason why the alteration had in the first instance operated prejudicially to the creditors, was, because there were not then local tribunals for working it; since then, the right hon. Gentleman would find that it had operated well.

was quite willing that the same principle as to arrest for debt should be adopted in Ireland as in England; and he did not think that the people of Ireland were averse to that principle. But as to the mode of carrying that principle into effect, he preferred leaving it in the hands of the Solicitor General for Ireland; and he trusted that the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson) had so well answered the statement made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope), that he should not trespass further upon the House with reference to that matter. It would seem that nothing could be done for Ireland, but by the landlords of Ireland. Now, the Bill for facilitating the sale of estates in Ireland, would bring such estates into the market, some in the most disturbed and unimproved and barren parts of Ireland; and he did hope to see the hon. Member for Stroud become the purchaser of one of those estates, and take up his abode there, and perform the duties of an Irish landlord. He could assure the hon. Member that he would meet with a hearty welcome and ready co-operation in all his attempts to carry his plans into execution. But he warned him that he would meet with difficulties which he did not foresee, and obstacles which it would require all his nerve and energy to overcome. Still, if he assumed the position of an Irish landlord, he would receive his reward; and if he returned to this country, he would return a wiser and a better man.

thought it would be exceedingly imprudent to divide the House on the question; but before he withdrew the Bill, he wished to ask whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill this Session on the subject?

had not had the advantage of hearing the debate; but with regard to the question of the hon. Baronet, he could state that the Irish Government were extremely anxious and desirous to bring forward a measure on the subject referred to; at the same time, he hoped he should be excused for exercising caution in giving any positive pledges for the Session. There were a great many measures relative to Ireland already before the House, and other measures contemplated; therefore he hoped he should not be expected to give any positive pledge on the point. The Solicitor General for Ireland would consider the subject; and he hoped that during the present Session, the Government would be able to carry into effect a measure that would prove satisfactory.

Will the right hon. Gentleman object to a Committee up stairs on the Bill?

did not think that would answer the purpose, and that the Bill had far better be left in the hands of the Solicitor General for Ireland.

wished to make a few observations connected with the rate of interest in this Bill. That rate of interest was to be six and a half per cent for twenty-two years, when principal and interest would be extinguished. That was calling for a rate of interest not exceeding three and a quarter per cent. [An Hon. MEMBER: Three and a half.] Well, if the hon. Member had made the calculation, he would not dispute it with him; but at any rate he wished to remind the House that this was a less rate of interest than the Government paid for their loans. He thought that the people of this country ought not to be taxed for noblemen and landed proprietors, whom this Bill was intended to benefit, particularly as in all probability the interest or money would reach a still higher rate. He, therefore, thought that a higher rate of interest ought to be introduced into this Bill.

said, the hon. Member was rather late in making his objection, as there was no alteration now in the Bill passed last year.

said, the faith of Parliament was pledged to this measure last Session, and it could not now be violated.

agreed with the hon. Member for Coventry that the people ought not to lose by this measure, and wished to know if it was the intention to make those parties who had borrowed money under the Bill pay the difference of interest between the rate at which it had been lent, and that at which money now was. When the interest of money was likely to become higher, he wished to know if there would be any objection to insert a clause in the Bill compelling persons to pay a higher rate of interest for the money to be advanced than was now contemplated? He hoped the Government would take some measures to limit loans to individuals, and allow time for people to make their applications, and that they would not make any payments until all the applications had come in.

stated, that many landed proprietors, particularly in Scotland, relying on the faith of Parliament, as pledged last year, had expended money in this way to a very large extent; and it was remarkable that the measure which had at first been proposed as a boon to the landed interest, had been found most available for the relief of distress in Scotland; so that there had not been more than 300l. or 400l. granted by Government for the relief of distress in Scotland, the remainder having been advanced out of the pockets of the landlords, on the faith of the money being repaid under this Bill. With regard to the limitation of grants made to individual proprietors, he proposed to introduce a clause which would meet the hon. Member's views.

thought this was a subject much better to be discussed in Committee; and, although there was a good deal of truth in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, yet it would be counterbalanced by a breach of public faith.

stated, with regard to the proposal to limit the amount granted to individuals, that an hon. relative of his own, who had advanced a large sum on the faith of this loan, was willing to restrict his claim to 15,000l., and give up 25,000l. Whether this measure was enough to relieve the distress in Scotland it was not for him to say; but he trusted that if it were not, the chieftains would not be indifferent to the sufferings of their people.

objected to the plan to extend the advantage of the loan from its original purpose of draining, to fencing and other agricultural purposes. The very lowest estimate made of the money required for a thorough draining of the lands in England and Scotland was from 20,000,000l. to 25,000,000l.; and if the sum of 2,000,000l., to be actually granted, was extended to fencing as well as draining, its usefulness would be frittered away.

explained, that in many cases, unless means of fencing were afforded, it would be useless to drain. That was the reason for extending the Act of last Session, so as to include fencing.

wished the Government would give precedence in this Bill to the Highland proprietors, who were struggling with severe distress in their districts without asking for Government grants, and who were, therefore, entitled to the full benefit of the present measure. There was another reason for confining the measure to the Highlands, because he could state for that part of the Lowlands with which he was connected—he meant the county of Forfar—that wages in that county were fifty per cent higher now than they had been for several years past. He could not help thinking, that if the Government would relax the law of entail in Scotland, the proprietors, instead of borrowing at the Treasury, would borrow from ordinary sources, of course the consent of the heirs of entail being rendered obligatory. That, he thought, would give great satisfaction to Scotland.

thought that if the Government were to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and lay it down as a principle that they would entertain no application either from England or from the Lowlands of Scotland, they would be guilty of a breach of faith as great as that which had already been adverted to. He thought that the provisions of the Bill proved that the case of the Highland proprietors was foremost in the minds of Her Majesty's Government, and they had taken the best means to secure attention to their claims by being the first to move in this matter. It would be found, in point of fact, that of the whole amount of 2,000,000l. to be advanced under the Bill, about three-fourths would go to Scotland. On the other hand, the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk need not fear that the amount voted would be frittered away in other improvements than that of drainage, because, in fact, it would not be advantageous, either in the Lowlands of Scotland, or in England. Its benefits would be exclusively confined to those wide pastoral districts where arable land bore a high value. In fact, no applications for money to trench or fence had yet come from England; and no one need fear that such would come in future, as he feared that more than a sufficient margin of application had already been sent in, and that they would not be able to entertain more applications. With regard to the Highlands, he might state that he had seen returns regarding an estate in Inverness-shire, that the expense of draining and fencing there would amount to 18l. per acre; and before any money could be granted, they must prove that the works would add a clear additional value of 1l. 5s. per acre. It was of course hopeless to expect that this additional value would be gained in ordinary operations.

Sir, I cannot at all concur in the dismay with which the noble Lord the Member for the city of Bath sees the rise of wages among the labouring classes in Forfarshire. I must confess that I heard with great surprise sentiments of this kind proceeding from the noble Lord the liberal Member for the city of Bath, who appears to desire to grind down the labouring classes to the lowest possible amount of wages. I must confess that I heard with great pleasure the fact that wages have risen in Forfarshire, in proportion to the rise of the price of food in this country; and if it be that the effect of this measure, in lending 2,000,000l. for the drainage of land in Great Britain, should be generally to raise the amount of wages throughout Great Britain, I shall greatly rejoice in it. Neither can I concur with the sentiments of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Coventry and Montrose, who wish to raise the amount of interest on the loans afforded by Government. The hon. Gentlemen have expressed great alarm lest the interest on the Exchequer-bills should be raised, and lest the interest upon money should rise to 4 per cent. But, if I am not greatly misinformed, the money market is not yet so greatly exhausted but that in the late competition for 8,000,000l. the amount offered was nearer to 80,000,000l. sterling than to eight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may, perhaps, be able to inform us on this point; but the report in the city has been, that the bidding for shares in Messrs. Rothschild and Baring's loan exceeded 80,000,000l. sterling. Is it not so? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not that I heard of.] I heard that the applications for shares in the loan exceeded 80,000,000l. sterling. If so, I think we need be under no alarm that we shall exhaust the money market in seeking to borrow the sum of 2,000,000l. sterling for the improvement of land. I am sorry to hear that there is to be a restriction in the amount to be advanced. I really do not understand how a measure intended to operate as a compensation in some degree for the repeal of the corn laws, can be so limited and restricted. I confess that at first sight it does appear inconsistent that any portion of the money advanced for the purpose of draining should be expended on fences; but as a Scotch proprietor I can state from experience that, in many instances, as much advantage is derived from fencing as from draining. In many districts the erection of stone walls for sheep is as necessary as draining, because the greatest difficulty is found in keeping sheep from going adrift in winter. I find that my tenants pay as high a rate of interest for money expended in erecting "stone dykes," as they are called, as they do for the construction of drains.

said, that the Bill did not authorize an outlay for fences but in cases where the land had been drained.

begged to explain. He could assure the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that he had no wish to grind down wages. His wish was that every labourer, whether working under a Ten Hours Bill or not, should have a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. What he stated was this, that at the present rate of wages in that part of Scotland to which he belonged, he thought it would be injudicious in the Government to encourage the landlords to borrow money for the purpose of draining their lands, because he did think that at the rate of wages which existed, the improvement would not repay them in the same mode it would have done were the wages lower.

hoped the Government would take up the subject of a drainage Bill, giving power to enter upon any lands to complete the drainage of others; for land could not be thoroughly drained without a proper vent for the water. He was afraid the money granted by this Bill would be frittered away, though in the present state of Scotland he would not object to the Bill.

also pressed for a Bill with powers to make outlets for the water. A great drawback to improvement was the copyhold tenures and the manorial rights and fines on death and alienation; ecclesiastical leaseholds were another obstacle, as the fines were payable on the improved value; and he wished for an equitable adjustment of these matters, to the improvement of the interests of all parties.

said, with respect to entailed estates in Scotland, there was a power under the Montgomery Act to charge three-fourths of the money spent for improvements on the entailed estates; what he wished to know was, whether there was any intention to extend the powers of that Act, or to give powers of sale?

said, that the powers under that Act had been so much used, that if they were extended, the proprietors would soon be in a condition that they would not be able to go on, for if they charged the estates to the full extent of two-thirds, there would be only one-third left for the heir, and to bear all public burdens; and the great object contemplated was to give a power, not of making additional charges, but of making sales, and by these means disencumbering the property.

said, that if he thought there was the slightest chance of getting rid of the Bill, he should detain the House at greater length than he meant to do at present, as he knew that opposition would be hopeless. He thought that the Bill was one of which all the landlords in the kingdom might feel considerably ashamed. It was the result of an arrangement entered into between the late Government and some other parties. The object of the Bill was to put money into the hands of those who did not need it. The owners of land were well off at the present moment, and stood in no need of compensation. If money was to be advanced to such parties, similar favours ought to be shown to persons unconnected with the land.

said, that the hon. and learned Member seemed to make particular reference to him when he spoke about the Bill being the result of an arrangement between the late Government and some other parties. He entirely repudiated any such arrangement. What he said was, that the faith of Parliament was pledged, seeing that it consented last year to the principle of advancing certain sums of money, at a certain rate of interest, not to raise that rate of interest to parties who had applied for advances.

moved, as an addition—

"Provided always, that correct plans or tracings of the drainage, as finally effected, he deposited with and preserved for public use and inspection by the Commissioners."

thought that the adoption of any such rule would be productive of much delay, inconvenience, and expense. In the case of Macleod, of Macleod, whose property extended to 150,000 acres, the operation of such a clause would be exceedingly burdensome, and the same inconvenience would apply to similar tracts of land. Besides, it should be borne in mind that the Bill provided that, during the currency of the twenty-one years over which the payment of the advance was to extend, an annual inspection of the drainage was to be made.

thought that the utmost discretion, compatible with the security of the money advanced should be allowed to the Scotch proprietors in the way of conducting their operations. Unless care were taken, the preliminary expenses connected with the advance would form an enormous percentage on the sum borrowed.

said, he had an Amendment to propose. The Bill, as it stood, provided that the works should be completed in three years from the time of granting the certificate, with a discretionary power to the Commissioners to extend it for one year. The object of this limitation was to prevent the money being locked up, to reduce the number of large applications from individual proprietors, and to diffuse the grants as widely as possible. It had been suggested that this object would be more directly obtained by limiting the pecuniary amount of the grant. It was therefore proposed, in ordinary cases, that no provisional certificate should be granted for a larger sum than 15,000l., and that the period for its being expended should be enlarged from three years to five. In order to meet the case of the Highland proprietors, a discretionary power was given to the Commissioners; where there was a large unemployed population, and it could be shown that a larger amount would be expended in three years, a larger advance should be made.

said, the alteration proposed by the right hon. Baronet so much improved this clause, that he (Sir J. Graham) had much distrust in his own judgment in making any observation at all hostile to it. He thought some limitation of the pecuniary amount was indispensable, for it appeared that the sums already applied for under the former Bill amounted to 2,800,000l. The circumstances of the Highlands of Scotland entitled them to the favourable consideration of that House; and he thought it right that some discretionary power should be vested in the Treasury or some authority to allow a deviation from the inflexible rule, which he had feared was to be rigidly adhered to, that the applications were to be taken in the precise order in which they arrived. If that rule were rigidly adhered to, the object of this Bill would be defeated. He did not apprehend that the interests of individual proprietors were sought to be consulted by this measure. The great object of it was to increase, on perfect security, by public aid, within the shortest time, the gross amount of human food to be raised in this country. He very much doubted the expediency of making such large grants to large proprietors of land as under this Bill were proposed to be made. Men who possessed large estates either had the command of capital or possessed sufficient credit to obtain any loans which the improvement of their estates might render necessary; therefore, those who could give security for large loans were precisely the parties who did not stand in need of any assistance from the State. It was the yeomanry and the small proprietors who found a difficulty in borrowing money; their credit did not stand so high as that of their wealthier neighbours, while their estates needed improvement quite as much. It appeared to him that the operation of these loans ought to be diffused as widely as possible; and ho, therefore, should never have thought of fixing the proposed limit so high as 15,000l. If sums so great as 15,000l. were granted, it was quite evident that 3,000,000l. would not satisfy the just and reasonable claims of those who most required assistance. By fixing the proposed amount at 10,000l., a sufficient sum would, in his opinion, be set loose to satisfy all fair claims; whereas, if the Government adhered strictly to the rule of 15,000l., many very fair claims must necessarily be rejected. The object of the measure ought to be, especially as regarded the Highlands, not so much to comply with the wishes of a small body of landlords, as to give efficient assistance to a great number of small proprietors and yeomanry. He trusted that the Government would seriously consider the point that he had brought under their consideration; and, by reducing the sum from 15,000l. to 10,000l., effect a great improvement in the Bill.

thought that an increase in the amount of money to be lent, say 3,000,000l. instead of 2,000,000l., would render the attainment of the objects proposed by the Bill more certain. The objects of the Bill were said to be two: first, to give employment and food to the people; and, secondly, to increase the quantity of the produce of the land. As far as these objects were concerned, it did not matter whether the loans were granted to large proprietors or small ones; and, as it was admitted on all hands, that the security was good, he could not see how the State could lose anything. He thought all the evidence before Parliament went to show that large sums were necessary for the improvements required in the Highlands; and he hoped that if any other plan were pursued, the first comers would always be taken. The Government would otherwise be placed in an invidious position, and might be subjected to the suspicion of showing partiality to their own friends.

said, that the interest of the additional money which the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) proposed to raise, would have to be paid by the working classes, and therefore he deprecated such a course. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that the loans to each individual should be limited to 10,000l.

, with regard to the working classes having to pay the interest of the money, thought the noble Lord who had just sat down, who made that statement, could not have read the Bill now before the House, or the Act passed last year, or he would have learnt that every landowner to whom a loan was granted was to pay 6l. 10s. per cent per annum for twenty-two years, by which both principal and interest was discharged. That was his reply to the noble Lord.

said, that the answer of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn did not appear to him to be quite satisfactory. The hon. Member for Montrose had shown that the State would have to borrow at one rate of interest, and would be repaid at another and a lower rate; so that a portion of the interest on the advances would be thrown on the taxes of the country. He rose, however, principally for the purpose of stating that he entirely approved of the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorsetshire (Sir J. Graham) for limiting the advances to 10,000l. instead of 15,000l. It was most desirable that the larger proprietors should not absorb more than their fair share of the advances, and that the smaller proprietors, whose resources were necessarily more circumscribed, should receive under that Bill the means of improving their land. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers had any returns before them, or had been put in possession of any information, by which they could ascertain what portion of the applications hitherto made could be met in case the advances were limited to 10,000l. or 12,000l.?

hoped that the Government would seriously consider the proposition of the right hon. Member for Dorchester. Its adoption would effect a great improvement in the Bill. As to the difference between the rate at which money was borrowed, and that at which it was lent, he rather believed it would not prove to be a matter of much importance, and that the public would suffer very little by the result, whereas a great addition would be made to the future productiveness of the soil. He thought that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the country for the attention which they had bestowed upon this subject; and he felt assured that it would lead to many advantageous consequences, especially in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected.

said, that in answer to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it were not true, that while the loan of 8,000,000l. for Ireland had been contracted at the rate of 3l. 7s. 6d. per cent interest, the advances under the Bill before the House would be repaid with interest equivalent to 3l. 10s. per cent. Now, if that were so, the public would be a gainer to the extent of 2s. 6d. interest on every 100l. advanced under that measure; and the working classes of this country would not lose, but would benefit by the transaction.

rose to repeat on his own behalf the question put by the hon. Member for Cockermouth. Were the Ministers able to say that, by effecting the proposed reduction from 15,000l. to 10,000l., they could set free so large a sum as would enable them to meet all well-founded claims?

supported the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Dorchester. The large proprietors had made a run at the money, and he thought that the small proprietors ought to be assisted.

said, he believed that the advances under the Bill would be repaid with interest equivalent to 3l. 3s. per cent, and not 3l. 10s., as was stated by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. But at all events that measure would enable landowners to get money on more favourable terms than any on which they could otherwise obtain it.

supported the proposition of the Government. If Ministers would adhere to the original limitation of 15,000l., and divide the House upon it, he would vote with them. There were many owners of large entailed estates who could not otherwise improve those estates than by taking advantage of the present measure.

, in reply to a question put by Captain Harris, said, that the Highlands formed an exceptional case. If districts were distressed, and the labour intended to be applied in the improvement of estates were to be performed by the inhabitants of those districts, then the Commissioners possessed a discretionary power to extend the limit beyond 15,000l.

said, that from unwillingness to impede the progress of business he had not sooner risen. He did not suppose that the public would sustain any loss from the proposed aid to the proprietors of land; on the contrary, he thought there were very satisfactory grounds for believing that the interest and principal of the money advanced by the State would be fully repaid. With reference to the observations made on the other side, he agreed mainly in what had been said; and he should not say he was sorry, but, on the contrary, he was glad, that large demands had been made; at the same time, they were not to lose sight of this, that requests for large sums were made by parties respecting whom there was every reason to suppose that they did not expect to obtain all that they asked for. He did not by any means deny that the greater the number of individuals to whom the operation of the measure extended, the more beneficial would be its effects upon society at large. He need scarcely say that the Government had no other object but to promote employment and productiveness; and, as there seemed to prevail in the House a very general impression that there ought to be a further reduction of the highest sum to be granted, he willingly consented to take into consideration the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Dorchester. It was almost superfluous for him to add, that all the demands made upon the proposed fund could not be complied with, the more especially as applications were made for enormous sums to drain estates where the extent of land was small. He repeated, that the Government would seriously consider the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, and make up their minds before the Bill was reported.

was perfectly satisfied with the assurance which the House had just heard from the right hon. Baronet. If the Government inquired into the matter, they would find that the rule of 15,000l. would impose upon them the necessity of rejecting many claims, which adopting that of 10,000l. would enable them to meet.

did not quite agree in the general opinion as to the expediency of this limitation. The Bill had changed its character very much since it had first been introduced; it was then intended to be a compensation to the agriculturists for the removal of certain privileges—by enabling them to improve their lands by means of loans from the State. By the intervention of unforeseen circumstances, the Bill was now made to embrace other objects. The advances were made not so much to the landowners as on the land, and in order that the money might be spent on it. When a proprietor had property in three different counties, it might operate very badly that two of those properties should be left unsupplied because he had gone to the full extent of his claim on the first.

denied that the money was lent to the land. The object was to increase the general productiveness by lending money to those proprietors, especially the smaller ones, who could not obtain it in any other way.

said, that the money proposed to be advanced by this Bill would be put to productive use by those who received it; and it would be well afterwards that more should be advanced, under another Act of Parliament, to the smaller proprietors, who would be ready then to profit by the example already set them by the larger proprietors.

thought that the money should be divided as equally as possible among the applicants. He thought it would be most unfair to exclude the smaller proprietors in the first instance, by allowing the amount of the money to be first absorbed by the larger proprietors. The men of small means were those who most wanted the money.

said, that the House would see that there was an additional grant of half a million given by this Bill to the landlords of Ireland. He believed that the amount of money applied for had been very limited, and he should wish to know whether the million originally granted had been exhausted before an addition of another half million was made.

moved a clause, to enable trustees, through an application to the Court of Chancery, to make permanent improvements by monies in their hands.

said, the clauses proposed were not at all within the scope and intention of the Bill, and that they would have been very proper to introduce in the Trustees Bill passed two years ago.

replied, that his desire was merely to give power to trustees to advance their own money for the improvement of the estates in their charge. He did not ask for a loan. In cases of forced sales of land to railway companies, to what better purpose could the purchase money be applied than to the improvement of the remainder of the estate?

urged upon Government the necessity of reconsidering their decision upon this clause. Large sums of money would have to be invested out of the country without some such provision as the one now proposed.

said, it appeared to him that if private individuals could be found to advance money to improve property in Ireland, it would be much better to take it from them than from the public purse.

had received many valuable suggestions respecting this Bill from various Members; but, like the present proposed clauses, they were quite inapplicable. They were no doubt very desirable things to be done, but not calculated to be introduced into that Bill. Parliament had of late very properly set its face against this incongruous style of legislation.

agreed with the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking that the proposed clauses could not fitly be introduced into the Bill then before the House. It could not be denied, however, that the present was the fitting time for carrying out the objects embodied in those clauses; and he trusted that the Government would take the same view, and devote their attention to the subject. It was most desirable, not only with a view of saving the public money, but also for the purpose of enabling and encouraging parties to spend their money in Ireland instead of investing it in other directions, that greater facilities should be granted than now existed for improving land. If any legal Member of the Government would turn his attention to the subject, he had strong hopes that a Bill for carrying this object into effect might be passed in the present Session. In his opinion such a measure ought to include England as well as Ireland in its provisions; and he would recommend that the measure introduced by the Duke of Richmond about a year ago, and that brought in by the hon. Member for Berkshire, two years previously, should be taken as the basis of legislation. He could not help thinking that an effort ought to be made by the Government to take advantage of the existing feeling with respect to Ireland, and he had no doubt that under the present circumstances such a Bill might be passed this Session.

concurred in the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick, and felt desirous of impressing upon the Government his conviction that the only way to give extensive employment would be to promote and encourage private enterprise. If the Government would introduce some measure calculated in its operation to throw more capital into Ireland, they would effect a far greater amount of benefit than could be realized by any State measure. He strongly objected to the 34th and 44th Clauses in the Bill. The 34th gave power to the owner of land to enter upon the holding of his tenant, whether that tenant remained in possession under a lease or by will, and order improvements without his consent being obtained; and the 44th Clause gave the Commissioners power to increase the rent of the tenant on account of such improvements. To both of these clauses he entirely objected; and he was sure if any proposition could tend to embitter yet more the bad feeling which existed between landlord and tenant in Ireland, it would be to give the landlord a power to enter the occupation of his tenant, and increase his rent on account of improvements effected, without having first obtained his consent.

hoped that the hon. Member for Limerick would introduce the Bill he had promised as early in the ensuing Session as possible, and that the Government, if they did not consider a substitute necessary, would put it into such a shape as in their estimation might practically effect the object in view. The Government was now about to grant assistance to the landlords of Ireland to improve their estates, partly in redemption of a promise made last year, and partly on account of the distress which prevailed in the country. They ought not, however, in doing so, to overlook the necessity of passing some measures calculated to stimulate and encourage private enterprise. If any such Bill were brought in, either by the hon. Member for Limerick or by the Government, he hoped, were it even for novelty sake, all parties in the House would unite in supporting it.

concurred in the expression of hope indulged in by the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), that a Bill of the nature alluded to would be brought in; but he could not concur with the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the hon. Member for Limerick would be the person to introduce it. He hoped the Government would take upon themselves the task of introducing the Bill, for it was one of those important Acts which the Government ought to bring into the House, and respecting which individual Members had neither the machinery at command necessary for the purposes of preparation, nor the influence to carry through successfully. There was also another reason, which in his mind operated as an additional motive against its introduction by the hon. Member for Limerick. That hon. Gentleman would only make his Bill apply to Ireland; while if the Government brought it in, and the principle was a sound one, they would extend it to England and Scotland.

entirely concurred with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that this was a subject which could be more properly dealt with by the Government than by an individual Member. He fully appreciated the great importance of such a measure, as he considered any measures which would have the effect of encouraging the application of capital in Ireland, and the reclamation of waste lands in that country, would be productive of much benefit; but he hoped the House would recollect that although nothing was more easy than to give expression to the desirability of such a measure, it was very difficult for the Government to pledge themselves to introduce it at once. In the course of that very day an endeavour had been been made to draw the Government into a pledge to introduce no less than three Irish measures within the present Session. [Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN: And why not?] The hon. Gentleman said, "Why not?" but he would take leave to ask him whether the Government could not facilitate Irish measures much better if they were allowed to go through the business now before the House, rather than that the public time should be wasted by discussions upon a great variety of questions. He hoped the Government would be able to introduce the measure this Session; but he begged to impress upon the House, and more especially upon Irish Members, that the endeavour would mainly depend upon the progress which they might be able to make with those measures which they considered more immediately necessary to meet the present condition of Ireland. He, therefore, hoped the House would not consider the Government was indifferent to the importance of the subject, if circumstances should prevent the introduction of the measure this Session. It was his intention, with the assistance of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, to found a Bill upon the suggestions thrown out; but he hoped the House would not force them to bring in the measure until they had ascertained what progress had been made with other important measures directed to the improvement of Ireland.

expressed the deep concern he felt at the remarks which some hon. Gentleman, but more especially the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), considered it necessary to make with respect to the landed proprietors of Ireland. Perhaps it was not generally known to the House that the major part of the property of Ireland was settled, and that the savings from estates could not be expended on improvements, without depriving the younger branches of families of their provisions. He was acquainted with many difficulties which attended the introduction of a Bill of this nature, and on that account concurred in thinking the duty of preparing it ought to devolve upon the Government, rather than upon an individual Member. He begged to say, in answer to the foul imputations which had been cast upon the landlords in Ireland, that this proposition came from them, and that, if it were opposed, blame should not be cast upon those who were anxious to afford every facility for the investment of capital and the encouragement of industry in that portion of the empire.

said, that under the clauses objected to by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), it was not necessary to give notice to the tenant. It was important that some such notice should be given, so as to enable him to come before the commissioners and make his objection. It was a strong power to give the landlord to go upon a man's land (who might perhaps hold it under lease) without his consent, and a still stronger power to charge the tenant with a sum for improvements without his consent.

said, that before an application could be made to the Board of Works for a loan, plans and specifications of the land must be sent up to them. The tenant could not have a better notice of the intention of the landlord, than his sending persons to make such a survey. The 34th and 44th Clauses were necessary, because the occupiers of land in Ireland did not always see the advantage of improvements; and if their consent were necessary to the survey, and to the increased rent, they would oppose both.

did not object to the clause; but he was anxious to state that, with respect to the trust in which he was himself concerned, that unless a clause similar to that alluded to was introduced, he very much feared the money would be invested in England.

moved the insertion of a clause, to enable corporate companies to borrow money for the improvement of land in Ireland for the purposes of this Act. The noble Lord observed, that great benefit would accrue to the country generally from the increased employment which would be afforded to the people, if public companies were enabled to enlarge the sphere of their operations. He held in his hand a report of the operations of the company established for the improvement of waste lands in Ireland, by which it appeared that on one of the company's estates in Sligo, no persons had to seek employment on the public works, neither was there a single instance in which recourse had been had to the workhouse; but that all had conducted themselves in a peaceable and orderly manner, in the hope that better days might soon arrive. He was aware that the same state of things existed on the other estates of the company; and that fact fortified him in the belief that similar results might attend the operations of other companies, if they had facilities afforded them to give employment.

opposed the insertion of the clause, on the ground that he could not recognise any necessity to depart from the original provisions of the Act. He did not deny the great exertions which the company alluded to by the noble Lord had made; but he begged to say, that under the first Act of last Session, they might borrow from the Loan Commissioners, and repay the amount in twenty years. If public companies were in a position, according to their own Acts, to borrow, they came under the provisions of this Act; but the present Bill was not the proper vehicle for amending former Acts.

considered that the great object of the Landed Property Bill was to give employment to the people; and he, for one, had never looked upon it as a Bill to benefit landlords, further than they might naturally be supposed to be benefited by the process of that employment. As it was his desire to facilitate the progress of the Government measures for Ireland, he would not occupy the public time by pressing for a division; but would content himself by expressing a hope that when the Government introduced their measure for the reclamation of waste lands, they would not overlook some provisions of the sort.

observed, that he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment to the 5th Clause, of which he had already given notice. The clause had reference to the erection of corn mills and other buildings of an agricultural character. He opposed the principle of Government giving grants of money on loan for such purposes, on the ground that there was not any enterprise that required less encouragement than the erection of corn mills. On the occasion of his recent visit to Ireland, he had seen a great number of streams, independently of the larger rivers, upon which corn mills were now in course of erection by private enterprise, in the belief that a larger demand would in future be made upon that produce for home consumption than heretofore. An hon. Gentleman, not at present in the House, had informed him he had that morning received plans for the erection of a mill upon his estate at a cost of 2,000l., for investment; but that he could not decide upon them until he knew whether this clause would become law or not. That fact, he submitted, was enough to show that the Government would be doing harm instead of good, if they lent money for the purpose of erecting corn mills. The noble Lord was about to proceed with his observations, but

begged his noble Friend would not charge him with discourtesy if he requested he would postpone the conclusion of his remarks to another opportunity. It was then ten minutes to six o'clock, the hour at which the Speaker would have to leave the chair; and as there was yet remaining a quantity of private business to dispose of, he would propose that the further consideration of the report be postponed until to-morrow. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had some Amendments to propose, which he would have been happy to have brought up; but if hon. Gentlemen would insist upon such long discussions, it would be impossible to make any but the slowest progress. Unless some private business were now disposed of, the Railway Committees would be unable to proceed with their labours.

expressed his willingness to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Further consideration of the report adjourned accordingly.