vindicated the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), in bringing forward the question of juries in Ireland before the House. Although differing entirely from that hon. Gentleman in politics, he must do him the justice to say, that he had not commenced that scene of acrimony and personal recrimination which had occurred. All this personal matter had, however, nothing to do with the question before the House. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not answered any of the statements put forth in the hon. Member for Athlone's speech, with the exception of the first—namely, that the sheriff was appointed by the Crown. With regard to the second statement, that out of a list containing two Catholics to one Protestant, the sheriff had selected 150 persons, in the proportion of four Protestants to one Catholic, the right hon. Gentleman had argued that the sheriff was justified in point of law in the selection he made. He admitted that the sheriff might be legally right, but he believed him to he morally wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the sheriff had selected the names in rotation, according to their wealth and respectability; respectability in this case being wealth. That statement had been corroborated by a witness examined to try the validity of that panel, who stated that the respectability of the jurors had reference to their wealth; and the sheriff himself, in vindicating his own conduct in respect of two persons in the same business, stated that the selection had been made according to relative respectability. Both these persons, however, being in the same business, nothing but wealth could have been meant as the test. He protested against this principle of selection; and if the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in a remarkable letter written to the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, regarding the propriety of carrying out the Emancipation Bill by the appointment of Roman Catholics, were of any authority, the character and not the wealth of the parties, should be the rule of selection. If the sheriff had made his selection on that principle, the discontent now prevalent in Ireland would not have existed. He would now read to the House the opinion expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in the debate on the state of Ireland in 1844, on the subject of jury packing:—

"It does. Sir, appear to me that such a fact of itself deprives the whole of those proceedings of any weight or value. I can understand if the object had been to obtain a jury to convict—if it had been the practice which a violent partisan might adopt for the purpose of sustaining a private right to obtain a jury to suit his purpose, I could then, and in such a case, understand such a course being taken."

That speech had no doubt had its influence upon the mind of the sheriff, and had operated upon him in making the selection. The question to be tried was whether Catholics had been excluded from the panel; but would the House believe that that question, which was the main and sole question, was not allowed to go to the jury at all; one of the Judges declaring that they were not justified by law in inquiring into the religion of any man, while the Attorney General, by a technical objection, prevented the point from being brought to decision at all. The right hon. Baronet had read a letter from the Attorney General, who said that the Roman Catholics proscribed had been set aside, not on account of their religion, but their political opinions; and he had said that the celebrated instructions of Sir M. O'Loghlen referred to ordinary cases, and not to such a case as this. Sir Michael said in his instructions—

"You will not sot aside any juror on account of his political or religious opinions, and you will be pleased, in every case in which you may consider it necessary to set aside a juror, to make a note of the objection to him."

These were his general instructions. But allowing, for argument's sake, that the Attorney General was justified in setting aside jurymen on account of their political opinions being the same as the prisoner's, he denied that repealers sympathised with Mr. Mitchel. Mr. Mitchel repudiated repeal, and called it a humbug. On that ground, therefore, the Attorney General was not justified in setting these jurors aside. The majority of the repealers were Roman Catholics; and the consequence of this rule, of setting aside repealers, would be, that almost all the Catholics of Ireland would be excluded. By leaving no other than anti-repealers on the jury list, trial by jury in Ireland would become, in the words of Lord Denman, "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." The right hon. Baronet said that six of the men set aside had been selected by the prisoner's counsel to be retained upon the trial, and that justified the Attorney General in setting them aside. How did the Attorney General obtain that information? Who was the traitor to the prisoner, by whom the Attorney General was informed of the parties to be left on? In Ireland the religious feeling was very strong; and any insult to their religion was taken up very warmly. Reference had been made to a certain trial in 1844; he had reason to recollect it, for he filled the office at that time of chief of the city he now represented; and the first duty he had to perform was to call a meeting of his fellow-citizens to protest against the insult and wrong done to the Roman Catholics in striking off ten Catholics from the jury panel; and so strong was the fee- ling of the Roman Catholics on that occasion, that whereas it had hitherto been the rule not to allow their chapels to be used for any political meeting, yet that meeting was held in the great Catholic chapel. There were 300 meetings of Roman Catholics in Ireland to protest against the insult offered to the Roman Catholics. He should have wished that the hon. Member for Athlone had brought forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session; but as he had brought it forward, and as the right hon. Baronet had made his statement, he, in vindication of his insulted countryman, had thought it right to trespass upon the attention of the House.

did not think it necessary to enter deeply into this question. He had intended to bring it before the House himself, but he had been informed by the hon. Member for Athlone that he proposed to do so. He would give the hon. Member his advice not to agitate the public mind in the present state of Ireland. The condition of that country was dreadful; the fever was increasing, and whole districts were becoming depopulated; in some places there was not even an animal. Instead of dividing upon this question, it would he much better to divide amongst the starving people of Ireland loaves of bread, and give them physic and clothes. Considering the destitute state of the people of Ireland, there existed abundant materials for inflammatory proceedings; but, situated as the Irish people were, it did not become the Government to bring forward such a measure as they introduced last Saturday, without sufficient notice—without a message from the Crown, or the examination of a single individual before a Committee of the House; and only justified by newspaper extracts, and the ipse dixits of a few individuals. The noble Lord, while some of the Irish Members were absent at the assizes, introduced and passed that Bill in a morning sitting, and thus in seven hours the liberties of the Irish people were taken away. The people of Ireland were discontented, and justly so; and it was only the storm that had raised up many of these men, against whom the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was directed, and who, if left alone, would sink to their natural level. The trial had made Mitchel a man of importance. On Saturday last a most inflammatory article was sent forth from Newgate prison, in Dublin. How happened it that that letter was allowed to be conveyed from the pri- son; and were the liberties of his country to be taken away because some men, like the writers of these inflammatory articles, bad gone mad? Had it come to this, that the connexion between Ireland and England could only be supported at the expense of the liberties of the Irish people? he had on a previous occasion voted for a Bill of the Government, with the view of putting a stop to assassination; but he should never have done so if he had contemplated that such a city as Dublin would be put under its operation. Extracts from Irish papers had been read the other day, and it was said that plunder was intended; but he did not think that Mr. O'Brien, and others acting with him, meant that. Did this country, he asked, always expect to remain at peace? Did they think that the republican movements on the Continent would pass away without occasioning excitement elsewhere? He cautioned the House to beware how they excited feelings in the breasts of the Irish people which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to subdue. He might state that rather more than a year ago be was in a seaport town, and entered into conversation with an Irishman who was on the point of embarking for America. He advised the man to remain at home, in the hope that better times might arise. The man replied, "No, Sir; I will go to the land of liberty." He (Mr. Grattan) said, "But consider your sons." The reply was, "Ah, they will comeback; and when they do come, it will be with rifles on their shoulders." Now, he would ask the House to consider what might be the state of this country if this man's anticipations should prove to be well founded. He would also remind them that only the other day the Irish in America subscribed no less than 1,000,000 dollars to aid the plans of their countrymen at home. The Legislature of the united kingdom, by their measures, had not only run the risk of separating the two islands, but in Ireland they had actually divided the north from the south, the Catholic from the Protestant, and had made religion the cause of discord and war. He had himself heard it said in Dublin Castle—"Depend upon it, if the repeal movement goes on we will give you up to the Orangemen." He believed that the trial of Mitchel had only aggravated the irritation which before prevailed in Ireland; and he considered that the hope of restoring Ireland to a state of tranquillity had been almost destroyed by the measure which had received the sanc- tion of that House on Saturday. It was his desire that the two countries might continue under one Crown, though under separate Legislatures; but he did hope that, so long as they were governed by the same Legislature, a more conciliatory course would be adopted towards his countrymen.

I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Meath into a discussion of the measure which received the sanction of this House on Saturday; but I think no one can deny that the intelligence which has been received from Ireland this day would fully justify the adoption of that measure. I rise, Sir, merely to say a few words, because I understand that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh), in bringing forward his Amendment on Friday, was pleased to comment upon my absence from the House. Now, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not leave the House from any want of respect for him, or from any inattention to the subject which he brought forward; but, having early on Saturday to propose to this House a measure of the greatest importance, and, it being necessary for me to consult documents, and to consider what ground I should take for the measure I had to introduce, I thought it was bettor to take some time for the inspection and preparation of those documents, than to attend in the House during the remainder of the debate. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone, having heard the greater part of his observations on the subject, I do not think be was justified in the statement he made. He went particularly into the case of Mitchel; and he stated that the sheriff of Dublin was an officer appointed by the Crown. Now, technically and literally, this may be true; but, in point of fact, the names of three gentlemen are returned by one of the Judges—in this case, I believe, the return was made by the Chief Justice—for the choice of the Crown. That, certainly, is a totally different thing from the sheriff being selected by the Crown; for the only choice the Crown has is to select one of the three persons; unless the Crown thought proper to set the whole three aside—a course which, I need scarcely say, was not taken in this case. The sheriff, I believe, performed his duty most conscientiously. Then the hon. Gentleman says it was wrong to exclude a great number of Catholics from the panel, and to challenge the names of certain persons who were placed upon the list. An. hon. Member, who has addressed the House to-night, has asked whether it is intended to exclude Catholics and Repealers from juries? I should reply, neither the one nor the other. I do not think there is any reason why Catholics ought not to he placed upon the juries equally with Protestants. So, likewise, with regard to the general question—the political opinions of a repealer would not disqualify him for sitting upon a jury. But the question in this case was, with regard to the offence of a person who had declared openly that Ireland ought to be separated from England—that Ireland ought to be made a separate republic—that the Queen ought to be deposed from her authority and title in Ireland—and that these objects ought to be accomplished by force. Now, the question to be considered with regard to persons upon the jury list was, whether or not they would do their duty in trying the issue; because the jury are sworn well and truly to try the issue, and to give their verdict according to the evidence. But if the Attorney General, or those who were acting under his instructions, thought that any persons were not likely to give a verdict according to the evidence, but that they were likely to give a verdict against the evidence, they were perfectly right not to leave such persons upon the list of the jury. I do not think it would be a sufficient answer to the challenge in any particular case to say, "Oh, but this gentleman is a Roman Catholic, and because he is a Roman Catholic—although he is not likely to try the question fairly—his name ought to be left upon the jury. "Whether or not the discretion, in this case, was well exercised—whether the persons omitted were persons who would have tried the question with perfect fairness, is a matter into which neither I nor the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could enter. It is, however, well known that in January last, persons were promulgating opinions in Ireland for which, I believe, they might have been tried for high treason. There were also individuals in and about Dublin who felt themselves perfectly justified in aiding to publish such opinions; and these certainly were not persons who could properly be left on juries to try offences of this nature. That, I believe, was the case with regard to those who were omitted from the jury lists in the instances to which the hon. and learned Member for Athlone has referred. I believe there is no ground whatever for accusing the sheriff of partiality with respect to the selection of the jury. With regard to the Attorney General for Ireland, he is a Roman Catholic, and I do not think it likely that, without good reason, he would take any step which would have the effect of disqualifying his coreligionists from sitting upon juries. This is a plain statement with regard to what took place in the case of Mr. Mitchel. I have not received any particulars as to the other cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Athlone; and, as he did not enter into the particulars of those cases, it is, I think, unnecessary for me to do so. I have only to say that, in the present situation of public affairs, I cannot agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The House will not, I think, regard it as advisable to enter into any inquiry on this subject; and I can only assert, generally, that there is on the part of the Government, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, every disposition to afford a fair trial to persons who may be accused of such offences as have been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

was understood to say, in reply to Sir DE L. EVANS, that this was the first time he had heard of a claim on the part of the officers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member—certain officers on the full-pay retired list—to continue to progress in rank in the Army on occasion of a brevet. If promotion by brevet were extended to them, the honorary distinction would carry with it no charge upon the State; but it might be a question whether the practice would be a convenient one: it might give an impression that our list of general officers was much greater, with reference to efficiency, than the fact would warrant. As a matter of good-nature and kindness, he (Mr. F. Maule) should certainly have no objection himself to oblige these veterans; at the same time, to himself it would be a matter of very little concern whether he was called major or lieutenant colonel.

said, that the treatment of officers in the Army was infamous. The services of meritorious men were overlooked if they happened to have no connexions. Take the Caffre war, for instance. The whole brunt of it was borne by three or four officers; but Colonel Somerset, Captain Hogg, and Captain Bisset, received nothing but empty thanks in despatches and gazettes. And forsooth, Mr. Bulwer, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Chadwick were honoured with the rank of C. B.! The fact was, that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was actually Secretary at War in regard to them; he had the whole disposition of the colonial force, and settled what regiments were to he sent out. The old colonels who went out from England were put to Captain Bisset to be taught how to conduct a Caffre war. But these officers, to the disgrace of the country, were pushed aside and neglected for younger men, who had never even been called out in a street riot, and who had no claim to promotion but their high connexions. These things would not be suffered to continue much longer.

, so far as he had seen the course of procedure at the Horse Guards, believed there was great fairness exhibited in that department in the management of the Army, and in regard to promotion. With respect to this Caffre war, who was the first person that was named by the hon. Member as neglected? Colonel Somerset, a most intimate connexion of the man said to be all-powerful at the Horse Guards—the nephew of Lord F. Somerset. The reason why no decoration had been bestowed upon Captain Hogg was, that he could not, according to the regulations, obtain one, on consequence of not being of higher rank than a captain.

considered the staff of the Army worthy of the consideration of the House. He thought the office of Master General of the Ordnance and that of Commander at the Horse Guards should be held by one person. He would knock off 1,000l. a year from the allowance to the Duke of Wellington as Constable of the Tower of London. Then there were various other items in this estimate which he considered to be wholly unnecessary. There was 122l. a year to the physician; the paltry charge of 10l. to the apothecary; 8l. to the gentleman-porter; 66l. to the gentleman-gaoler; and then there were 40 yeomen-wardens, whoso receipts amounted to 848l. The sum altogether which these items made up was 3,911l. 10s. 8d., and he begged to move that the vote be reduced by that amount.

said, that the whole of the establishment of the Tower had been frequently under the review of the Committees of the House, and it had also been under the review of the Military Commission. He should be the last man under any circumstances to propose a reduction of the sum paid to the present Constable of the Tower. But all these questions would come before and be inquired into in detail by the Committees of the House; and if that Committee should propose a reduction of these charges, the House, no doubt, would give their recommendations effect.

(on behalf of Mr. Bouverie) then proposed the following Clause:—

"That no assurance under this Act shall be subject to the further or additional duty (of equal amount with the duty on a lease, or bargain and sale for a year) with which conveyances by a single deed are by any Act, either expressly or by reference, made chargeable; and that, in lieu of all other stamp duty whatsoever (except the progressive duty) there shall be chargeable on all assurances under this Act on which the purchase or consideration money therein or thereupon expressed shall not amount to 2,000l., an ad valorem duty of 6s. for every 50l. of such purchase or consideration money, and the like sum for any smaller or fractional part of 50l."

said, that there might be inequalities in the pressure of the stamp duty requiring revision, and which might be made the subject of a general measure; but he must object to these exceptional cases. In almost every Bill claims of exemption of some kind or other from the stamp duties were put forward.

said, that if ever there was an exceptional case this was one. Every Member who had addressed the House on this Bill had dwelt on the great importance of encouraging the sale of estates in small portions, not only as regarded the social advantages of such a system, but the probability of finding buyers. If the Bill worked, as he believed it would, the right hon. Gentleman would gain a large addition to his stamp revenue from that very source. If the Government really wished the measure to work, it was hard to interpose an insuperable obstacle to its usefulness in the shape of a heavy tax on the sale of property in that very manner which everybody thought was the most desirable mode of sale. He must divide the House on the question.

supported the clause. Why should not the stamp duties be lowered to enable small capitalists to buy land? He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would profit by the convincing and able remarks of the right hon. Member for Ripon on the stamp duties. He did not think so highly of this Bill as some hon. Members; for he believed that while they kept in the old track of the Court of Chancery, and the Masters' Offices, and did not put the matter into the hands of a Commission, they would never have a good Bill for the sale of encumbered estates.

I certainly should be disposed to appeal to the hon. Member for Limerick not to divide the House upon this clause; but at the same time I would also appeal to the Government to take into their serious consideration the whole question of the stamp duties as affecting the transfer of landed property in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to the proposition of my hon. Friend, by stating, that almost every Bill that is now introduced into this House contains a clause for exemption from the stamp duty; but I think the right hon. Gentleman has hardly given a fair representation of the clause brought forward by my hon. Friend, when he represented this as a claim for exemption. It is not a claim for exemption, but a claim that the stamp duties as regards the sale of landed property in Ireland should be so rearranged as not to affect the sale of such property in a way that would be prejudicial to the object which is intended by this Bill to be accomplished. According to my view of the object of the Bill, it does not merely contemplate the transfer of properties in bulk from a landed proprietor who is now encumbered by his own conduct, or by the conduct of his ancestors, to some one other individual, but it is intended that when such properties are to be sold, those who have the means of small investments should be enabled to invest their capital in the soil of Ireland; and it cannot be said that there are not great impediments to that object in the present scale of the stamp duties. Under the present scale, when properties are sold, the small allotments of landed property brought into the market pay—not actually a larger amount, but proportionably—a larger amount of stamp duty than largo properties. This system, I submit, cannot be defended, except as regards financial arrangements. Even on that ground I do not think it can be supported; but on that question I shall bow to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. Certain I am of this, that on no other possible ground can such a principle be maintained in this House; and when Her Majesty's Government have undertaken this Bill for the purpose, I assume, of facilitating these small investments, and when the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General) has bestowed so much pains (which every person in this House, I am sure, is ready to recognise) upon it, I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman will add his appeal to ours on this subject. If he does not think he can do so quite decorously while sitting on the same bench with the right hon. Gentleman, I hope at least in private we shall have his assistance in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, and to Her Majesty's Government, that they will not rest satisfied with this Bill when it shall have passed in its present shape, but will take into consideration the revision of the stamp duties on the sale of landed property in Ireland. The object of this Bill, I repeat, ought not to be merely the transfer from the present proprietors of large properties to certain great capitalists in this country. In that case the measure would be a boon merely to the person who sold the property, thereby denuding him of those duties which largo properties entail on proprietors, but which from his unfortunate position he is unable to fulfil, for I should look upon this Bill as a great boon to the landed proprietor, considered only as an easy mode of making a transfer from one great proprietor to another; but the boon ought not to be confined to him alone; and, viewing this as a great national question, unless followed up by one or two other measures, this Bill by itself cannot be as effective as was contemplated. I hope I shall be allowed to refer to another point, with reference to which I think it will be necessary in another Session of Parliament to follow up this measure. Dismissing the question of the stamp duties with a general appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to shut the door, not against exemption, but revision, I beg to refer to another point of considerable importance. It is a point which has not been touched upon by any speaker in the various debates on this Bill, except on a late occasion, incidentally, and from a motive different from that to which I shall allude to it, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark appealed to the House to throw out the Bill, on the ground that there were many properties in Ireland so circumstanced, that as regards them the Bill will be found to be utterly ineffective. He alluded to those large landed properties in Ireland, whore the laud is not let from the landlord direct to the occupying tenants; but where the land, having been let on leases for a long terra of years, is then sublet to what in Ireland are called middlemen, those middlemen not only being in some instances third parties, but sometimes fourth and fifth parties, each of whom receive a kind of annuity out of the property; and the only persons standing in the relation of landlord and tenant, being the last leaseholders and the occupying tenant. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) will at once see that the transfer of such property under this Bill will produce none of those beneficial social and moral effects which he contemplates. It will merely facilitate the transfer of an encumbered estate from one person to another; but as regards the possibility of the Improvement of that estate, the matter will rest precisely as it does at present. For instance, a person being the original landlord of 5,000 or 6,000 acres of land, has let the land upon a fixed vent to another individual; that indivividual then lets it to another person for a rent somewhat larger than he himself pays, and that individual perhaps lets it to another, who intervenes before we come to the occupying tenant. The persons to whom it is intermediately let, can only be looked upon as so many encumbrancers upon the estate; but the original landlord—he who is the possessor of the soil so far as the law is concerned—has no more power over it than any of us, and can have no interest in improving that estate. Neither (when he is able to sell it to a great capitalist in London) will the purchaser have any inducement to improve, or any power of improvement whatever. Neither, of course, will any of those who are in- termediate landlords, or are, as I have termed them, encumbrancers on the estates; and the occupying tenant, of course, cannot do it. Under the provisions of this Bill, you will merely substitute one nominal proprietor for another nominal proprietor; and you will not obtain the object in view, which the hon. and learned Gentleman so well designated in the speech made by him on the first occasion of the subject being under discussion in this House, when he called it "a measure for the emancipation of the land of Ireland." There is another observation which I have to make as regards land in this position, namely, that independently of the stamp duty—independently of that hindrance—the effect of those intermediate landlords intervening between the original landlord and the occupying tenant, will preclude that subdivision of the property which all those who are conversant with affairs in Ireland express their opinion to be so desirable. Therefore one of the objects of the Bill, quoad those particular properties, cannot be effected. I would press this subject upon the attention of the Government. I trust they will consider, during the recess, whether it may not he a fitting subject for legislation in a future Session of Parliament. I hope, as we must all desire, that the state of affairs in Ireland will undergo a change which will enable them to divert their attention from those matters which at present altogether absorb it, to a subject which, I am sure, will be more congenial to them and every Member of this House—I mean the social regeneration of that country. I admit the difficulties of this question; but I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to entertain it. I know there will be difficulty in dealing with any of those intermediate landlords without raising a considerable ferment amongst some of the parties concerned; but after passing this Bill, I do not think there can exist any difficulty that will be insuperable in dealing with them so as practically to reserve to every one the equivalent for the fair interest in the soil he at present possesses, and at the same time to pay them off in the soil, or in money derived from the soil. I do not apprehend that the difficulty in doing that will be found to be so insuperable as at first sight it may appear. I do not wish to detain the House, or at this period of the Session to say anything that might give rise to anything like a fresh debate, and shall merely, therefore, venture to throw out those two suggestions, and to express my opinion that this Bill, which is a most valuable commencement as regards the emancipation of the land of Ireland, will not be complete. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit that the case of intermediate landlords is one not only worthy of, but demanding consideration. Cases of this kind are not isolated nor few, though I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark has considerably exaggerated when he said about one-half of the land of Ireland was so held. However, enough of the land is held in that way to make the matter one of considerable importance. I feel it will be of great importance to the small capitalists of Ireland to consider these suggestions, and that it is most desirable to enable those who for generations have been connected with the land of Ireland (though not as proprietors), and whose only means without those two supplementary measures of investment at present are the Funds of England, or the savings banks, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot think have been quite legitimately used as a means of investment in that country—I mean legitimate as regards the extent to which they are used to invest their money in the land of Ireland. The money which is now frequently placed in savings banks might be far better invested in the soil of Ireland; but at the same time, although I express this opinion, I would regret to see the establishment in Ireland of what have been called peasant proprietors. I deprecate, and would give encouragement to no such system; but I think it would be most desirable to enable those persons who have a certain amount of money to invest it in properties of moderate size. In no other way could they more effectively conduce to the real and efficient cultivation of the country. I appeal to my hon. Friend who proposed this clause, to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, with a view to obtain a revision of the stamp duties. To do the thing efficiently, it must be done separately; and I feel confident, even without any assurance from them, that the Government must take it up in another Session of Parliament; though for the satisfaction of my hon. Friend I should wish that some Member of the Government would give such an assurance before the Bill is passed.

believed, that unless land could be made marketable in small portions, the Bill would not answer its purpose. The question was not one simply of expense. The first thing required was employment, and employment could not be given without cultivating land which was now waste. A landvaluer had stated that if Government would lessen the expenses, and afford the necessary facilities for the cultivation of waste lands in Ireland, 1,000,000 acres might he brought into cultivation.

thought the distinction made in favour of the proprietor whose estates were encumbered by the reduction of the stamp duties, while the proprietors whose estates were not encumbered had still to pay the full amount of duty, gave a positive encouragement to encumbrances. To that principle he objected.

would take the liberty of adverting to the circumstances with which the Bill dealt. For some years past it had been the practice to make large advances from the Consolidated Fund to public works in Ireland under the engagement that those sums should be repaid by annual instalments; and during the late distress in Ireland, when it became necessary for this country to afford additional assistance, that system was carried to a greater extent, and the Government was invested with the extraordinary power of taking unlimited advances from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of relieving the distress of Ireland. These sums, let it be observed, were to be repaid into the Consolidated Fund; but the House dealt liberally on the occasion, as it was hound to do with Ireland, and instead of exacting the whole amount, finally determined that 2,500,000l. should be repaid by ten annual instalments with interest. Thus stood the engagement; and it was important that an engagement of that sort should not be lightly dispensed with, for there could be no greater check to the liberality of the House in times of necessity than any idea that engagements so entered into would not be observed. The object of the present Bill was to repay out of the Consolidated Fund the first three years' instalments due on account of that loan. In the present state of the finances of the country, the proposal to pay out of the Consolidated Fund a sum of 1,000,000l., which would otherwise be available for the general resources of the empire, was a matter which required very serious consideration. But even putting the subject of the finances out of the question, this was a proposal which ought to be very carefully considered, after the statements which had been made when the Bill was last before the House. They had then been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Ireland was in such a state of distress that she could not bear to repay to the Treasury the money which had been advanced. But yet it was said that any repayments which were made were to be applied, at the discretion of the Treasury, to the completion of those works which had been commenced during the recent period of distress, and were yet unfinished, and which were now found to be public nuisances instead of public advantages. He considered that, if they meant to relieve Ireland from the repayment of the loan, they ought to do so distinctly. If it were true that that country was so burdened with taxation on account of the poor-laws, that the sum required for the repayment of loans could not be raised without impoverishing the people, he would recommend that if any portion of those loans was obtained it should be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and that, if it was intended to complete the public works which had been commenced, the Government should proceed according to the regular Parliamentary course; that they should lay before the House a statement of the work to be done, and an estimate of the sum required for its completion, and then ask for a vote in Committee of Supply. He was strongly opposed to raising sums from an impoverished population in order to place them at the uncontrolled disposal of the Treasury, with regard to the works to which those sums might be applied. They knew how incompetent the Treasury was to undertake the establishment of such works; for it was entirely owing to this incompetence that the works which had been commenced had turned out nuisances instead of advantages. This was the ground of his objection to the Bill, and at a future stage he would take the sense of the House upon the measure.

protested against the principle of this Bill, and complained that the Government had not established in Ireland any works of public utility which would be records of the munificence of this country towards the Irish people. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) had submitted a plan to the House some time since, by which that object might have been effected, and the funds would have been usefully applied: but the noble Lord's scheme was opposed and rejected by the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the House ought not to sanction this measure until they had some security that the money would be applied to some defined object which would tend to benefit the people of Ireland.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) was not quite correct in one of his assumptions. This money was not to be expended by the Treasury, or by the Board of Works, or by the same officers who formerly misspent the funds. The object of the Bill was to enable the Treasury, through the Board of Works, to lend money to the grand juries in Ireland in order to complete such works as might be presented by the juries—such works being executed by the grand juries, or under their direction. With regard to the money to be spent in arterial drainage, indeed, that must be spent under the Board of Works. With respect to the whole 1,000,000l., no money was to be advanced except that which was previously repaid by the counties; and the object was to enable the Treasury to readvance the first six instalments, to enable the counties to complete the works they thought most desirable. To a great extent the benefit of the works would not be derived till they were fully completed; and in many parts of Ireland there were not the means of completing them. An Act was passed early in this Session to permit the counties to complete them; but in only one or two instances had they been able to avail themselves of it. This would surely be a desirable mode of employing the poor; and in the present state of Ireland it was hardly expedient, or good policy, to refuse such a boon. It was necessary that faith should be kept with this country in regard to repayments, but the last two years had not boon ordinary times. It was impossible to detail all the specific purposes of the advances, because no one could tell what counties would apply for the money; many were not anxious to have it; but, surely, so far as the Bill went, we might very fairly extend our liberality to the people of Ireland to enable them to derive the full benefit of the works that were commenced.

apprehended that this was not a mere question of giving time for the payment of a portion of these advances; but it was proposed by this Bill, that as certain repayments were made, they should not be taken to the place to which, by law, they ought to go, namely, to the Consolidated Fund, but should be placed at the disposal of the Board of Works, subject to the sanction of the Treasury. Now, the mode of voting public money, whether by loan or grant, had long been settled to be, that the Government recommending it should state to the House the specific sum wanted, and the purpose for which it was to be voted. Unfortunately in this matter Parliament had departed from that principle; and what was the consequence? At the end of the Session of 1846, there was a measure for making unlimited advances to Ireland; when Parliament met in 1847, there had been 4,000,000l. or 5,000,000l. of money gone; would that have been so, if the ordinary form bad been gone through, and Parliament consulted before the advances? Were not the Irish landlords remonstrating during all the autumn of 1846 against the manner in which the money was spent? Was there not a universal demand in Ireland for what they called reproductive works, instead of unproductive? If it had been necessary to obtain the consent of the House to the advance of another million when one was spent, and the Irish landlords had made that objection, would those further millions have been expended? Let not the same mistake be made again; let the money repaid go into the Consolidated Fund; and if it were wanted to be readvanced, let an estimate be produced, and an account given of the ground of asking the advance. If the ground were compassion to Ireland in a season of distress, experience warranted the belief that the House would not be slow to listen to the demand; but it would be more satisfactory to Ireland itself that Irish landlords be heard before expending the money.