HC Deb 14 February 1840 vol 52 cc250-73

Viscount Morpeth moved the second reading of the Municipal Corporations, (Ireland) bill.

Sir R. Inglis

said, that the Bill having been already so much discussed, he would not occupy the attention of the House by entering into its details, but he would declare his conviction that if that Bill ever passed into a law it would be a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant religion in Ireland; and for that reason he could not permit such a bill to be passed through that House, without giving it his decided opposition. There were many authorities of high name and high characters to sanction that opposition to the bill; but there was one of paramount weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite, he meant the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who furnished ample reasons for resisting that bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman by his speeches out of doors, for he was cautious of committing himself within the walls of parliament, furnished the best reasons why a municipal Corporation Bill should not be extended to Ireland, which would transfer corporate power from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics of that country. It will be recollected that it was stated that a compact had been entered into between the hon. Members with whom he (Sir R. Inglis) generally acted and the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, on the condition of a Tithe Bill passing which would secure to the Irish Church its revenues, no impediment by his hon. Friends would be thrown in the way of a Municipal Bill being introduced. Now to that compact he (Sir R. Inglis) never had been, and never would be a party. Of its existence he had never been informed until when this bill was last year before Parliament, he came into the House, and for that reason he was not liable to any charge of inconsistency by opposing the present bill. If such a compact had been entered into, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had by his conduct violated the condition, and for that reason the contract or compact was at an end. That hon. Gentleman had told his supporters that it was his grand object to transfer the rent charge from the present recipients to a new class of persons, for new objects. If by that declaration the hon. and learned Member intended, as no doubt he did, to sweep away the maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church, then the ground was cut from under the feet of the friends of the Established Church. They were induced to support the present bill on the ground that the interest of the church had been secured by the Tithe Bill. The individual who possessed more power than any other man had ever possessed in Ireland, told them that this interest of the church should not be secure. If ever, then, such a compact were made, surely when violated on one side, it could not be binding on the other. Again, he would ask, had the Municipal Corporations Act of England proved so beneficial to the people of this country that that House should extend its operations to the sister kingdom, not by the desire or at the option of the people of Ireland? The bill went to the destruction of the existing corporations in Ireland. That House had no right to destroy those corporations, or to take away from them the power and influence which they possessed. If abused, there was law still in the country to redress the wrong. There was not any justice which could extend to an individual which could not equally extend to a corporate body. But the House at a single blow destroyed ten, twenty, or thirty corporations at once, transferred their powers and functions to a different class, and this they were about to do when they would not attempt a similar act of injustice upon an individual. That the bill would eventually pass he believed, and he also felt, that it would be useless to resist it in that House. He would not factiously oppose the sense of the House; but the duty he owed himself prompted him to express his opinions upon the bill, and not allow it to pass by any connivance upon his part. The bill being a virtual transfer of the power then possessed by the Protestants into the hands of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he would move as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Litton

begged leave to second the amendment. He had never denied, that, by what he called reform, the advantages attendant upon the existence of municipal corporations in Ireland might be greatly increased; but when it was intended by this bill to transfer the exclusive patronage and ascendancy of the corporations into different hands, he said that this was an unfair bill, and that it was an effort on the part of the Government to make the bill a political engine by which they might increase their influence in that country. That was the main ground upon which he opposed this bill. But he had another objection to it—namely, that from the nature of this bill, and the character of many of its clauses, it would throw the patronage into the hands of a class of men who were not by any other statutes or institutions of the country intrusted with it, and who, by reason of their education, and their situation in society, were not likely, properly and justly, to administer the pecuniary concerns of these corporations. It was generally believed that a compact, either implied or understood, had existed between the Government and the Conservative party, the object of winch was, to bring about a satisfactory settlement of those Irish questions, the continued agitation of which was fraught with so much mischief. He would not pretend to say whether such a compact had or had not existed. But how had the Government acted? Had they kept faith? Was it not promised that a fair bonâ fide Tithe Bill for Ireland should be brought in by the Government? Although he was satisfied with the Irish Tithe Bill as it now stood, he would ask whether the Conservative party owed that bill to the adherence of the Government to the compact which was spoken of, or to their own exertions, which left the Government in a minority? The Government, to the very last, contended for the deprivation of the Irish Church of thirty percent, of its income, but a majority of the House, created by the strength of the Conservative party, voting against the Government, preserved seventy-five per cent, to the Irish Church, and even to the present hour a kind of threat was held out, that if the English feeling in this country would admit of it, an attempt would again be made to enforce the appropriation clause. So far, then, as the alleged compact was concerned, the Government had broken it, for it could not be called a fair way of keeping it, to take all and give nothing. Her Majesty's Government had twice broken that compact, in reference to the very question now before the House, by bringing in corporation bills for Ireland, which they knew the Conservative party could not support, and which were ultimately rejected by Parliament. What he would ask the House was, first, whether such a compact ever existed, and if such a compact was in existence, whether it had not been broken by Government; and whether, therefore, the Conservative party were not, in honour and justice, relieved from the observation of its conditions any longer? If his right hon. and hon. Friends thought otherwise, he was the last man to ask them, for any purpose or object whatever, to break one iota of that compact. If they considered that compact to be still binding upon them, he would not presume to call upon them to disregard it. As for the bill now proposed by the noble Lord, it might be said, why not let it go into committee, and then it can be improved and amended as it may require? His answer to that was, that he thought it altogether so defective and objectionable, that it was not worth while to trouble a committee with it, for it would be easier to draw a new one than to amend this one. Upon these grounds he seconded the amendment.

Mr. Shaw

said, he would state at once, that, without pledging himself to any of the details of this measure, he intended to vote for the second reading. He felt bound, both by consistency and good faith, to lake that course, because he saw the good effects of the Irish Tithe Bill, in the increased security of the Irish Church, and the improved condition of society in Ireland. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford reasoned, that his party was altogether free from every compact with regard to the Irish Church, because he saw that the hostility of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to that Church was not diminished, his answer to that reasoning was, that the hon. and learned Member was no party to the compact, and that one great advantage had been gained for the Church—namely, an Act of Parliament, by which the Church could be protected against the hostility of that hon. and learned Member. The Poor-law was, he believed, notwithstanding some drawbacks and difficulties, coming into useful operation; at all events, it supplied a safe criterion of franchise. But if he was even free from these obligations, he would call upon those hon. Friends of his who opposed the principle of the present measure, to state what was their own, and to propose some substitute of which he could approve, before he could lend them his support. He had not heard any one of his hon. Friends contend that the Irish Corporations could be retained in their present form; for his own part, considering the altered laws and circumstances of Ireland, he thought that object was not possible or desirable, and, from first to last, in all the discussions of the subject, he had never either there or elsewhere, given a different opinion. He had advocated the abolition of those corporations, and still would do so, were it practicable, maintaining, as he did, his former opinion, that their abolition would be the measure most conducive to the good government of the towns, and to the general peace and prosperity of the country, by preventing the recurrence of elections, and the irritation of party contentions for ascendancy; and that the public funds would be applied for the real benefit of the inhabitants, and not to purposes of useless pageantry and show. But, after long perseverance, he, and those with whom he acted, had failed in that measure of abolition, and in no small degree on account of those hon. Friends who now opposed the present bill, refusing their support to that mode of settlement, conscientiously, he freely admitted, but nevertheless preventing the settlement. What, then, was to be done? Corporations in Ireland could not continue as they were; abolition had been tried and failed; and to his mind the only alternative which presented itself was either to settle the question upon the principle that had been now agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, or else to leave it in its present unsettled and unsatisfactory condition, a festering sore inflaming the feelings of the most violent of both parties in Ireland, and the subject of constant and angry party contention in that House, to the exclusion of all useful practical legislation for that part of the kingdom to which it related. He was quite aware, from past experience, that he should bring odium on himself by the part which he was now taking, the more so, by contrast with those hon. Friends of his with whom he generally acted, but who on that occasion thought it their duty to take a different course. But that would not deter him from doing what he sincerely believed to be his duty. He thought that exaggerated notions of the political importance of the measure were formed on both sides, and by their reaction on each other. His greatest apprehension was, that wise and moderate men belonging to both would keep aloof from these new corporations, from a dread of that strife and animosity which their presence might greatly tend to prevent. He did not apprehend that with a bonâ fide 10l. franchise, what was termed Conservative opinions would eventually be overborne in those new bodies as was alleged by many of his Friends, provided only, that instead of indulging in unavailing regrets and bitter resentments at the past, those who held them would exert themselves to assert that just influence to which their wealth, intelligence, and character entitled them. Nay, he would say, that it was his positive conviction, that the continuance of the Irish corporations in their present decayed and declining state was rather an injury than a service to that great Conservative party to which he was proud to belong, and whose principles were a firm but a temperate maintenance of the civil and sacred institutions of the country and above all, at the present moment, a determination, without giving offence to, or deriving civil superiority over, those of any class or creed, to support by any or every sacrifice the union of the Protestant Church with the state in every portion of the United Kingdom. With these views, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, and endeavour in the committee to make considerable amendments in the details, to many of which in their present shape he objected.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

felt with his right hon. Friend, the importance of having this long vexatious question settled. But he did not think the House had had sufficent time to consider the present measure. It was only yesterday morning, that he had been put in possession of this very voluminous bill. It was impossible that the people of Ireland could have had any opportunity of considering it. Nevertheless, the House was called upon to decide thus hastily upon it. It was said by a noble Duke, the leader of his party, in the House of Lords, that if the Poor-law Bill and the Irish Tithe Bill were passed in a satisfactory shape, he should feel himself bound to vote for the principle of a bill for the remodelling the Irish Municipal Corporations. These two measures had been passed; and, in conformity with that pledge, the party with whom he acted were prepared to vote for the second reading of this measure. He was, however, bound to say, that he was well aware of the probable effects of it if it were carried in its present shape; and, with the view to obviate them, he should pursue such a course in Committee as duty dictated, and at all risks would follow it. He would, therefore, tell the noble Lord that he would vote for the second reading of this bill, but in doing so, he should take care to support or propose such modifications of it in Committee as would prevent the most mischievous results arising. When the Government first brought forward the Irish Municipal Bill, the Members of it in that House distinctly denied, that it was intended by it to lake the power in the corporations from one exclusive party and transfer it to another, and his right hon. Friend, the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, who was the law officer of the Irish Government in that House, made some powerful observations on this subject. On the second reading of that bill in 1836, his right hon. and learned Friend said:— I know that it has been said, that the inevitable effect of this measure would be to take the power out of the hands of one party and give it to another. I am aware that this has repeatedly been said, but whatever credit may be attached to my assertion, I have no hesitation in saying, that if I thought that this measure would take power from one exclusive and violent party, and give it to another equally so—if such a party could be found—it would not have a more determined opponent than myself. But I deny that such would be the effect of the measure. But he maintained that the present measure, if it passed as it now stood, would have the effect of transferring all the power and influence in the corporations of Ireland from the Protestants to the Catholics. He, therefore, as the Irish Master of the Rolls did on a former occasion, protested against being a party to such a proceeding, and should, therefore, in committee propose a number of alterations to counteract the evils that would otherwise arise. Was the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, aware of the relative number of houses giving voters belonging to Catholics and Protestants in the Municipal Corporations in Ireland. With all possible respect to the noble Lord, he felt that the noble Lord could not be aware of the proportion the number bore to each other, and that the effect of the bill would be to deprive the Protestants of all share of power in those towns. Was it not the bounden duty of the noble Lord to inquire into the subject, and to inform the House whether this measure would produce such an effect in any town in Ireland? He had taken some trouble on the subject, and he would tell the noble Lord, that if he would look into the report of the commissioners of public instruction, and the commissioners of municipal boundaries, he would perceive that in nearly all those places there would be an overwhelming proportion of voting houses in the hands of Catholics. What was the chief objection to the present corporations in Ireland? It was, that they were exclusively in the hands of Protestants. This was the ground urged for the abolition of them; but would it not be most monstrous—would it not be most unjust, because they are now exclusively on our side, that you should produce such a change as to make them almost exclusive to the opposite party? This would not only be grossly and manifestly unjust, but most impolitic. Was not this a Protestant State? Was there any man in that House who contemplated that this country would cease to be a Protestant one? He, at least, never would be a party to any measure which was likely to produce such a result. The noble Lord who introduced this measure stated, that it was like the bill sent down from the House of Lords last year, but in point of fact it was toto cœto different. The noble Lord, in his bill, proposed one qualification for the first three years, and that after that time it should be entirely different, and what was this latter propopal? Why, that after three years every person who occupied a rated house in a municipal borough should have a vote at the election of town councillors. Was not this an essential difference from the qualification laid down in the bill sent from the House of Lords last year? There was also no clause to continue to the freemen and burgesses in those towns the powers and privileges which they now enjoyed. The freemen had had continued to them the right of voting for Members of Parliament, but he could not conceive why they should not also have the right of voting for members of the town-council. This also would tend to lower the Protestant influence in many towns. It was his intention when the bill got into Committee to propose some amendments, with the view of counteracting the exclusion of Protestants. For instance, one amendment which he should propose would be to this effect—suppose that in a town there were two Roman Catholic voters for one Protestant voter; to prevent the overwhelming effect of such a majority he should propose that each elector should only have the power of voting for a number equal to one moiety of the town-council. This was by no means a new principle, but had been acted upon under the English Municipal Act in the election of assessors and auditors in a borough. The application of this principle also in connexion with Irish municipal boroughs had been recommended by a distinguished statesman in another place, of whom he wished to speak in terms of the utmost respect—he meant Earl Grey. That noble Earl, in a speech which he made the 27th of June, 1836, said on this subject, There is one suggestion which I will venture to offer to your Lordships, for which suggestion I alone am responsible, not having communicated to my noble Friend my intention of making it, and not having any reason, except the conviction of its expediency, to believe that it will be acceptable to either side of your Lordships' House. In the bill, as it last left your Lordships' House, and as it now stands, there is a clause regulating the voting for auditors and assessors. Now, in another hill ordered to be brought into the Mouse of Commons by Lord John Russell, the Attorney-general and Mr. Vernon Smith, a bill for regulating charitable trusts, there is a clause providing that every person entitled to vote shall vote for only half the number of trustees. I wish your Lordships would consider if it might not be practicable to add clauses to this bill of a similar character, but bearing on the election of town councillors, which would in a great degree remove the objections to the measure, which some of your Lordships entertain. Suppose, for instance, that every voter was restricted to voting for only half the number of town-councillors. The consequence would be, that there could be no exclusive party established, but that a minority in any corporation, of whatever persuasion they might be, could retain their due share of influence. My Lords, I believe it is an overstatement to say, that even if the bill were carried in its present shape its effects would be exclusive, because it would be only a transfer of authority from one party to another. Many of the corporations in Ireland are divided into wards, and in many of those wards the Protestants would have the preponderance. I am told, that even in Waterford, where the Catholics are most numerous, the elections would not be of that exclusive character apprehended. But even if that were the case, the proposition which I have ventured to throw out would remedy the evil. It. is obvious, that if a voter were restricted to vote for only half the town-councillors, unless the majority of one opinion could be swelled to two to one, no principle of exclusion could be established. This was the suggestion of the noble Earl, and these were the reasons on which it was supported—and nothing could be more just or reasonable than the ground which he took. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, also supported the same principle in reference to the election of charity trustees in corporations, and this was done with the view of affording a counterbalance to the members of the Church of England against the Dissenters. He thought also that it would be most unjust to force on the people of the Irish towns these corporations, whether they would have them or not. It was notorious that in some boroughs the majority of the voters, in respectability, wealth, and intelligence, were unwilling to have these corporations, but this bill was to force it on them whether they would or not. This, he thought, was most unjust, and he, therefore, should propose that they should leave it to the option of the inhabitants of any place to say whether they would have a corporation or not. On this point he should refer the House to the petition which he presented a few nights ago from Clonmel, respecting the alteration proposed to be made in corporations in Ireland, and praying the House to exclude that town from the operation of the bill. These petitioners state— Should the plan which was last year proposed to Parliament have passed into a law, your petitioners would have found themselves burdened with a very heavy annual expense for the payment of municipal officers, who have hitherto been found quite unnecessary for the management of the corporate affairs of the town: they would have found that the public income of the town, amounting to about 600l. per annum, instead of being applicable, as it now mostly is, to the improvement of the town, would not, according to reasonable calculations, have more than sufficed for half the payment of the salaried officers, leaving the deficiency of salaries, &c. to be provided for by a tax, before a single farthing could be had for expenditure on the town itself, and that must have been raised by a further tax on the inhabitants. Your petitioners submit that, in framing a new scheme for the government of these towns, by which it is understood to be the intention of the Legislature to supersede the ancient privileges of the inhabitants, reference should be made to the circumstances of each town, and care taken that the new system shall combine the benefits of self-regulation with the smallest possible expense to the inhabitants, and the least possible temptation to corruption or underhand practices. Besides the burdensome taxation to which the contemplated arrangement would make them subject, the establishment of a long list of places, for salaried officers, would render their town a scene of intrigue and corruption, to an extent far exceeding any even imputed to the old corporate bodies. They therefore went on to pray the House not to force the Irish Municipal Bill down their throats. This petition, he had reason to believe, was signed by three-fourths of the inhabitants of the rated houses of the town. He would ap- peal to the hon. Members for Waterford and Dungarvon as to the respectability of the signatures attached to this petition. They were well acquainted with the names, and he was sure that they would admit that it was signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the town, and comprised a body of persons who were rated to the amount of 10,000l. a year in the town of Clonmel; that was to two-thirds of the rated value of the town. There was also another important town, the inhabitants of which entertained nearly the same opinion on the subject. He alluded to Belfast, the inhabitants of which had presented a petition against this compulsory clause in the bill, and gave the strongest reasons against having a corporation forced on them. They said That they could not, without serious alarm, regard many of the clauses of the bill, and they most earnestly entreated the House not to force a corporation on them which would only have the effect of engendering bitter animosities; whereas the local affairs of that place had hitherto been managed in a most satisfactory manner under the provision of the 9th of Geo. 4th, and that the effect of the change would only be to exasperate political differences and excite private dissensions. That the affairs of the town of Belfast had hitherto been conducted in a most satisfactory and peaceful manner, but this would no longer be the case if this bill passed with its compulsory clauses. This petition was from a town of very great importance, the inhabitants of which felt, that the peace and tranquillity of that place would be disturbed by the introduction of a corporate body such as was proposed in this bill, and that the effect of it would only be to interrupt their present prosperous career. He need hardly allude to the commercial importance of this place, which numbered upwards of eighty-five thousand inhabitants; and this petition, presented by his hon. Friend, was signed by a large proportion of the inhabitants, including the chief merchants, bankers, and traders of Belfast. Was such a petition to be disregarded, when all that was required in it was, that they should not force a corporation upon them, as they had hitherto been enabled to manage their own affairs with perfect satisfaction to themselves, under the provisions of the 9th Geo. 4th, c. 84. There also was an important petition on the subject of a portion of this bill, presented last year to the House of Lords. This petition was from the town of Galway, and they strongly objected to many parts of it, and more particularly to the clauses which related to the rural districts surrounding those places that were counties of cities. In the bill of last year, it was provided, that in all counties of cities the rural districts should be cut off and thrown into the adjoining counties, as far as regarded the payment of rates, and that they should be created distinct baronies, and provision should be made for judicial and financial purposes respecting them. The inhabitants of Galway complained, that immense burdens would be thrown upon them by this arrangement, as many charges which were provided for by the surrounding rural districts would fall directly on the town. But this evil would not merely be felt in this place, for in addition to Galway, the inhabitants of Cork, L merick, and other places which were counties of cities, and had large rural districts connected with them, made similar complaints. All that he required from the noble Lord was, that it should not be compulsory in those places to have corporations, but that it should be left to them to be governed by the provisions of the 9th of George 4th, if they thought proper. He called therefore upon his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Galway, to lend him his aid in opposing this tyrannical provision of this bill, against which his constituents entertained the strongest feelings. It should be recollected also, that in Galway the corporation was open to Catholics, and a very large proportion of the freemen belonged to that class, and they had petitioned against this bill. The bill as it stood at present, then, was objectionable to the great body of the inhabitants of that town, and he was also convinced that it would be found equally objectionable to the inhabitants of other large places being counties of cities having extensive rural districts under their jurisdiction. For instance, the district of the county of the city of Cork was from six to seven miles in diameter, and contained upwards of 45,000 acres. There were seventy square miles in these rural districts, while there were only four square miles covered with buildings such as would give the franchise under this bill. In the districts surrounding Cork, there were not less than 700 persons who could not write their own names, and who were obliged to put their marks to the affidavits for the purpose of registering their votes. Most of them were evidently fictitious votes, and the operation of the principle now proposed in this bill would not at all tend to diminish the number. He should redeem his pledge by voting for the second reading, but he should oppose the bill in every subsequent stage unless it were so altered as to satisfy him that it would not convert the municipal corporations in Ireland from Protestant communities into exclusively Roman Catholic institutions.

Mr. O'Connell

could not conceal from himself, nor did he desire to conceal from the House, the delight he felt in finding himself voting on the same side with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did take the liberty of making a suggestion across the House to the hon. and learned Sergeant, and if that had been acted upon, the learned Member might have been spared the trouble, and the House the pleasure of one half hour of his speech, which might have been reserved for another occasion. The hon. Member declared his intention of voting for the bill, and he afterwards adduced the towns of Cork, and Clonmel, and Galway, as arguments against the bill. The arguments might have been very good if they had agreed with his vote, but as it was, he was better pleased to get the learned Sergeant's vote than his arguments. He hoped the hon. and learned Sergeant would give the House credit when the bill was in Committee for the instalment of the debate which they had received from him, and allow them to escape so much on a future occasion. He was of opinion that the bill would place those who called themselves Conservatives in a better position than they were in at present. Many of those Gentlemen who, for political purposes, now appealed to the angry feelings and passions of certain parties would no longer feel a necessity for making such appeals, but would consult the voice of the people of the cities and towns; and by pursuing that course they would be better friends with their neighbours than ever they had been before. The hon. and learned Member objected to the bill, that it would take away the power from the Protestants and give it to the Roman Catholics. Now, if the meaning of the bill were to take power from a Protestant because he was a Protestant, and to give that power to a Catho- lic because he was a Catholic, he (Mr. O'Connell) would oppose it most strenuously; but the complaint under the present system was, that the Roman Catholic did not get that power and privilege which he was justly entitled to. He would instance the city of Dublin, where, for forty-seven years, Roman Catholics were eligible to be admitted to the corporation, and notwithstanding that the law permitted their admission, and that there were numbers of Roman Catholics amongst the gentry, and merchants, and the shopocracy, as they were called, and persons connected with the law, yet during those forty-seven years not one of them had been admitted. He hoped the learned Sergeant would excuse him when he said they had been excluded by Protestant prejudice. He should be heartily ashamed, and he should deplore it bitterly, if a Catholic corporation succeeded in excluding Protestant wealth and respectability from civil rights because they were Protestant. Yet he had shown that the Catholics had been equally admissible for forty-seven years, and none of them had been admitted because they were Catholics. Let him be shown any provision in that bill which gave a preference in civil rights to a man because he was a Catholic, and no one could be more ready to expunge it. The principle in the bill was, that a certain degree of property gave a title to the franchise, and, whether the possessor of that property was a Protestant or a Catholic, he was equally entitled to the franchise under the bill; and on the same principle, no matter what was his religion, that he should not have the franchise if he did not possess the property. No matter what religion a man was of, whether a Protestant, or a Catholic, or a Socialist, he might enjoy the franchise if he enjoyed the property. If the greater proportion of the property were in the hands of the Protestants, why should they not have their full share of the government of the town. And if, on the contrary, the greater portion of the property were in the hands of the Catholics, why should they not have it? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford might differ from him in that opinion, and might believe that the State ought to give a superiority to the man who was of the State religion, and he would admit that the bill was a bad bill to every one who held such opinions; but it was a good bill in the eyes of those who thought that the possessors of property in the towns ought to have the regulation of the municipal affairs of the towns, and that no one ought to inquire what religion they were, or if any one was impertinent enough to ask such a question, that no one should be bound to answer him. He was ready to take the bill if it should pass in its present shape, though he believed there were many who might be dissatisfied with the franchise; but he felt that persons were bound to sacrifice their opinions in order to secure a permanent and substantial good. He was, however, bound to say, that, if it did not pass in its present shape, if it should be altered, it would not give satisfaction; and he thought it was the interest of the House to give its acquiescence to the just and reasonable demands of the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland demanded the same municipal rights as the people of England; but they would take the bill, although there was a restriction in it. They agreed to that restriction, as it was to last only for three years. He hoped the time would soon come when they should put an end to those restrictions. The hon. and learned Member concluded by repeating his intention to support the bill.

Sir Robert Peel

Sir, I do not intend to enter into any discussion of the details of the bill on the present occasion. I shall reserve that for another stage. With respect to an admission I made on a former year, I must say that I do not now see any cause to induce me to retract that admission. With respect to the newly-inserted provisions, now at the end of three years, I will not enter into that point; but I reserve to myself the complete power of acting hereafter, with respect to the details, as I may think fit. The main question which we have now to decide is, shall this bill be read a second time or shall it not? Shall an attempt be made in the present session to bring this long agitated question to a conclusion? I have a better ground for assenting to this attempt to settle the question, for I hold that we are consulting no interest in Ireland by keeping the question unsettled, if we can settle it in a proper and satisfactory manner. With respect to the first point, concerning the fulfilment of the pledge which I made, for I will not say compact, as I do not consider that I entered into any compact On any occasion with the hon. Gentle- man opposite; but I made a declaration of the course I intended to pursue, and that declaration it may be thought might have a material bearing on the course which was adopted by others. I said that if there had been a satisfactory Tithe Bill passed, and a franchise established on the rating of the Poor-law Bill, in that case we could apply ourselves to the settlement of the corporation question in a form which would be satisfactory. I have no disposition to say, that the agitation with respect to the Tithe Bill releases me from that. I doubt the policy of making the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite of so much importance, and so far as the operation of the Tithe Bill is concerned, I will not so far compliment the hon. Gentleman as to say, that he has such power over the Catholics of Ireland that they would consent to unsettle the Tithe Bill at his suggestion. I believe that he has not that power over the Catholics of Ireland, the majority of whom have so much good sense, and so great a desire to consult the tranquillity of their country that little is to be apprehended on that point; and I do not believe that if he was inclined to do so by agitation, that he has the power. I do not think any conduct of his with regard to the Tithe Bill releases me from any promise I made on a former occasion. As many of my friends may vote against me, and as some of them have come into Parliament since that period, it is necessary that I should inform those who came into Parliament since that transaction took place, why I adopted a different course with respect to the Corporation Bill from that which I pursued on a former occasion. I entertained the opinion that it would be better for Ireland if the people of that country would generally consent to the abolition of the corporations. When I found that course was not satisfactory, and that it was felt as a humiliation and a degradation that there should be any difference between the mode of treating the corporations in Ireland from that which had been adopted in England, I saw that those feelings of dissatisfaction entered as an important element into the question. I wished to state my opinion that upon the whole there would be a greater prospect of religious peace and social concord in Ireland if an arrangement was made to provide for the local government of the towns without any municipal corporations. We tried that principle, I proposed that the existing corporations should be abolished in Ireland, and further that no other similar bodies should be established in lieu of them, for I conceive it impossible to proceed with the principle of self-election in Ireland after the corporations had been abolished. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford calls upon us to retain the principle of self-election in Ireland, although it has been abolished in England; but as far as my experience goes, I do not think it consistent with the Protestant interests of that country to maintain self-election in Ireland, after it has beer, given up in England. In cases for instance, where the great preponderance of property is in the hands of the Roman Catholics, would it conduce to the Protestant interests of that town if the principle of self-election were retained, and that Protestant selected each other to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics? That would provoke so strong a feeling of dissatisfaction that any good which might result from a municipal reform would be perfectly overwhelmed and overpowered by the general discontent it would produce. Take the case of Dublin, I do not believe that it would conduce to the Protestant interests in that great city if the principle of self-election were retained, and that the Catholics were practically excluded. We tried that principle when we were in a powerful minority, within twenty or twenty-five of the Government; and, on the motion for the abolition of the corporations in 1836, we were in a minority of 64. We repeated it in 1837, and we were then in a minority of 88. Although men are in opposition they are obliged to look to the interests of the country; and the question then remaining to be considered was, whether it was for the Protestant interests, seeing that the public mind in England and Ireland was against the abolition of the corporations, that we should endeavour to carry this principle and could hope to fight the battle successfully against increasing opposition in this House and with a decreasing minority. I did not act suddenly. I took every opportunity of consulting the opinions of that great party with whom I have the honour to act. I asked them whether they thought they could rely, under the circumstances of the case, on the permanent opposition of the House of Lords in maintaining this principle, and whether it was on any ground desirable that the two Houses of Parliament should be thus kept in perpetual conflict with each other. I cannot say that all agreed for some differed; but there was almost an universal opinion amongst us that the ground was not tenable, and that the public interests and the Protestant interests of Ireland would not be advanced by it. That gave force to the declarations I made, not as a personal declaration, but on behalf of a great majority of that party. If the noble Lord was influenced by that in any measure which he proposed, I should be sorry indeed to be liable to the imputation that, having got the provisions I required, I did not fulfil my part. At the same time, if I were convinced that the public interests could be injuriously affected by the course which I am taking, I should feel myself placed in a painful dilemma; and, as a public man, should have to decide whether I should fulfil my engagement, and, in doing so, act contrary to the interests of the public service. But I am not in this dilemma, for the declaration which I made is consistent with my conviction that I am better consulting the public interests and the Protestant interests of Ireland by assenting to this Bill, than if I were to refuse concession to any attempt to settle this question. I confess that I will enter into the consideration of the details of this Bill with an earnest desire to bring the question to a satisfactory settlement. I do not deny, that the Roman Catholic influence must prevail to a great extent in these corporations on account of their numbers and property, but I do not anticipate any of the extreme danger that some appear to apprehend in this respect. I am sorry that the Protestant interest should not have more influence in those corporations; but I doubt whether the establishment of municipal corporations will add much to the political influence of the Catholics. That power will not materially add to their political weight. See how the case stands at present. With the corporations in the hands of Protestants, can we congratulate ourselves much upon the political results? I am convinced more advantage would be produced by depriving those who wish to agitate of a topic of agitation, and I am satisfied to run the risk of the elective principle in order that a great body whom I am desirous to look upon in the light of a great body of my fellow-countrymen, may not feel a sense of degradation at having withheld from them this concession. We have now the corporations in our own hands, and can we congratulate ourselves very much on the political results? Now to argue the matter in a more narrow point of view. The system of self-election prevails; but in many instances Roman Catholics form the corporations, and can we boast any great success in our Parliamentary or political influence? I will take the eleven towns mentioned in schedule A, which have corporations; they are Belfast, Clonmel, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Londonderry, Sligo, and Waterford, and of those eleven towns there is only one that returns a Conservative Member, namely, the town of Belfast. My hon. and learned Friend says, that many of these towns protest against corporations, and that a great portion of the property and wealth of these towns is opposed to corporations. Well, be it so. Supposing that a great portion of the property is against the introduction of the corporations, is it not to be supposed that the influence of that property will be exerted, and that it will strive for a fair portion of the corporate officers? Take the case of Belfast, for instance: there they will have no funds to administer, and consequently will be obliged to resort to a new taxation; and, as soon as they commence to exercise their taxing power, you will then see that they will at once become unpopular. Many of these corporations will have to decide between two courses: they will neglect their duty, and leave the lamps unlighted and the pavement unrepaired; they will neglect to attend to the comfort of the inhabitants, and then there will be comparisons made between them and the former corporation. They would then meet and determine to establish a borough rate, expecting that they would recover their popularity by this means; but when the rate came to be levied, they would find that the imposition of the new rate had rendered them more unpopular than before. I apprehend that when we consider the disunion that may arise to a certain extent amongst parties now united—the feelings of dissatisfaction that will be excited amongst one party, feeling that the corporation has not come up to their expectations—the discontent that will be excited towards those whose party prevailed in the choice of the governing body—I think, considering all these grounds, that the danger has been exaggerated with respect to these new corporations. I think, considering also the dissatisfaction that will be excited amongst the neglected candidates and their friends—the feelings of humiliation arising from having pretensions disregarded—the unpopularity arising from new taxation—I think that, considering all these causes, our political influence will be rather increased than abated by the circumstances to which I have adverted. Now, I will take all the boroughs which at present return Members to Parliament. There are altogether thirty-three borough towns, having corporations, which at present return Members to this House. Now, out of these thirty-three towns, there are only nine which return Conservative Members. I apprehend, however, that this result arises, not so much from the existence of these corporations, as from the extent to which, in many of those places, the political franchise is in the hands of the Roman Catholics. I am certain that it would be inexpedient to make a provision to say that the elected body should be of a particular persuasion, so long as the elective body are of a different persuasion. I do not think that there will be any risk to be encountered on account of religion. The election will always be sure to go in favour of those who profess a certain line of politics; and there will always be found men in whom the spirit of party will so overrule all other feelings, and these men, representing in the corporations the feelings of the elective body, would be found quite as mischievous as any who might be debarred on account of their religious persuasion. I have already stated, that in schedule A there is only one town which returns a Conservative Member to this House, and that, out of the thirty-three borough towns having corporations, we have only nine Conservative Members. I know very well that it is impossible to deny, that the Roman Catholics will at first exercise material influence in these municipal corporations, but I very much doubt whether their political influence, as distinguished from their municipal influence, will be increased by the grant of municipal corporations, when I consider that in many towns how small a proportion of the municipal functions remain to be exercised. In the city of Dublin, for instance, the corporation will have very few corporate functions to discharge. You have already established there a paving board and a lighting board, and you have established a street police with which you have decided that the corporation shall not meddle. In fact, in Dublin you have excluded the corporation from the exercise of all municipal functions. In fact, in every thing which respects the interests of the corporation, the corporation will have scarcely any interference. We might by refusing to read this bill a second time give encouragement to agitation; but I think that we ought to consent to the second reading of the Bill, as we have failed to persuade the people of Ireland that it would be for their interest, for a time at least, that they should be free from those municipal election contests, which would go far to interfere with social harmony, and interfere with good fellowship amongst the inhabitants of many towns in Ireland. For though elections may be considered as a safety-valve for the expression of opinion, still they interfere very much with the harmony of social feeling, which they very much tend to interrupt. On these grounds, then, first of all, from a desire to promote the interests of the Protestants of Ireland, and also to promote the general interests of the country, I think that this question should be brought to a final conclusion, unless there could be shown a strong necessity to the contrary. I have already stated that I did not enter into any compact with respect to this question; but this I feel, that no one could know what to depend on if on such occasions the public declarations of public men were not to be adhered to. It would be a painful course if I were called upon to adhere to a declaration which I felt to be wrong, but I feel that the declaration which I made is one in conformity with my own convictions, and that I consent to nothing in this bill which I think ought not to be conceded. My own opinion is, that it is for the public interest, for the interest of Ireland, and for the interest of the Protestant party in that country, that we should seize the opportunity of settling this question, and that we should gain no object by postponing it to another year, when we may have fresh difficulties to encounter, and a diminished chance, perhaps, of effecting a satisfactory and amicable settlement. I shall, therefore, vote for the second reading of this bill, and shall enter into the committee with the same feelings with which I give my vote to-night, and with a disposition to use my best exertions to bring this long-agitated question to an amicable, a satisfactory, and a final settlement.

Lord J. Russell

said: Were it not for some remarks that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, I should not have thought it necessary to offer any observations to the House on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, has stated, that, with respect to this question, he entered into no compact with this side of the House, but that he made a public declaration of what his intentions were. He has stated with perfect correctness what was the declaration which he made, and I must say, that what the right hon. Baronet has now stated agrees, on the whole, with the declaration which he formerly made. However, the right hon. Baronet is mistaken if he supposes that I am prepared to agree to all the propositions with respect to this bill which were pressed last year. There are some things which were contained in the bill, and added by the House of Lords last year, and some propositions which we have this evening been led to expect will be proposed in the Committee, to which I cannot give my assent. The hon. Member for Bandon proposed a plan, by which he would provide, that half the governing body should be elected by one class of religionists, and the other half by the other, and that only half the members of the governing body should be elected by one class of the inhabitants; but, though I assisted in introducing and preparing a bill with respect to charitable trusts, in which a principle something similar was admitted, I do not think that it would be advisable to introduce that principle into the municipal bill for Ireland. I shall, therefore, object to the introduction of this principle into the bill, for I think that in operation it would be found to be mischievous. There could be no way more certain of perpetuating religious dissension, than that one party, being a minority, and another party a majority, should each elect an equal number of town councillors, and that one set of these town councillors should belong to the Protestant party exclusively, and the other exclusively to the Roman Catholic party. In agreeing to the proposition of establishing a higher rate of franchise I certainly do so against my own opinion, for I think that we have made the franchise higher than was necessary as a security for the constituency who would have to elect the governing body. However, there is nothing in that franchise which can give advantage to one party beyond another. It is merely a money value, and the franchise may be equally enjoyed by all who possess the qualification without reference to whether the individual be a Whig or a Tory, a Protestant or Roman Catholic, a Churchman or a Dissenter. I think this franchise will combine all interests. I think, therefore, that, having decided in abolishing the principle of self-election and putting an end to religious differences, we should avoid any thing that would tend to perpetuate those differences, and that would for one evil substitute another. I hope, in conclusion, that the right hon. Member for Tamworth will not content himself with supporting the principle of the measure. I hope that we may be able to bring this question to a satisfactory settlement in the course of the present Session. Having passed a similar measure with respect to other parts of the United Kingdom, it could not fail to be a constant source of dissatisfaction to the people of Ireland if we were to refuse to place them in the same condition, and to concede to that country a measure founded upon a similar principle.

The House divided on the original question—Ayes 149; Noes 14; Majority 135.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral Bodkin, J. J.
Aglionby, H. A. Brabazon, Sir W.
Aglionby, Major Bridgeman, H.
Anson, hon. Colonel Briscoe, J. I.
Archbold, R. Brodie, W. B.
Attwood, M. Brotherton, J.
Bainbridge, E. T. Busfield, W.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Butler, hon. Colonel
Barnard, E. G. Callaghan, D.
Barrington, Lord Campbell, Sir J.
Barry, G. S. Cave, R. O.
Beamish, F. B. Chapman, Sir M.L.C.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clive, E. B.
Bernal, R. Collier, J.
Bewes, T. Conolly, E.
Blair, J. Corbally, M. E.
Blake, M. J. Corry, hon. H.
Blake, W.J. Cowper, hon. W, F.
Craig, W. G. O'Connell, J.
Curry, Mr. Sergeant O'Connell, M. J.
Dalmeny, Lord O'Connell, M.
Divett, E. O'Conor, Don
Duke, Sir J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Dunbar, G. Parker, J.
Dundas, Sir R. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Eaton, R. J. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Ellis, W. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Perceval, Colonel
Filmer, Sir E. Perceval, hon. G. J.
Fitzalan, Lord Pigot, D.R.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Pryme, G.
Fort, J. Pusey, P.
French, F. Ramsbottom, J.
Freshfield, J. W. Redington, T. N.
Gillon, W. D. Richards, R.
Godson, R. Roche, E. B.
Gore, O. W. Roche, W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Russell, Lord J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Scholefield, J.
Greene, T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Greg, R. H. Sheppard, T.
Greig, D. Smith, B.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Harcourt, G. G. Stanley, Lord
Hawes, B. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hector, C. J. Staunton, Sir G. T.
Hinde, J. H. Stuart, W. V.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Stock, Dr.
Hobhouse, T. B. Strickland, Sir G.
Hodges, T. L. Strutt, E.
Howard, F. J. Style, Sir C.
Howard, P. H. Tancred, H. W.
Humphery, J. Teignmouth, Lord
Hutton, R. Tennent, J. E.
Jackson, Mr. Sergt. Thompson, Alderman
James, W. Thornley, T.
Jermyn, Earl Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Jervis, J. Tufnell, H.
Kemble, H. Turner, E.
Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E. Verney, Sir H.
Vigors, N. A.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Villiers, hon. C. P.
Langdale, hon. C. Vivian, J. H.
Leader, J. T. Walker, R.
Lowther, J. H. Warburton, H.
Lynch, A. H. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Macleod, R. White, A.
Marshall, W. Williams, W. A.
Morpeth, Viscount Winnington, Sir T. E.
Morris, D. Wood, B.
Muntz, G. F. Wyse, T.
Muskett, G. A. Yates, J. A.
Nagle, Sir R. Young, J.
Norreys, Sir D. J.
O'Brien, W. S. TELLERS.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Stanley, hon. E. J.
O'Connell, D. Sheil rt. hn. R. L.
List of the NOES.
Archdall, M. Kirk, P.
Bagge, W. Polhill, F.
Blackstone, W. S. Pringle, A.
Cooper, E. J. Sibthorp, Colonel
Fector, J. M. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Hamilton, Lord C. Tollemache, F.J.
TELLERS.
Verner, Colonel Inglis, Sir R. H.
Williams, R. Litton, E.

Bill read a second time.