HC Deb 15 May 1833 vol 17 cc1266-8
Mr. John Martin (of Sligo)

presented a Petition from Sligo, complaining of certain abuses which existed in the Corporation.

Colonel Perceval

said, he trusted that he should be excused if he trespassed on the time of the House, while he showed that the petition which complained of the Sligo Corporation contained gross and calumnious falsehoods, as applied to a most estimable person; he meant his very respected friend, Mr. Wynne, who is a proprietor of certain tolls in the town, who is a constant resident in the country, and whose example he heartily wished other proprietors would follow. The petition stated that this respectable gentleman had appropriated a part of the Corporation funds to his own personal use. Now, he would say, that this was an unfounded and gross mis-statement, for the fact was, that the tolls of the town were let to the highest bidder, and were not sufficient to pay the bailiffs and other officers in the conservation of the peace of the town; and his respected friend, as the proprietor of the principal part of the town, had paid 100/. a-year to the provost. It was too bad that these petitions should bring forward charges which were in no way founded in fact; and he would call on the hon. member for the town of Sligo, to state whether he had ever known an instance of any of the Corporation funds having been applied to the personal benefit of his very esteemed friend. The petition mixed up Corporation property with certain tolls, the right to which latter property had been purchased by Mr. Wynne. The Corporation had no more control over the tolls than they had over his (Colonel Perceval's) estate. He would ask why then should these tolls be brought forward as a Corporation abuse? As regarded the non-residence of the burgesses, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that by the Reform Bill freemen of towns are considered as residents, if they reside within seven miles of the place for which they vote. The Corporation consisted of thirteen persons, eleven of whom were, under the Reform Bill, actually residents; and, therefore, it was not fair to say, that the burgesses were nonresident. It was further stated in the petition that the freemen were not elected to office in the mode which they ought to be. By the charter of the town it was provided, that these corporate offices should be elected by the burgesses, and until the charter were superseded, or the law altered; the manner of electing the officers of the Corporation must remain vested in the same parties. The petition alleged, moreover, that many influential persons had applied to be admitted to the freedom of the town, and had been refused the boon by the Corporation. He remembered the case of Mr. Abraham Martin, who applied to the provost and burgesses to be admitted to the freedom of the Corporation, and he knew that they thought proper to refuse him. Mr. Martin then brought the matter before the King's Bench, and the result was, his application was refused on the ground that the Corporation could not be compelled to accede to his demand. He had felt it his duty to trespass on the time of the House by dwelling at some length on the contents of the petition presented by the hon. Member (Mr. Martin), because he felt sure that the House would not refuse a hearing to any Gentleman who stood up in his place, to offer a justification of a highly respectable individual against the most unfounded calumnies.

Mr. John Martin

stated, in reply, that neither himself nor any person who signed the petition, intended to cast a reflection upon the character of Mr. Wynne. But did the hon. Member mean to say, that the borough had not been appropriated to his private purposes?

Colonel Perceval

asked, what private advantages was meant by the hon. Member?

Mr. John Martin

Selling it. In fact, so little did some of the Representatives of that borough know of the place they represented, that one of them represented it in the House as "a little fishing villa in the south of Ireland." The hon. Member was proceeding to put another question to the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) when

Sir Robert Bateson

rose to order. Such interrogatories were irregular; they ought at least to be put through the Chair.

The petition was referred to the Committee on Corporations.