LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 4 March 1872)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Presentment of Public Money by Grand Juries in Ireland, said, the Bill was one of very considerable importance, because it affected the constitution and composition of the Governing Bodies which controlled a very large amount of the taxation of Ireland. The local taxation managed by grand juries amounted to £1,130,000, being 40 per cent of the whole local taxation of the country, and a very much larger item than was controlled by any other local body in Ireland. The grand jury laws of Ireland contained some very great anomalies; but, at the same time, they recognized, although imperfectly, a principle which the reformers of county administration in England would be glad to see recognized here even to the same extent. That principle was the principle of the representation of the ratepayers. In England, whereas the county finances were managed entirely by the Quarter Sessions, consisting exclusively of magistrates, in Ireland, on the contrary, they were managed by bodies called baronial presentment sessions and by county at large presentment sessions, in both of which the ratepayers were represented, although in an unsatisfactory manner. The defect alleged in the composition of those bodies was, that the associated cess payers, instead of being a true representation of the ratepayers, were selected by the grand jurors, and also that, on account of the great uncertainty whether they would be called on to serve after they were selected, they did not attend at the baronial sessions. The defect alleged in the composition of the grand juries was 1382 that, being entirely nominated by the High Sheriff, and his obligation being discharged by calling one grand juror from each barony, there was no real representation of the whole county, and the grand jury might be, and often was, an extremely partial and imperfect representation of the interests of property in the whole county. This Bill proposed, in regard to county and baronial sessions, to substitute election by the ratepayers for the present system of selection by the grand jury. It had been suggested that, instead of the baronies, the Poor Law Unions should be taken as the area of administration, and no doubt there would be great convenience in that; but, unfortunately, in Ireland, as in England, the unions were not conterminous with the boundaries of the counties, and to alter them so as to make them so would in many instances destroy their suitability for the original purpose for which they were intended. The Bill would next describe the mode in which the elections were to be conducted; and the mode would be similar to that pursued with elections of the Poor Law Guardians. With regard to the powers to be given to the grand jury, the principal changes related to the constitution of that body. The selection would be left to the High Sheriff, and as the property qualification would be fixed, it would be incumbent upon the officers to summon and to secure the attendance of grand jurymen from each barony. Whatever might be the wish of the High Sheriff, it would be impossible for the grand jury to represent merely one portion of the county, as the representation would be of the entire county. The Bill, however, would not deal with county officers, nor would it, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of 1868, consolidate the grand jury laws, because it was deemed imprudent to combine a consolidation of the law with the initiation of changes such as those proposed in the Bill. He, however, proposed supplementing these changes at some future time by a Bill for consolidating the law, for which the present Bill would, perhaps, clear the way. If the House granted the leave now asked for, the discussion might be taken on the Bill when it was brought up for a second reading.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
regretted that the Bill had been introduced after midnight, and at a time when it was at least assumed by general consent no fresh business would be brought forward; and he regretted this the more as many hon. Members, believing faith would be kept with them in that respect, had left the House. He would not, however, oppose the introduction of the Bill. With regard to representation he thought that the noble Lord was somewhat mistaken, and that he would experience great difficulty in getting persons to comply with the provisions of the Bill, so far as it affected their attendance at the county towns. Without going into the general scheme of the noble Lord, he might say that he did not see much objection to it, although he could not express an opinion as to the further changes which had been indicated. The noble Lord was in error in supposing that the sheriff had an absolute right to nominate the grand jury, irrespective of the position and social influence of gentlemen connected with the county. As more than half the juries had already dissolved, and as it was important they should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the Bill, he hoped ample time would be given for the discussion of the subject during the next assizes.

§ MR. SYNAN
was of opinion that the noble Lord had mistaken the constitution of the grand jury, and must say he was a little disappointed that the Bill did not carry out the Report of the Select Committee of 1868, which he believed recommended a satisfactory settlement of this subject. The Bill, however, though not satisfactory, in that it fell short of the object proposed, he regarded as a step in the right direction.

§ MR. BRUEN
expressed a hope that the second reading would be fixed for a time when the opinions of the grand juries could be collected upon the measure.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, he was most anxious to give as much time as possible for the consideration of the Bill, and hoped some of the grand juries would still be able to discuss it; but he could not assent to the suggestion that he should postpone the second reading until after the next assizes, because that would prevent the passing of the Bill this year. He would, 1384 however, not take the second reading until an early day after Easter.