Lords Sitting of 26 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Timber Ships Clerkenwell Improvement.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from the Universal Religionists, for Enquiry into their Principle.

THE O'REILLYS' COMPROMISING A PROSECUTION.
The Marquess of Westmeath, in reference to a question which he had put last night to the noble Secretary for the Home Department, said that, in his mind, the refusing, by the Government, the payment of a sum of money from a Roman Catholic priest, in the case to which he had adverted, for the purpose of

111
compromising a prosecution, was an-illegal act. Nay, he would go so far as to say that it was an indictable offence. He therefore gave notice, that on Thursday, July 2, he would move for a return of the party or parties to whom the sum of 50 l., stated to have been paid by the Rev. Philip O'Reilley, parish priest of Ballymacue, in the county of Cavan was given, on account of the compromise of a prosecution; a return of the person or persons through whom the compromise was effected, and a copy of the receipt given for the money.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the noble Marquess assumed that a compromise of a prosecution had taken place, which he had no authority for doing.
The Marquess of Westmeathstated that he proceeded on the admission of the noble Marquess (Normanby) himself. The noble Marquess had admitted that the informations were not returned to a court of justice, as they ought to have been; and he also stated that 50 l. had been paid by the priest.
Notice given.

DRAINAGE OF SETTLED ESTATES.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved the second reading of the Settled Estates Drainage Bill. The measure, he observed, would do a great deal of good, by enabling persons to borrow money chargeable on the estate, and payable at considerably distant periods, for the purposes of draining. This would be beneficial to the person in possession, to the heirs, to the farmers, and to the labourers.
The Marquess of Westmeath: Was the measure meant for Ireland as well as this country? [The Duke of Richmond: Yes], He was glad of it. A great deal of the advantage which Ireland might derive from drainage was prevented by the want of means to sink the beds of rivers so as that a proper flow might be allowed to the estuaries.
Lord Portmanwould not oppose the second reading of the bill; but there were parts of its machinery to which he objected, and he did not think that it ought to pass in its present shape.
Lord Ellenboroughsuggested to the noble Duke, whether it would not be expedient to extend the provisions of the bill to corporations sole and corporations aggregate.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that by the provisions of this bill, it would not be competent to the Lord Chancellor to order a
112
drainage to take place at the expense of the estate, unless it was shewn to him that such drainage would be attended with an improvement of seven per cent, to the proprietors. It was therefore, unnecessary that the clumsy machinery of this bill should be brought into operation, because this improvement of seven per cent, would afford a sufficient inducement to the life tenant to set him at once about draining the land.
Bill read a second time.