said, he felt the difficulty experienced by hon. Members not connected with the Government in conducting Bills of great public interest through the House, and had appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to assist him in fixing some day next week for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Marriages Bill. He now renewed his appeal, and suggested Thursday next as a day that might he given for the discussion. The Poor Law (Ireland) Bill was put down for that day; but from what he had heard of the progress of the Committee upon that subject, he believed the noble Lord would not look with confidence to bringing on that Bill upon that day. If the adoption of this suggestion were declined, he would make another proposal to the House, but trusted the noble Lord would accede to this. He would also beg to remind the noble Lord that 2,700 of his own constituents had petitioned the House in favour of the measure.

hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman could suggest some other arrangement. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that the adjourned debate might have been concluded on the second night, especially as it was a Friday; and he could not consent to put of Government Bills of great importance from the days for which they were fixed.

had had it suggested to him in a quarter entitled to the greatest respect from the House that Thursday, June 7, not being an Order day, and being a day too distant for any Motion to be yet fixed for it, the House might be disposed to consent in this special case to give precedence on that day to the adjourned debate. He would therefore move at the proper time that on Thursday, June 7, Orders of the Day have precedence of notices of Motion. Subject dropped.

said, he was sorry he was not in his place when the report of the Committee of Selection was read, stating that he had not returned an answer to the summons which was sent to him. It had always been the custom to send to each Member notice from the clerk, begging to know in what period of the Session it would be most convenient to attend these Committees. Every year before this he had had such a notice, and he had replied to it, and this arrangement had been conducive to the convenience of all parties. In the present Session the practice had been given up. ["No, no!"] Then he could only say he had been an unfortunate exception. He had received no information of the kind. If he had received notice, he should have stated that the week beginning the 14th of May was one in which it was impossible for him to pledge himself to attend the Committee, It was not his wish to shrink from the duty imposed upon him; but he thought that for the convenience, not only of Members generally, but of the public, this arrangement should not be departed from. From the course which had been adopted in this particular instance, a hardship had been imposed upon him by being reported for not attending.

, seeing the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, asked whether the company which had engaged to manage the steam communication with Australia were likely to fulfil their engagements?

said, that the company was about to be dissolved; but some parties who were in the company were prepared to go on with their contracts with certain modifications. That was under consideration, and the correspondence had not been entirely concluded.

Would there be any objection to state the names of the parties likely to conduct the communication?

said, that it was not in his power to state the particular names. Subject at an end.

asked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he and Her Majesty's Government had received any information of the advance of the Russian army into the free and independent kingdom of Hungary? ["Oh, oh!"] It was very evident that hon. Gentlemen were not conversant with the history of Hungary. Secondly, he asked if there was any treaty in existence by which this country was bound to permit the entrance of the Russian troops into Hungary? and, lastly, whether Ministers had any intention to offer their mediation between the Emperor of Austria and the victorious people of Hungary?

, in reply to the first question, had to state that Her Majesty's Government had to-day received information from the Chargé d'Affaires at Vienna, that application for military assistance in a war between Austria and Hungary was sent by Austria to the Russian Government, and the application had been assented to, and was going to be complied with; and, although no Russian troops had as yet entered, a Russian force was expected. As to the second question, there was no treaty that he was aware of that bore at all upon the question of the military assistance afforded by Russia to the Austrian Government. As to the third question, he had to state that Her Majesty's Government had taken no steps to offer their mediation between Austria and Hungary, and the Austrian Government had intimated no desire for such mediation. Subject at an end.

asked whether any communications had passed between the Foreign Office and the Government of the French Republic respecting the expedition to Rome? He might also ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to mediate?

No official written communication has passed between this Government and the French Government on the subject. We have been made aware of the intentions of the French Government by verbal communications between the French Ambassador and myself. Subject at an end.

, in answer to a question from Mr. STAFFORD, said he had made inquiry with respect to the steps alleged to have been adopted in Cork for the purpose of getting rid of paupers. It had been supposed that force had been resorted to, but that did not appear to be so. The report he had received stated that there had not been any subscription entered into by private individuals for the removal of paupers from that city, and that 100l., granted by the corporation, formed the only fund available for the purpose, and, at the expenditure of 7l. per week, would last for three months. The paupers were not removed on cars, but were kept continually moving in the streets, by which means many of them had been led to leave.

asked for information on a question respecting which much difference of opinion prevailed—namely, as to the number of ablebodied men in the distressed unions now receiving outdoor relief, and the number of acres of land lately in cultivation, and now lying uncultivated.

could not give a satisfactory answer to either of the questions. By the returns he had, the total number receiving relief under the 2nd Section was 165,000, but in that would be included women and children. He would endeavour to procure the return as to ablebodied paupers. He had no means of informing his hon. Friend of the quantity of land lying waste. Subject dropped.

asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the Cabinet was aware that Admiral Parker had been sent for to Naples by the British Minister, when they stated to Parliament that he went there of his own accord. In answer to a question from himself in August last, and at the beginning of the Session, the noble Lord stated that Admiral Parker had taken the British fleet to Naples, not in reference to the transactions in Sicily, but in consequence of differences between Naples and England. But in the large blue book, just presented to Parliament, entituled, "Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Naples and Sicily," a statement the very reverse was made. It appeared, first, that there was no negotiation opened by Admiral Parker with the Government of Naples, and that Admiral Parker was sent by the British Minister at Naples, by a special vessel, to bring the squadron to Naples. Admiral Parker reported the receipt of the letter of Lord Napier—dated Naples, 9th of February—to the Admiralty on the 12th of February. He arrived at Naples with the squadron on the 21st, and from that time to the 11th of August, when he interfered in the affairs of Sicily, the squadron was continually engaged in transactions arising out of the insurrection. He, therefore, asked the noble Lord whether he was in possession of the real facts of the case when he stated that Admiral Parker went to Naples of his own accord?

apprehended that the hon. Member was confounding two different transactions. The questions asked of him (Lord J. Russell) in August were—speaking now from recollection—whether Admiral Parker was at Naples in consequence of orders from his Government at home, and with the purpose of interfering with the expedition then supposed to be about to leave Naples for Messina; and his answer was, that Admiral Parker had not been sent by Her Majesty's Government—that he had gone of his own accord, in consequence of questions arising relating to British interests; one in reference to a forced loan, one in reference to certain persons being captured in the waters of Corfu; and he (Lord J. Russell) stated that a settlement had been made with regard to two of those questions; and as to a third a negotiation was pending. That, it appeared to him, was a satisfactory answer to questions directed, as he understood, to the purpose of inquiring whether the Government had sent Admiral Parker to Naples for the purpose of preventing the departure of the Neapolitan squadron. The hon. Member now referred to a request of Lord Napier, that Admiral Parker would go to Naples in February. When he (Lord J. Russell) answered the question, he certainly had not in his mind what had occurred in February. Admiral Parker had been at Naples, had left it, and gone to Palermo, and again returned to Naples; and he (Lord J. Russell) naturally supposed it was in consequence of his last appearance there that those questions were asked. The hon. Member would find in the blue book the reasons why, on the 29th of July, Admiral Parker was at Naples, and his statement in his letter to Lord Napier completely confirmed what he (Lord J. Rus- sell) stated in August. With regard to any previous request of Lord Napier that Admiral Parker would go to Naples, he (Lord J. Russell) did not exactly recollect the circumstances that then occurred; but he well remembered that when the Earl of M into, who was at Rome, was informed that Admiral Parker had some intention of going to Naples, he asked the Neapolitan Minister whether it would be agreeable to the King of Naples that a British squadron should appear at Naples; and when the King of Naples said it was agreeable to him generally to see British ships at Naples, but that he did not think their appearance at that moment would be conducive to his interests, the Earl of Minto took care to inform Lord Napier that it was not desirable that the British squadron should go there at that time. The question put in August, he (Lord J. Russell) certainly understood to refer to transactions then recent, and not what occurred in February.

wished to ask the noble Lord if he was aware of that passage in Sir W. Parker's letter of the 11th February, which said—

"By a Neapolitan steam vessel just arrived, I have received a letter from Lord Napier, dated Naples, February 9, 1848, who informs me that the presence of the squadron there will probably add weight to the negotiation which Lord Minto and himself have in hand."

No Other reason was assigned for the presence of the squadron at Naples, except that it would add weight to the negotiations that were going on.

I state again that, in August, I was referring to what had then recently occurred; and that Lord Napier had no power to direct Sir W. Parker to go to Naples at all. He might have stated it was desirable, but he had no power to direct the commander of the squadron to enter.

said, he was far from underrating the advantages that this Bill offered to the landlords of Ireland, with a view to the improvement of their estates. At the same time, he must say that he looked upon it as a great mistake to suppose that the landlords alone were the employers of the people, and to pass over altogether the occupying tenants, who, by the receipt of assistance, might be made the great employers of the labouring poor of that country. If they wanted to find continuous and general labour for Ireland, they must do so by enabling those who were the occupiers of the soil to give money wages for labour—a result that could never be gained by merely giving grants of money to the proprietors. Owing to circumstances over which they had no control, the proprietors were not able to give assistance to their tenantry unless in a few exceptional cases; and he believed that in the poorer parts of Ireland—in those places where assistance was most required—the provisions of this Bill would be most inoperative. He did not see why power should not be given under this Bill to make advances in those cases where farms had been consolidated for the purpose of erecting farm buildings, of which they were generally destitute, and providing what was otherwise necessary to a proper working of those farms. The cultivation of flax was also a matter that ought to receive the serious attention of Government and the House. This might be made a most profitable department of farming in Ireland, but it was not grown to anything like the extent it ought to be, on account of the want of facilities for taking it to market. The Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland, under the patronage of Lord Clarendon, who had devoted a large sum of public money to assist the instructors in agriculture sent forth among the farmers, had energetically turned its attention to this subject; and if hon. Members would but read the reports of those instructors, they would be able to form some idea of the difficulties they experienced in carrying out their object. They found the farmers of Ireland so poor, that it was impossible by instruction alone to succeed in their views; for they could not without capital effect any of the improvements suggested to them. If the object of these practical instructors in agriculture could be gained, he believed that they would soon be able to get quit of those ablebodied paupers now so numerous all over the distressed districts; but without money the farmers could do nothing. It would be of the utmost importance, therefore, to devise some means by which the farmers could be assisted in carrying out their agricultural operations. He stated his belief that, if anything could be done to remedy this state of matters, they would do more for Ireland than all their legislation had yet effected. The question of arterial drainage was one of the greatest importance, and he was glad that it had not been lost sight of by the Government. He thought it would be better, both for this country and for Ireland, if it was resolved at once to carry out all the works already commenced. Formerly these works were promoted to a certain degree by means of private capital, because it was obtained on the security of the lands that were improved. That system could not, however, be continued, in consequence of the value of landed property having become so much depreciated that the want of confidence thereby created prevented them getting the money. In 1838 the Marquess of Lansdowne stated that Government were pledged, by what had passed on the passing of the Irish Poor Law, to encourage the employment of the labouring poor of Ireland; and he added, that better security did not exist than was found in that country for sums advanced to promote that object. He (Major Blackall) thought that, after what had passed last year, they had a right to expect that liberal aid would be extended to Ireland. He could assure the House that, at present, the safety of Ireland depended on employment being given to the people; and that, instead of the landlords and farmers of that country being able to do so, their resources were rapidly decreasing.

wished to impress upon the House that this proposition of the Government would be wholly inadequate for the purpose of giving relief to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to some of the distressed districts as showing symptoms of prosperity. The reports of the last few days, however, had given an answer of a most unfavourable character to the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman. From various unions the most disastrous accounts had been received, and he was more than ever convinced that the House would be acting under a delusion if they thought the Government proposition would be sufficient to relieve the distress of that country. The ejectments going on, in connexion with the starvation that prevailed, required some effectual remedy. What good effect resulted from the Bill of last year? It might give some amount of food to the poor ejected peasantry; but they were supplied with neither clothes nor lodging. If it had been intended to depopulate Ireland by starvation, the course now taken would produce that very result; but he was sure it was not the intention of that House that the people of Ireland should be so dealt with. Why should the mass of the people be driven from the occupation of the soil? He thought the occupation of the soil in reasonably small holdings one of the best means that could be devised for benefiting Ireland. It was of no use to expect that the farmer would lay out capital to improve the soil, unless they gave him some security that he would receive the benefit of the outlay he had made. Government had promised that something should be done in this respect; but those promises were not kept, and now the soil was uncultivated, and consequently there was no employment for the people. There was no want of capital in Ireland. There was a great deal of capital in the hands of farmers; but it was not laid out in the cultivation of the land, and they were now carrying it away to foreign countries. If, however, security had been given for a fair return for the improvements made, this capital would have been expended on the soil. If he wanted additional proof of this matter, it was to be found in the admirable address which had just been published by the Society of Friends for the relief of destitution in Ireland, They stated in this address that whatever might have been the value of the enormous amount applied during the last three years by the Legislature and by private charity, in affording a temporary alleviation of wide-spread misery, it had produced scarcely any permanently useful results. They next referred to the extent of neglected land, while the strength of the country was standing by idle, anxiously seeking for work, to the frightful system of wholesale evictions, the progress of emigration, and the other symptoms of the deterioration of society in Ireland, and then observed that—

"We have long felt that the chief ground of hope, the main source of improvement, is the improved cultivation of the soil; and that the surest means of effecting this object is by affording security to the cultivator. That this security does not generally exist in Ireland, is admitted. On this point there is scarcely a second opinion among thinking men in this country. The laws which regulate the title to, and the conveyance of land, require to be changed, so as to give the utmost freedom to its sale and transfer—so as to pass those estates, whose proprietors are irretrievably ruined, into other hands—and to enable those who are partially encumbered to free themselves from their difficulties, by disposing of part of their landed property. Until this be effected; until the soil of Ireland be held by a clear and marketable title; until the owners be enabled to sell the whole or any part of their property without the ruinous delays and the heavy costs which now prevent them; until the creditors of a landowner have those facilities for enforcing payment of their debts by the sale of his property, to which justice entitles them; we are compelled thus publicly to state our decided conviction, that it is in vain to hope that Ireland can raise itself from a state of poverty and degradation. The potato may grow again, and by its assistance our country may be enabled to escape from the immediate pressure of its difficulties; but without those changes of the laws relating to the tenure and conveyance of land, which shall open a free scope for the employment of its capital and its industry, and give ample security to the cultivators of the soil, we cannot hope for general and permanent improvement. An enormous amount of money has been raised to relieve us. It will be useless unless free scope is given to the energies of the country. The partial remedies which have been applied have served but to tighten the net which trammels the exertions of the great mass of the population. Measures of a much more decided character are necessary to produce any permanently useful effect. The situation of the country is daily becoming worse. There is no time to lose, if those now suffering are to be saved. Money must still be advanced for temporary purposes, during the interval which will elapse before efficient measures can be brought into general and active operation. But our paramount want is not money; it is the removal of those legal difficulties which prevent the capital of Ireland from being applied to the improved cultivation of its soil, and thus supporting its poor by the wages of honest and useful labour."

Such was the opinion of that excellent society. They contended that all the grants proposed by Government would be productive of no permanent benefit unless accompanied by other measures for giving security to the tenant farmers. There were large tracts of cultivatable land in Ireland now living waste. The Government should take them up, and give instant employment to the people, and not leave that duty to be discharged by the landlords. He would direct the attention of the Government also to the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which he believed to be in many respects practicable. At all events, unless something were immediately done, thousands of the poor in Ireland would die, and the responsibility would fall upon the Government and the Legislature. They must, when dealing with Ireland, depart from those economical principles which might be applicable to England. Ireland was a country which required to be dealt with in a very different manner. He approved of the present proposition of the Government, and should give it his sup- port; but he warned the House against considering it as excusing them from the adoption of other measures of improvement for Ireland.

did not think it advisable to enter upon the discussion as to whether some other mode of applying the public money for the improvement of Ireland might not be adopted. He thought it much more convenient to consider this additional advance to be made on the same terms, and applied to the same objects, to which the former grants had been made applicable. He would take this opportunity of referring to a statement which was made the other night by the hon. Member for Shropshire in reference to the expenditure for certain works performed on his estate in the country of Leitrim. The observation of the hon. Member on that occasion did not apply to either of the Bills under which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to make this additional advance. The works to which the hon. Member referred were done under what was called Mr. Labouchere's letter, which was a modification of the Relief Bill. According to the provisions of that Bill, the labourers were selected and paid by the relief committee, and the work was conducted under the superintendence either of the landlord (the hon. Gentleman himself in this instance) or his agent; and if they had taken part on the relief committee, in all probability the work would not have cost them more than had been expended on other works. It turned out that the overseer appointed by the relief committee was a small shopkeeper, and wholly incompetent to discharge the duty required of him. The inspector of the works remonstrated against his being employed; but the relief committee retained him until the officer of the Board of Works found that gentleman sitting down quietly under a hedge with all his labourers about him. If from the negligence and carelessness of the landed proprietors of Ireland these works were not efficiently and economically performed, the Board of Works could not be considered responsible, who had no power to control the relief committees, with whom rested the power to carry out the provisions of the Relief Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that the work in question was done under Mr. Labouchere's letter, and was arranged altogether without the knowledge of his (Mr.- O. Gore's) agent. No notice was given of the intention to work on the estate. The first intimation that the agent had of it, was a demand, on the part of the Government, for the sum of 200l., being at the rate of 32l. an acre for drainage. That was one case; hut he had now two other cases to mention. In the county of Westmeath 150l. had been demanded for draining nine acres and a half of land; and since he had come down to the House he had received a letter from the county of Sligo, in which the writer mentioned a case where arterial drainage was attempted under Mr. Labouchere's letter, but was never finished, the subdrain never having been closed, and that if the work had been finished it would only have drained about three-quarters of an acre. The sum paid for this was about 24l. The writer stated that it ought to have been done for 4l., or less. But—Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat—the Whigs are determined to ruin Ireland. Drainage, the writer observed, was the first step to be taken in a country requiring improvement so much as Ireland did; but it should be done economically, and not, as it was now done, wastefully, by keeping in pay a horde of incapables. He (Mr. O. Gore) agreed with the writer when he said that there was plenty of money in Ireland. Doubtless, portions of Ireland were very much distressed, but there was plenty of money there; and, as the hon. Member for Rochdale had said, Ireland did not want the assistance of England if Parliament would only give them fair play. The writer went on to say, that the localities for arterial drainage by the Board of Works had often been ill selected and worse engineered. The estimate made of the cost for common drainage in the county of Westmeath would have been ample but for the mismanagement of the officers of the board. Although the drainage had not reached three-quarters of the distance it was intended to go, yet the landlords whose property it did not reach had been compelled to pay their proportion of the expense. Now, if the Government undertook to perform works of improvement in Ireland, they should consider themselves to be placed in the same position as a common contractor would be, and they should be bound to carry out their work or receive no pay.

had had considerable experience of the operations per-formed under Mr. Labouchere's most admirable modification of the Labour Act; and he, certainly, could not concur with the hon. Member for Shropshire in the censure which he had passed upon what had been done for the improvement of Ireland under that measure. He thought the country ought to feel exceedingly indebted to the Government for this additional grant. He believed it would be of the greatest possible use, by extending in Ireland a knowledge of the means of improving that country by introducing neat and correct work on the land.

could not anticipate any real advantage from either of these measures. He also called attention to the fact, that in every instance the Board of Works had materially exceeded the sums which had been agreed by the parties should be expended in these works, and contended that some control should be placed on the Board, and that they should not be left, as they now were, both the planners and paymasters of the improvements carried out under the advance. He considered that, owing to the peculiar circumstance of the districts which this Bill was designed to assist, that it would be, so far as they were concerned, inoperative. In the eastern and northern districts the proprietors would, no doubt, be most anxious to obtain the advantages which it offered; but it would not be so in the southern and western districts, where the landlords would scarcely be willing to involve themselves still farther than they were already. He objected to the Bill, because it would neither meet present purposes nor lay the foundation of future improvement. He believed that no sum of money which might be necessary to raise the condition, of the people of Ireland to an equality with themselves, would be grudged by the English people. What was required in the southern and western districts was railways to convey their produce to the markets. An advance of a million would open up four main trunk lines; and while it would do more, perhaps, than anything else towards future prosperity, it might be advanced under the most perfect security for repayment. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention, still further than he had done, to the condition of Ireland. The evidence before the Lords' Committee showed that in Connaught alone, there were 50,000 acres of the best land lying waste, the value of the produce of which, if brought into cultivation, had been estimated at not less than 2,500,00l This was a subject which should not escape notice by Ministers, when considering measures for providing employment for the people, and for the future prosperity of the country.

observed, that after the large sums which had been already advanced, it was probable that this extra half million would not do much harm to England, neither, seeing the large sums which had been wasted in Ireland, was it likely to do much good to that country. He concurred with the last speaker, that the Bill was not likely to be useful, either for present purposes or as laying the foundation of future improvement. But measures unimportant in themselves might be important in the principles involved in them; and in this case the House should consider whether this Bill was not the mere continuation of that blind, inconsistent, and ruinous system of tiding over difficulties for the moment, without caring for the future, which had been so long followed, or whether it was a part of a new and wiser system of policy. From the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the other night, he concluded that the Bill was of the former character. And that speech had gone far to confirm his fears that this new loan was of the same character, and would follow the same course as many others that had gone before it, and that it would go into that bottomless pit in which they had sunk. Ireland had larger claims probably on this country (suffering as she was at this time) than any efforts of ours could meet, And he believed that such was the feeling of the English people, that there were no efforts of humanity in their power which they were not prepared to make on behalf of their suffering fellow-subjects in the sister country. At the same time he could not admit that in considering this question, Parliament should throw over economical principles altogether. The system of loans began to be regarded in England as pernicious in principle and in its results, and as tending to create feelings of disaffection and alienation between the two countries. He did not conceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments were at all satisfactory when compared with the facts as they stood. The right hon. Gentleman had said that having succeeded in arresting the progress of famine and preserving life by the former advance, now they should proceed to measures of permanent improvement. But if the measures of improvement were not to be more successful than those for the pre- servation of life had been, neither Government nor the House would have much reason to congratulate themselves. Let them look to the accounts of the mortality in Ireland, as they appeared in the public papers and in private letters. It was true that no official returns had been presented to Parliament, showing the mortality and disease which prevailed in Ireland; but there was not an hon. Gentleman in that House who was ignorant of the fact that the most alarming and shocking state of things existed in that country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was true, drew rather a cheering picture of Irish affairs. From his speech one would suppose that the worst had passed—that there were un-mistakeable signs of improvement—that mortality and disease had at least abated—that we had turned the corner there. But what were the facts? The very morning after the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, statements appeared in the London newspapers, which gave a most fearful picture of the state of the people in Connemara, Ballinrobe, and Ken-mare. [The hon. Member here read extracts from a letter in a London morning newspaper, which gave a frightful account of the condition of these districts.] And it appears that the mortality in the workhouse of Fermoy for the last four months has been as follows:—

said, that it was with considerable surprise he had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. And he was somewhat astonished to find, that whilst he said "those were the grounds upon which he opposed the Bill before the House," he had not concluded by moving as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. He (Sir G. Grey) did not think it was a question which the House could treat with indifference. If he thought that the sum of 500,000l., the loan of which would be authorised by the Bill, was to be thrown away, or wasted, he could not, as a representative of the people, sit there and not enter his protest against such a waste. But he should call attention to some of the facts stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House—facts which the hon. Gentleman had altogether overlooked. His right hon. Friend, in the statement which he had made as to the grounds upon which the Bill was founded, mentioned, and satisfied the House (although, as it appeared, he had not satisfied the hon. Gentleman) that the money already advanced by Parliament to England, Scotland, and Ireland, by way of loans, for the improvement of the soil of the country, had acted most beneficially in increasing its productiveness, in giving employment to many of the people who would otherwise have been unemployed, and in increasing the general wealth of the State, and that it was not money thrown away. It had proved beneficial to those upon whose estates it had been laid out, and its repayment had been secured; and although, from the 2,000,000l. which had been advanced to England and Scotland the advantages expected to be derived had been already, to a great extent, realised, they had not yet seen the whole of the results. But his right hon. Friend had also stated, that, under the advances made by Parliament, 20,000 able-bodied men, representing 100,000 families in Ireland, were now industriously exerting themselves for the support of their families, and these loans were secured by being charged upon the estates without any risk of loss to the State; he meant without risk of any important loss. He did not mean to say that a few pounds might not be lost; as, for instance, in reply to a question put the other night, his right hon. Friend had stated, that up to October last the only arrear remaining due from a former loan was a balance of 53l. That was the only answer he should give to the sneers of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, about throwing money into a bottomless gulf. But the hon. Gentleman had spoken in great ignorance of the facts of the case. He went into considerations about the result of lending to solvent or insolvent proprietors, as if he thought that the security for the loan was to be personal security—the personal security of insolvents, instead of being a charge upon the land. But the real fact was, that the land was held responsible, and it would become forfeited if the loan were not repaid. So that they had the best possible security for the money, and one that would be perfectly available for the purposes of the Act. As to the observations of Captain Hamilton, they were merely founded upon a superficial view of the district. He (Sir G. Grey) did not know whether in the union of Ballina any proprietors had applied for loans under the Act; but he knew that in the west of Ireland there were several proprietors who had applied for loans for the purpose of improving their estates and employing the people. The object of the present Bill was to enable landed proprietors to obtain loans by which they could at once improve their estates and employ the people. The hon. Gentleman condemned the present measure and said that other means should be employed to meet the exigencies of the case. But other means had been employed, means which the hon. Gentleman ridiculed, in aid of the rates, in order that relief might he afforded to these poor people, and that the progress of poverty and destitution might be arrested. He would not follow the hon. Gentleman through his speech, or into any of the various subjects upon which he had assailed the measures of the Government. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be quite unmindful or ignorant that by that speech he was delaying the progress of another measure belonging to the very class which he said ought to be introduced. He seemed not to know the nature of the next Bill upon the Orders of the Day, that was to come before the House, or that it was one for the better enabling people to dispose of incumbered estates. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in thinking that his right hon. Friend thought or said that legislation could do nothing for Ireland. What he said was, that legislation could not do everything. He said that the great work should be done by the resident proprietors themselves. He (Sir G. Grey) would not go any further into the subjects touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, as he did not wish to delay the House from the consideration of the next measure that was before them. Much of what the hon. Gentleman uttered against the Bill was not applicable to what his right hon. Friend had said, and it certainly did not redound very much to the hon. Gentleman's character for fairness. Utterly condemning, as he (Sir G. Grey) did, the want of fairness in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he could have wished that he had concluded it with an amendment, upon which the House might have had an opportunity of recording its opinion. He did not, however, regret his not having done so, as it would have occupied a good deal of time, and delayed them from the consideration of the Incumbered Estates Bill.

explained. He had quoted from Captain Hamilton, because he was a Government inspector and a proprietor of land in the Ballina union. And he had said that he was unable to let one inch of the land he had reclaimed, and that he was convinced not one single proprietor in Ballina would take a sixpence of the Government loan. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill.

said, he highly approved of the measure now proposed. He thought all their legislation should be subsidiary to the passing of this Bill. He not only cordially supported it, but he thanked Her Majesty's Government for bringing it forward; and he entertained sanguine hopes that it would effect all the advantages anticipated by its promoters.

coincided in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. The Government would accomplish a real benefit by having introduced the Bill, and the greatest good that could be conferred on Ireland would be to expedite its passage through the House.

also approved of the Bill, but it would be insufficient unless it were accompanied by an entire change in the poor-law system. There were already more estates in the market than could find purchasers. He knew of one estate that had been lately sold for between ten and eleven years' purchase, although the title was perfectly clear. But the fact was, they should ensure purchasers against the incalculable liabilities under the present poor-law.

approved of the Bill; but he should impress upon the House that more was necessary, and unless they went to the root of the evil, and altered the poor-law, so as to make the purchasers secure against their property being swallowed up by poor-rates, it would be useless to bring lands into the market. Within the last few days three estates had been offered for sale in Dublin: two could find no purchasers, and the third was sold at 60 per cent under what was considered by the best judges as its real value. He recommended the Government to weigh well the plan suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Estates could not be sold at present in Ireland with the clearest titles; and unless some inducement were held out to purchasers, how did they expect that purchasers could be found by merely making the clearing of titles more easy?

could not agree with those hon. Members for Ireland who had so highly praised the Bill. He thought it a very faulty measure, and one which was entirely abrogating the law of the land. He did not think it wise or prudent to send into the country a board of commissioners with inquisitorial powers to search into the condition of any man upon whose property a debt might be secured, and whose creditor came before the board to demand a sale. He thought the plan unwise which would send into the market a large quantity of land at a moment when it was extremely difficult to find purchasers; and, above all, he should like to know who the com-missioners were to be. Upon that would depend much of his objection to the measure. For instance, he would not trust himself to such a commission if the hon. Member for Manchester were to be one of the commissioners, after the sentiments which that hon. Member had expressed. Any man, from motives of spite or political enmity, could force a sale of an estate under this Bill, by merely buying up some small debt upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had guarded his plan with an observation which had been unobserved by the Government, and the guard had been left out of the present Bill. The right hon. Baronet said, that owners of estates to be sold should receive the full value of them; hut no such reservation was made in the Government measure. An hon. Friend of his (Colonel Dunne) was about to introduce an important clause into it, which he trusted would be finally carried. Its object would be to compel the new purchasers of land to reside upon the estates they should purchase. At present about 6,000,000l. a year was drawn out of Ireland by absentee proprietors; and as the difficulties of dealing with the subject hitherto had been very great, he hoped that this proposition would be found simple enough to provide at least for the prevention of future absenteeism. It was impossible but that such a constant drain must diminish the capital of a country. He was not one of those who believed that there were large masses of capital concealed in Ireland; and when the estates were brought into the market, he did not believe that many Irishmen would be found able to purchase them, even if they should be broken up into the smallest portions, to suit people of small capital. He thought the Irish estates would be bought up by speculators, and persons anxious to seize upon Irish property; and the result would be, unless some timely precautions were taken, that the land would get into the hands of non-residents, and the evils to the population would be increased. He hoped no hon. Member would vote for the Bill until Her Majesty's Ministers had declared who the commissioners were to be. He did not see why they should not at once declare that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Master of the Rolls, who was one of the best equity lawyers in Ireland, should be two of the commissioners. There would then be some sort of security that the proceedings of the commission would be guided by some respect for the laws of the land.

approved of the principle of the Bill, and thought that the Government deserved credit for its introduction. Nothing was more important to the future prosperity of Ireland than the existence of some means for facilitating the transfer of property from those who were but the nominal possessors of it, to those who could really improve the land and employ the people. He would recommend the addition of a clause compelling absentee landlords to provide in some way or other for the support and employment of the labourers upon their estates.

assented to the principle of the Bill, but objected to some of its provisions, particularly to the powers given to the commissioners. He thought they ought to be instructed to have regard to the interests of the first mortgagee. As the Bill now stood, the owner of an incumbered estate might apply for a sale, and compel the mortgagee to go into the market at a most unfavourable time, and when his interest would be sacrificed. He did not mean to say that the mortgagee ought to be protected against public policy, but, as far as might be, consistently with public policy. The commissioners were empowered to call upon the mortgagees of every estate in Ireland to produce their title, and, if he understood the Bill rightly, to overrule the decisions of the courts of equity. They were not to be restrained in any manner in the execution of the extensive powers conferred on them. He thought there were cases in which an injunction ought to be granted, and the means afforded to the owner of retaining his estate, when it could be done with justice to the mortgagee. He threw out the suggestion for the consideration of the hon. and learned Solicitor General.

said, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Coventry objected to the Bill as interfering with the Court of Chancery in Ireland, he should remember that that court had already had ample opportunity of applying its machinery to the evil, and that it was because it had failed that this measure was introduced, having for its object an economical, speedy, facile, and advantageous sale of incumbered estates. Last year he moved for a return of the number of decrees pronounced by the courts of equity in Ireland within the last five years, with the view of seeing the amount of property decreed to be sold, and contrasting it with the amount actually sold; and in that return he found that in the year ending the 9th of March, 1848, no less than 51 decrees had been pronounced by the Court of Chancery alone, and in the year ending March, 1849, no less than 69. Now, how far had the masters succeeded in selling the estates under those decrees? In Mr. Murphy's office, in the year ending April, 1848, only 15 sales had been effected; and in the year ending April, 1849, only six. In Mr. Brookes's office, in the year ending April, 1848, only seven sales had been effected; and in the year ending April, 1849, only one. Thus, while there had been a steadily increasing number of suits for the sale of incumbered estates, he found that in the offices of the Chief Remembrancer and the four Chancery Masters there had been a great decrease in the number of sales effected. This return alone sufficed to show the absolute necessity for some such measure as that before the House. But he hoped that no consideration would induce the Solicitor General to copy the Incumbered Estates Bill of last Session, under which every practical man knew it was impossible to sell incumbered estates. He hoped he would provide in this Bill for the repeal of that Act, reserving only those two or three valuable provisions contained in it. It was absurd to suppose that the proposed commission would expire in five, or even ten, years. They were now, for the first time, about to acknowledge the principle that purchasers of land should acquire a Parliamentary title, and it would be idle to suppose that any sales of estates could be effected except under the operation of that principle, and, therefore, through the commission; because, however good might be the title, there were always conditions which rendered it less clear or certain than the proposed Parliamentary title. In fact, it would be utterly impossible for the owners of estates for private sale to compete with persons selling under the operation of this Bill. As he read the Bill, the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not propose the sale of those short terminable interests held by middlemen, who formed so large a class in the south of Ireland. He thought it would be unjust to exclude them from the benefits of this measure; because if they offered them for sale in the ordinary method, they would be hampered by many conditions, which a Parliamentary title would supersede. They did not consider themselves proprietors or landlords of the land; although they discharged many of the fiscal duties of landlords. He believed they were anxious to be denuded of the outward ostentation of being landlords, which in reality they were not, and that they felt that the tenant occupiers were getting more desirous every day of becoming the direct tenants of the owners. He thought, therefore, that some clause might be successfully introduced to enable the commissioners, where the owner in fee, and the parties holding the intermediate interests, were assenting parties, to extinguish those intermediate interests, and offer the property for sale in such a form as would be most likely to attract the English capitalist. He thought they might be commuted for some determinable rent charge. He was also of opinion that some provision ought to be made for partition in cases of coparcenary—2,000,000 acres of the land of Ireland being so held. He knew a case of property being held conjointly by three persons who had had a partition suit in the Court of Chancery for twenty-five years, without any immediate prospect of an arrangement. With regard to the powers of the commissioners, objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, he thought they ought to be most extensive and summary powers, so as to enable them to enforce their orders with readiness, not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland, where so many of the mortgagees resided. He was justified in urging the Government to render the Act such, that all parties connected with property in Ireland might be enabled to avail themselves of its provisions. It was possible that some incumbered proprietors, acting in conjunction with their creditors, and anxious to preserve their estates from coming within the Act, would be able to defeat it altogether, or, at all events, curtail the advantages expected to flow from the measure. He thought the power of putting the Act in operation should be given to other persons than those at present mentioned, otherwise the measure would be completely inoperative. If, for instance, there was a combination between the inheritor and the creditors, the Act might easily be defeated. Taking the Bill in conjunction with the Irish Poor Law Bill, lately introduced by the First Minister of the Crown, it might be assumed that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to empower the sale of a portion of the land for payment of the arrears of poor-rates now due. For his own part, he was entirely in favour of giving the most summary power for the recovery of arrears of poor-rates from the landlords. He meant those arrears due in respect of land, either in their own actual possession or in the occupation of such of their tenants whose rent did not exceed 4l. a year each. He knew there were many of his countrymen who considered it a great hardship that such extensive powers should be given for the recovery of poor-rates, and that landed proprietors should be held responsible at all for poor-rates. But it should be recollected that the vast sum of three millions sterling, collected last year for poor-rates and county cess, had been paid by the tenantry in actual occupation of the land, the majority of whom paid less than 15l. a year rent. The landlords had no reason to complain, perhaps, when it was recollected that the most stringent and extensive powers were conferred upon poor-law guardians, to have the rates collected where the annual value was over 4l. The goods, chattels, and bodies of the tenantry were liable where the annual value exceeded that sum. There was the greatest anxiety to meet the demand shown by the tenantry in Ireland; and he thought it was only justice to see that that portion which was payable by the landlords was enforced, and that every facility should be given for its recovery. He feared, as the Bill was now framed, there was not a sufficiently distinct and summary mode given to compel payment of those rates by the proprietors of land. The poor-law guardians or commissioners should be at liberty to proceed, in the civil-bill courts, for the recovery of those rates, where their amount was within their jurisdiction, and when beyond it they should be empowered to bring actions in the superior courts; when the proprietors resided in England that they might be proceeded against here, and on judgments being recovered, that those judgments might be transferred to Ireland, where they could be made available as liens upon the land. As to landed proprietors who resided on the Continent, or who took up their residences perhaps at Brussels or Boulogne, it would be difficult to proceed against them effectively, and much expense would be incurred. The very best mode to avoid injustice to any one would be to extend the jurisdiction of the assistant barristers' courts, and empower them to adjudicate upon all cases relating to poor-rates due by landed proprietors—the decree of the as- sistant barrister to be registered in Dublin, and have the same effect as any judgment. That would put an end to the necessity or the opportunity of incurring costs in fruitless and harassing proceedings. With regard to the landlords' exemption from arrest for rates due by them, he had no wish to see them liable to be arrested. On the contrary he was satisfied to exchange their liability to arrest for the more rational modes of enforcing payment he had suggested. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: To any amount?] Yes; and he assured the House, that if something like what he had suggested were not adopted, the whole project would be an utter failure. The Bill could never be made to work. The whole thing would break down for want of purchasers. It was in the power of the Government still to hold out inducements to parties to invest capital in the purchase of land in Ireland. There were many privileges and advantages that would operate as powerful inducements to capitalists to invest their money in land there, and those privileges might safely be entrusted to them. If proper inducements were given by the Government, Ireland would soon have the advantage of the investment of a large amount of that capital with which the city of London and this country generally was literally surcharged. If such alterations were made in the Bill as would render land an easily convertible security for parties willing to invest their capital in it, one of the results would be, that the resources of Ireland would soon become profitably developed, instead of rapidly retrograding to ruin, as they were at present.

would have contented himself with the expression of opinion which he gave on a previous occasion, had it not been for the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, observations calculated unnecessarily to alarm the English mortgagees, and thus assist in raising up a formidable opposition to the Bill. His own unbiassed and honest conviction was, that the Bill was calculated to confer the greatest possible advantage on all classes in Ireland; and if he was to select any particular class as likely to experience peculiar benefit, it would be that of the incumbered proprietor entirely disabled from discharging the duties or realising the advantages of his property. He did not think that the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry were well founded. Every reasonable precaution was taken in the Bill to secure the interests of all parties. He was quite at a loss to understand why any objection should be made by any mortgagee to a cheap and advantageous mode of realising what was owing to him, looking at the difficulty which now existed on that point. Neither could he see why a Parliamentary title should not enhance the value of the property by four or five years' purchase, thus affording a chance that the proceeds would prove adequate to meet the claims both of the first and second mortgagee. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the Bill proposed to confer extraordinary discretionary powers upon the three commissioners to be appointed under it; now, in that respect, likewise, he had the misfortune of differing from the hon. and learned Member. As he (Mr. Keogh) read the Bill, the powers with which the commissioners were to be invested were reasonable enough. The directions given could not be more clear or specific. The ninth section required the commissioners to frame and circulate forms of application and directions, indicating the particulars of the information necessary to be furnished, on application to them. First, with reference to title; then, as to incumbrances, the special circumstances of the land, and such other information as in the judgment of the commissioners might assist them in forming an opinion on the application. The nineteenth section authorised the commissioners to direct notices to be given to, and to hear any parties interested in the land or lease; it further stated that they should investigate the title and the incumbrances affecting such lease and land, and the state and circumstances of the land, so as to enable them to determine whether it would be expedient that a sale of all or any part of it should be made; and if such a sale should be expedient, then that they should be empowered at their discretion to make an order for the sale of all or any part of such land, or of the land comprised in the lease. That was undoubtedly a very proper power to invest the commissioners with. Any person interested in the property might apply to the commissioners, and should be heard; specified notices to all persons concerned being given; and, after a strict investigation of all the circumstances, the commissioners exercised their discretion as to the expediency of a sale. There was not the least reason, therefore, for arriving at the conclusion that petty in- cumbrancers, to the extent of a few pounds, might compel the sale of any property in Ireland. There was every possible guarantee that no such evil could arise, unless indeed hon. Members imagined that the most incompetent persons would be selected as commissioners. The hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington had adduced a very novel argument against the Bill. In comparing its provisions with the operation of the Court of Chancery, he stated that this court had fenced property by safeguards and protections which did not exist in the Bill before the House. So far, however, as he (Mr. Keogh) could understand the matter, the effect of these safeguards had been to prevent, by delay and expense, the realisation of those objects which the parties applying to the Court of Chancery had in view. He knew enough of the west of Ireland to induce him to say that, under the impression that Her Majesty's Ministers had no more comprehensive measure in contemplation than the present—and although he was far from saying that no other measure was needed—he was prepared to treat the question not as a legal question, but in a much broader view; and he trusted that no opposition would prevail against the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman then entered at some length into an explanation of the mode in which incumbered property was now managed through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery. Not unfrequently receivers were appointed under a previous arrangement with solicitors, to throw as much as they could in their way in the shape of law costs. He had just been told, that in one union no fewer than nine estates were under the charge of receivers; and he was not surprised to hear that that union was one of the bankrupt ones. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry had spoken of the alarm which the proprietors of property felt at the consequences of the proposed Bill. Evidence, however, of a contrary feeling could be appealed to. He knew that the estates of the late Mr. Martin, in Connemara, extending to 196,000 Irish acres; the estates of Mr. O'Neil and others, amounting in all to 279,000 Irish acres, would be sold at the present moment if eligible purchasers could be found. He would appeal to those of his hon. and learned Friends who were best acquainted with the workings of the Court of Chancery, if they ever knew an instance of a proprietor who entered that court, coming out of it in a solvent state? Looking at the miserable condition in which Ireland was placed, he, for one, would gladly concur in the adoption of any measures which tended to extricate her from that condition.

observed, that they were all agreed in this—that it would be desirable to let loose the incumbered land in Ireland. The question was, how was that to be done with justice to all parties, and with little shock to the feelings of all parties. He thought the Irish Gentlemen had just reason to complain of the Government in this matter. In 1847, he knew that a representation had been made to the Government by persons in this country interested in Irish estates, and who then pointed out the advantage of giving to purchasers a Parliamentary title. That was very much pressed upon Government, and it was refused by Government. The great object of public policy in the present state of Ireland should be to let loose the land; but were they not by the Bill going beyond what was necessary to effect that object? An hon. and learned Gentleman who had addressed the House to-night stated, that decrees for sale were easy enough to be obtained, but the difficulty was to effect the sale. And how did they think that such a Bill as this would tend to induce persons to buy land in Ireland? After agreeing to give a man a Parliamentary title to an estate, see what a condition they placed him in, and if it would be an inducement to him to lay out his money in land in Ireland. The return of interest upon the investment of money in land was small; and the reason why persons were induced to lay it out in land was on account of the nature of the security. There was an idea that, owing to the law of England, a man could not be easily divested of his land; and that was one great reason why persons in buying land were contented with a less amount of return for their capital. But if they introduced into Ireland a new scheme for dealing with the land, as the hon. Member for Carlow had told them, they must extend it—they would not be able to stop here with this Bill—they must give it an almost permanent operation. It was in fact to be a kind of roving commission. Look at the mortgagee—see how they would treat him. The only security which he had was his parchments. They had been told that many of those parchment securities had gone out of the country; and how many more did they think would yet go out if this Bill were passed into a law, and people were called upon to produce them? In his opinion, those persons would act wisely who placed them out of the reach of the court. He must say, therefore, going as he did fully with those who desired to let loose the land of Ireland, that the provisions of the Bill went beyond what was necessary to effect their own object; because all who had yet spoken in support of the measure agreed that there was a large quantity of land under decree for sale, and that purchasers could not be found. Was it necessary, then, to go beyond what they had power now to do? Let them give a Parliamentary title, and see if purchasers would come in and clear the land which was now for sale in the market. But if it were necessary to go beyond the law in the sale of an estate, in order to let loose the land, there could be no reason for taking the distribution of the fund from the ordinary tribunals of the country, unless they came to that conclusion to which he thought the Bill would fast bring the country—that the Court of Chancery must be swept away. He knew that, both in England and Ireland, there were many persons who thought that great reforms were necessary in that court; but if they took this great step, they must be prepared to go a step further, and either show the special grounds of exemption that were to take the distribution of the funds out of the ordinary tribunals of the country, or remodel those tribunals, or sweep them away. Another reason against the commission for distribution of the funds was this, that there would be a sort of ex parte inquiry by them before a sale was decreed, and it would be supposed by people that these commissioners had formed certain opinions of the rights of parties when they decreed a sale; and, therefore, would not come as an impartial tribunal to decide on conflicting interests in the distribution of the funds.

admitted there was a good deal of truth in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, when he said the Bill seemed to give a sort of roving commission. He thought there were some points in which it could be improved for the practical carrying out of the objects it proposed, and for the benefit of the country. He would propose to confine the power of the commission to the sale of land merely, and to hand over to the Court of Common Pleas the distribution of the funds arising from the sale—a court which would give universal satisfaction. He thought it would be found expedient to confer upon this commission power to inquire into all estates on petition being presented to them: first, into the value of the estate; and, secondly, into the amount of incumbrances upon it; and when these incumbrances should amount to a certain large proportion, that then, and not till then, should the commission have power to deal with that estate. The two functions proposed by the Bill to be conferred on the commission were—first, to effect a sale of the estate; and, secondly, to distribute the funds. The first was a function which might be discharged by many with great advantage to all parties interested in the estates in question; but the second, which was to decide upon the priority of charges, however simple it might seem to those acquainted with law, was yet one of the most intricate questions which could come before any tribunal. He proposed, therefore, that the three commissioners should be empowered effectually to discharge the first of these functions, so as to decree and complete the sale; and that the money, after deducting, say 3 per cent on the price, or 5 per cent, or whatever other rate was usually charged by a respectable auctioneer, for he would have the rate fixed for the expenses of the sale sent into the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, where the distribution could be effectually and satisfactorily made. Another difficulty connected with this commission was this—that, while their powers should be defined and limited by the Bill, they might be found insufficient in certain cases, or in certain cases the commissioners might go beyond their powers. The consequence would be, that a prohibition would issue from the courts in Dublin to stay these proceedings; and that, once issued, would for ever paralyse their operations. To remedy that evil, he proposed to make the commission to all intents a court of record; and, that instead of any Parliamentary title being offered, their mere record, ordering and completing the sale of the estates, should be itself a protection against all previous charges. But, in his opinion, all this would operate only as a temporary relief, so long as they left the great source of most of the evils affecting landed property untouched. In Ireland the practice existed, and was universally pursued, of making a judgment a security for money given in loan. So different was the state of affairs in England, that, till the reign of Edward I., landed property was not subject to execu- tion under the judgment of a court of common law; and from that time till the year 1838, only half an individual's estates were held liable to the effects of a judgment. In Ireland this was esteemed the most convenient kind of security, and accordingly these judgments were daily sued out without any intention of issuing execution; and these judgments affected the whole of the estates possessed by the proprietor, or that he may afterwards possess, and follow the estates into whatever hands they may fall. Hence, on purchasing estates, it was necessary to investigate, not merely what judgments might have existed against the last vendor, but every previous vendor might have judgments against him, and all things attaching to the property. The mortgage deed in England at once showed what lands, described by their boundaries and their locality, were subject to the charges; but in Ireland the securities he was talking of created a difficulty of investigation fiftyfold greater. He proposed, then, to meet this by enacting that judgments, unless levied in the course of one or two years, should cease to be of force. He hoped, with these provisions in operation, that Ireland would recover from her present adversity to a state of prosperity as great as was enjoyed by this country.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Coventry seemed to have misunderstood the objects of the Bill. It was intended by the Bill to empower the commission to sell incumbered estates; but in order that they might do so speedily, it was necessary to disencumber them of those fetters and forms of the Court of Chancery which had interfered with the course of justice. In regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, as to the mortgages, he wished the House to bear in mind that the title-deeds of an estate, which in this country were looked upon as of the greatest importance, were, in Ireland, of next to none; and what was called the legal estate was of no importance whatever. Hence it came that a mortgagor would never show his deeds. But then, the commission would act upon decrees of the Court of Chancery, where all the deeds and muniments had been produced and examined before the decree was pronoueced. Now, in the present state of Ireland, it was open to a mortgagor either to sell the property or to foreclose his mortgage, or to enter into possession; foreclosure, in fact, being but another way of entering into possession. Was it then desirable for him to enter into possession? A marketable title was a very scarce thing in Ireland, although a good holding title was more common. Would the mortgagor be benefited, then, if he were allowed to take one or other of the two courses he had mentioned? It was not desirable to take possession—it was little better to endeavour, in the present state of Ireland, to attempt to sell the estates with the deficient nature of their titles. One of the great difficulties in the way of a sale felt just now in Ireland was the difficulty of finding purchasers; but he believed their number would be greatly increased by the Bill before the House, which proposed to give the purchaser a Parliamentary title. He said it was intended to introduce several alterations and additions upon the Bill as it at present stood. It was intended to empower the commissioners to make a partition in the case of a sale of estates of undivided interest. It was further intended to give them the power of enforcing the contracts entered into for the purchase of estates, and also of rescinding these contracts under certain circumstances which might render that necessary. At the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, among other things, he proposed to enact that no prohibition should issue on mandamus against the commissioners out of any of the courts in Dublin. The commissioners would likewise have the power of making such rules and taking such measures as would be necessary to carry the object of the Bill into effect. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry would perceive a case perfectly analogous in that respect, in the case of the West India Commission, who had the utmost latitude in drawing up their own rules and regulations. The evils of the present system were owing to the practice with which the Court of Chancery, for its own sake, had circumscribed itself; and he would mention an illustration that had been sent to him a few days ago. An estate was placed in the court about twenty years since. Eight different suits were instituted for a sale, to which there were forty-five defendants. It was found that a good title could not be given under any one, and in 1843 a ninth was instituted, which, though an amicable one, had gone on for six years, and was not yet closed. This evil arose from the mixture of the Chancery system with the peculiar tenure of land in Ireland, and unless the Legislature interfered with a strong hand, both owners and incumbrancers would be involved by it in one common ruin. A law analogous to that which he proposed had existed in Scotland for 200 years. Originally, under that law, estates were sold, after inquiry, into the incumbrances and their priority, but only with the consent of the owner. This, however, being found injurious, it was altered, so that estates could at once be sold, even though the owner objected; and all Scotch lawyers would say that it had worked admirably. No person would derive greater benefit from this Bill than mortgagees. Under the existing state of things they did not desire to obtain possession of the estates on which their money was secured; but whether they did or not, the measure would enable them to obtain more money and at a much earlier period than they otherwise would. It was an error to suppose that it would be in the power of an owner to suspend the proceedings under the commission—the very essence of the Bill being that the commissioners should proceed with the sale as speedily as they possibly could. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract for paying the money into the Court of Common Pleas could not be adopted without manifest injury; for the result of it would be, that the court having to administer Chancery law would adopt Chancery forms, and after a certain time it would fall into the same state of discredit as the Court of Chancery, because it would not be able to do justice to those persons who desired, through its agency, to obtain that to which they were justly entitled. With reference to judgments, a measure was in contemplation which would be introduced as soon as possible. No system of the description necessary to meet the evil could be complete which did not attack the law of judgments as one of its chief sources. With the hon. Member for Car-low, he desired to get rid as far as possible of the system of middlemen; and he thought the words in the 30th Clause of the Bill would be large enough to include them, but if not, they could be made adequate in Committee, so as to enable the purchasers of estates to come into immediate relation with the cultivating tenant. He agreed with the hon. Member for Carlow, that when "great and comprehensive measures" were talked of for Ireland, it was difficult to tell what was wanted. He believed it was a series of measures, gradually introduced, analogous to that now before the House. But such measures were not very easy to frame. They required much care and attention. He did not pretend to say that if all those before the House were carried, or even those relative to judgments, a great deal would not have been done. A step would have been taken in the right direction; but much would remain to be done. By the present Bill a perfectly clear and free title would be given to a certain amount of land in the first instance, and it would be found, if two estates were to be sold—one under this Bill and the other not—that the one purchased under the Bill would bring a better price than the other. But it was manifest that when the land was once emancipated from encumbrances, a recurrence of them must be prevented in future. This, he was satisfied, would not be accomplished until there was a perfect system of registration for titles and incumbrances; and a great advantage was that such a system must be begun at once with the land sold under this Bill, because the whole of the previous register would be swept away. By such measures the people of Ireland would be taught to feel the advantages of law, and the benefits of a paternal government. All their interests would lie in supporting government and law; there would no longer be any talk about a repeal of the Union, and agitation would cease to exist. For himself, he claimed no merit whatever in the proposition of this or any other measure; but on the part of Her Majesty's Government he claimed for them the merit of having been desirous to receive suggestions from all quarters calculated to be of benefit to Ireland. He claimed for them the merit of carefully considering those suggestions, and of carrying them out, as far as they were practicable, with the sole view of securing the amelioration of the country, totally regardless of all questions of party or politics.

would not oppose the Bill in that stage; on the contrary, he would endeavour in Committee to make it more perfect; but he reserved to himself the right of accepting or rejecting it as a whole upon the third reading. He concurred with the Solicitor General that the multiplication of judgments and the delay of justice were great evils; but he main- tained that they were caused, not by the Court of Chancery of Ireland, hut by the Imperial Legislature. The multiplication of receivers by judgment creditors was a crying evil also; and another evil was, conferring on the judgment creditor the same power as if he had an equitable charge on the land. These things were not at all in the practice of the Court of Chancery, hut had been created by law. There were two classes of suits in the Courts of Chancery in Ireland, which it would be for the benefit of the country to have altered, namely, administration suits and creditor suits. They were serious evils to property in Ireland. If the Court of Chancery was rectified in these cases, there would be no occasion for a court of commission. The Bill gave a co-ordinate and even superior jurisdiction to a new court; and the House had not been shown that the Court of Chancery under such circumstances would not be sufficient to carry out its provisions. Unless that was done, the necessity for that new court was not proved. He (Mr. Napier) admitted that the Bill should be looked upon in a commonsense view as well as in a professional manner; hut it should also he looked upon as regarded the administration of justice and the benefit of Ireland. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was one of considerable importance in cases where a lease was made under the exercise of a power given to any person having a limited interest given either by deed or will. There were two defects—one where the number of witnesses was not sufficient, and the other where the lease was executed under a power given by will and not by deed. In both of these cases the Court of Chancery supplied the omissions; but there were other defects to remedy, which the Court of Chancery was not in the habit of interfering with, and which were only taken advantage of for purposes that he might say were not honest ones. For instance, a person having certain property on the hanks of the Thames, the tenant for life, in connexion with the remainder-man, obtained an Act of Parliament to authorise the granting of building leases, with the usual proviso of the best rent being reserved in the leases. In the leases a peppercorn rent was reserved for the first year, the rent in future years being proportionably higher, in consequence. But the peppercorn rent not coming under the term "best" rent in the Act of Parliament, the leases became invalid, and the tenants forfeited their capital expended in building. The present Act provided a remedy for that and other injustices; and another Bill which he intended asking the House to read a second time also, would extend even still greater facilities to the granting of such leases in Ireland. Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Scott, that the object of the Bill was to remove some doubts which existed respecting the validity of certain grants made some years ago in New South Wales.

wished to know if the Bill did not affect the validity of grants of land made in the Port Phillip district?

said, that the Bill applied only to certain local grants, of which the titles had not been issued, and without the sanction which the present measure would give, the act of the local legislature, authorising the grants, was considered to run counter to the general act of the Imperial Legislature. The House having gone into Committee,

expressed his dissatisfaction at the explanation given, and said that his impression was, that in settling the doubts as to title in one part of the colony, the Bill would raise far greater and more serious doubts with regard to title in the Port Phillip district.

said, there was no occasion for the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The matter had arisen out of certain grants of land made by Governor Darling, with respect to which doubts had arisen whether or not these grants were valid. The Legislative Council had passed an Act for the purpose of removing those doubts, and confirming the grants; probably not reflecting that the power of doing so did not rest with them. When the Act came home for ratification, the legal advisers of the Crown gave their opinion that the act of Council was invalid, but that as the object was clearly a beneficial one, a Bill ought to be brought into the Imperial Parliament to effect this object. That was the purpose of the present Bill, and it was impossible that any doubt could be thrown on the legality of other grants.

rose to propose a clause, which was to give compensation for the loss of their offices to Mr. Butler, the Marshal of the Record Court, and three sergeants-at-mace, who had held their offices, the youngest for fourteen and the eldest for thirty-two years. They had all been duly, legally, and regularly elected by the corporation of Dublin, and therefore they were entitled to compensation. In proof of this, he was proceeding to cite the analogous cases provided for in the Counties Courts Act, when

reminded the hon. Gentleman that a Motion for compensation could not be made when the Speaker was in the chair.

then moved that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of proposing his clause.

said, he had been obliged to read the clause twice over before he could believe that his hon. Colleague was serious. It now appeared, however, that it was no joke, and with the leave of the House he would explain the matter. In 1841 the corporation of Dublin was reformed. Perhaps he ought scarcely to say that it was reformed, for many of the privileges originally in the Bill were curtailed, and many provisions were added which only tended to embarrass the corporation. Among these was this case of compensation. One of the present claimants, Mr. Judkin Butler, then filled the office of city marshal. He was dismissed by the new corporation—he would not state on what grounds, but it was certainly not for his good behaviour. He claimed compensation under the Act, and the city of Dublin awarded him a compensation of 250l. a year. Mr. Butler was dissatisfied, and appealed to the Lords of the Treasury, his political friends being then in power, and they awarded him for the loss of his office the sum of 464l. 7s. 4d. After Mr. Butler was dismissed from his office of marshal of the city, the Recorder conferred upon him the office of Marshal of the Record Court, at a salary of 400l. a year. It was an office over which the corporation had no control whatsoever; and the Bill, moreover, did not abolish the office at all. The Bill merely proposed to enact that, from and after the passing of the Act, the system of attachment out of the Record Court should cease, and the proceedings should be rendered analogous to proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, Exchequer, or Common Pleas. The system of attachment in the Record Courts of Ireland was infinitely worse than the Palace Court system in London. He would give an example. He held in his hand a writ with the return upon it. It was an attachment issued against a widow, named Catherine Brady, for a debt. Furniture valued at 36l. was seized and sold. The costs were 4l. 6s. 10d., and the return upon the back of the writ was, that the goods had been sold for 4l. 10s. 9d., and that the marshal (Mr. Judkin Butler) had handed over to the plaintiff 3s. 11d. For the sake of peace, he had consented to assist the hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone in obtaining some compensation for those persons out of the Consolidated Fund. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to accede to the proposition, the hon. Gentleman tried to quarter them upon the citizens of Dublin. The improved feeling of society had done away with executions in Dublin, and it was rumoured that the hangman was going to claim compensation; and, after all, it would not be a more preposterous one than that of Mr. Butler. He had never heard of a more monstrous proposition than that the corporation of Dublin should have to compensate the officer of a court over which they had no control. He (Mr. Reynolds) would as soon give compensation to a parcel of highway robbers. He protested against the attempt to defraud the citizens of Dublin, by making them pay those cormorants of the Record Court.

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had said, he would as soon give compensation to a parcel of highway robbers as to those cormorants of the Record Court, and at the same time he admitted that he had attempted to obtain compensation for them out of the Consolidated Fund. He had accompanied him (Mr. Keogh) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain compensation for them, yet he now called them cormorants of the Record Court, and said he would as soon think of giving compensation to a parcel of highway robbers. The former Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) was the very first man who supported in the House the giving of compensation to the officers of the old corporation. What were they to think of the present Member, who endeavoured to prevent compensation being given to men, the average of whose ages was 65 years, and one of whom was 73 years old?—and, not contented with doing so, he must also scatter slander upon their hitherto unimpeachable characters. On turning to the case of Mr. Judkin Butler, it appeared that that gentleman—and he was a gentleman by birth, education, and conduct—who was said by the hon. Member for Dublin to have been dismissed for no good conduct, had been removed, and Mr. Thomas Reynolds, brother of the hon. Member, appointed Marshal of Dublin in his place. So that he had been removed to make way for the hon. Member's brother. After a few words in explanation from MR. REYNOLDS,

opposed the clause. It was a claim upon the corporation of Dublin, of which due notice ought to have been given.