The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-07 00:00:00

NAVAL PROMOTIONS.

Mr. HUME rose, and in a low tone of voice, postponed
his motion for Returns of Promotions in the Navy since
January last.

GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS OF IRELAND.

Mr. GEORGE DAWSON rose, in pursuance of the
notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to
the subject of Grand Juries in Ireland. The grievances of
Church-rates and tithes, of which the Irish complained,
sunk into nothing when compared to the Grand Jury
Laws. The enormous levies of money made by Grand
Juries in Ireland, increased from year to year, until they
at length arrived to an extent which required the atten-
tion of Parliament. A limit ought to be put by the
Legislature to this enormous levying and expending of
money. From returns made to the House of Commons,
it appeared that in the year 1803, there was levied,
under the Grand Jury Laws in Ireland, no less a sum than
470,106/. in one year, calculating upon an average of
the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803. But what would
the House say, when they were told.,,thato tiiiise,Tatio had,
been doubled..betwean ;that ,ilegipd and -the present day?
The amount of. ?resentments levied by Grand Juries
in 1925, was 880,478/. and in 1826, it was 814,731/.
There were no funds so badly.laid out, or worse accounted
for. These assessments were like a land-tax; but more
oppressive in their nature, more unjust in their collection,
and more unsatisfactory in their expenditure. The Grand
Juries of Ireland differed essentially from those of England.
In England they were confined to their judicial functions.
In Ireland the duties of the. Grand Juries were not only
judicial, but they were extended to the levying of county
rates, the building of gaoh and bridges, the cutting of roads,
establishing of salaries of county officers, and various simi-
lar duties. To meet such disbursements, they had to assess
rates upon the inhabitants. The amount in each county was
considerable. The total amount of the last assessment was
not less than 8,888,478/. This money was not entrusted to
persons responsible for its application, and the only qualifi-
cation for a Grand Juryman in Ireland was, a freehold of the
value of 40s. a-year. There was not one single part of the
system that was not liable to the strongest objection, whilst
the whole of the evils were augmented by the Sheriffs of each
County. In England, the duty of the Sheriffs was solely
confined to offences in which the public peace is concerned,
whilst in Ireland they appointed those who levied the
taxes. This power, as might be supposed, was not always
exercised in the most just manner. As a proof of which,
in Cork, the Sheriff excluded from the Grand Juries five
baronies, which paid an assessment of 9,0001. a year. In
consequence of the partiality of the Sheriff of Waterford, a
gentleman was excluded from the Grand Jury, who was
even well known in that House. In Ireland the Grand
Jury was a most fleeting body, and ought not to be pos-
sessed of the power of assessing taxes to solarge an amount.
During the short period for which they were assem-
bled, they had not only to attend to the judicial duties
of the country, but to the presentments. These latter
applications went before the body of Magistrates, who in-
scribed upon the back of them, " approved," or " disap-
proved". The Grand Jury sometimes approved of
that whizli the Magistrates had rejected. Their de-
cisions were too rapid to inspire confidence or create respect.
For instance, the Grand Jury of Cork sat ten days. In
1826 they decided 751 presentments, and 1,105 criminal
indictments. The presentments amounted to 83,000/.
In the County of Clare the Assize lasted four days, and the
presentments were 450 for money, and 311 criminal in-
dictments. In Down there were 305 presentments, and
848 indictments. In Tyrone, 257 criminal cases, and
1,611 presentments. Judge Busche computed in 1813,
that if the Grand Jury had given their time exclu-
sively to presentments, throwing out all criminal cases,
the proposition would have been only two minntes to
each case. After the presentment had been decided
upon by the magistrates, it ought to be given to the
Clerk of the Crown in open Court. There were three
special objections to the present mode of proceeding.
First, as to the manner in which the fiat of the Judge
was given to presentments. It was intended that the fiat
of the Judge should be given in open Court, in order that
parties objecting to the presentment might have an oppor-
tunity of traversing. But instead of this it frequently
happened, where presentments were not ready at a moment,
the Judges ordered them to be vent after them to the next
town—a distance of 20, and sometimes 30 miles, When
such a course was pursued it was impossible that any
objection could be made, unless the objecting party thought
proper to run after the Judge's carriage into the next
' town. The second objection was the irregularity of the
aseessmenta upon different estates. In one case the as-
sessment was nine shillings per acre on one piece of
ground; aria upup another of the same quality, and in
the same parish, it was no more thao nmepence. The
third objection was the carelessness with width the pre-
sentments were inquired into, and the want of economy
in the expenditure of the public money by the Grand
Jury. The usual plan was for an overseer who got a pre-
serent to employ his tenants to do the work, but instead
of paying them z,a they went on, they were allowed
for it in the rent ; 'so that the person having the present-
ment, by raising his rent, was enabled to secure the job by
taking it upon lower terms. He thought he had made out
a case for the appointment of a Committee, as it was now
admitted on ail hands that some alteration should be made
in the existing system. The Grand Jurors were the more
careless with-respect to presentments, inasmuch as the ex-
pence fell upon the landholder, and not upon the landlord,
and tti.erefoz2 did not affect them (the Grand Jurors), un-
less in some few cases, Where they held farms themselves.
By making the Grand Jurors participators in this expence,
they would be taught more economy and circumspection in
these presentments. The Hon. Member
inquiring into

concluded by moving for the.appointment of a Select Com..
inittee, to consider the beit means of regulating the law re-
lating to Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland, and to report
thereupon to the House.
Mr. S. RICE seconded the motion. His Hon. Friend
was anxious to obtain the co-operation of the Irish Mem-
bers, in aid of this very necessary measure. He (Mr.
Rice) expressed, a hope that he would obtain not only that
co-operation, but also the co-operation of English talent
and English impartiality, without which any measure of
importance to Ireland must be ineffective and unavailing.
--(Hear, hear.)----There was no Irish Gentleman pretend-
ing to intelligence or information, who would now stand
up to defend the system of Irish Grand Jury presentments,
and therefore it was to be hoped that that system would
speedily be altered. There was also another matter con-
nected with Irish Grand Juries, which required alteration,
he meant the mode of frnding bills by Grand Juries.
Every Gentleman connected with Ireland must know how
easy it was for a man to have a bill thrown out if against
a friend, and found if against a foe.
Mr. GOULBURN was very well disposed to make im-
provements in the system of presentments, but he certainly
was not prepared to say that there should be an alteration
of the system itself, meaning by that the transference of the
raising of the county money from the Grand Jury to any
other body. The matter ought to be very deeply consi-
dered before that duty should be transferred to the Govern-
ment, or any other body. The grand requisite was the
consolidation of the laws relative to these presentments ;
and he, when in office, had been making preparations for
the introduction of a bill for that purpose. He had no ob-
jection to going into the Committee, guarding himself,
however, against any pledge to alter the system of present-
ments by Grand Juries, being of opinion that it would be
better to zontinue the system, with certain improvements
and checks, which would make the system work with fa-
cility and impartiality.
Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD had no objection to the
Committee, but wished to guard himself even more cau-
tiously than the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had done,
against any pledge to agree to the transference of the power
of the Grand Jury to raise the county money to any other
body. As to the transferring it to the Magistrates, it
ought to be recollected that most of the Grand Jurymen
were Magistrate*. The fault was in the system, and not
in the body appointed to administer it. The business was
brought before the Grand Jury atpresent in such a mode that
it was utterly impossible for the most zealous and the most
intelligent to do it properly. He, himself, had sat as Fore-
man of a Grand Jury for 17 hours, and presented a Bill to the
Judge at midnight. Every one appeared now to be con-
vinced of the propriety of appointing civil engineers to
superintend the repair of the roads, which had been for-
merly opposed. Having thus guarded himself against any
pledge to alter the present system entirely, he had only
further to say, that he would be perfectly ready to give his
hest consideration to any'plan of improvement that might
be suggested.
Mr. W. LAIIIB concurred in the propriety of investi-
gating this subject in a Committee, without pledging him-
self as to the course which he might deem it expedient to
pursue.

Mr. A. DAVISON supported the motion. It was im.
possible that the Grand Jury in Ireland, constituted as it
now was, could discharge the functions which the Legi-
slature imposed upon it.

Colonel TRENCH thought that the abuses of the exist-
ing system called for a radical reform. He fully concurred
in the expediency of the motion for a Select Committee.

The motion was then agreed to, and a Select Committee
was appointed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
after which the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.