CORPORATION REFORM (IRELAND. (Hansard, 10 August 1835)

§ Mr. Sergeant Perrin
hoped the House would not object to the Corporation Reform Bill being now read a second time. In that hope he would make the Motion.

§ Mr. Brotherton
rose and said, he should move the immediate adjournment of the House if the Motion were persevered in.

§ Mr. Shaw
trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would see the perfect impossibility of proceeding with so important a measure at that hour of the night.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had hoped that the House would have no objection to the Bill being read a second time that night if the discussion were taken in another stage of the measure. He was sure, however, that his hon. and learned Friend, consulting the convenience of the House, would postpone the second reading, on condition that an arrangement were made for the Bill being read a second time on the next occasion of its standing on the Orders without further delay.

§ Mr. Shaw
was persuaded that it would be quite impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session. He would, therefore, oppose any postponement of the second reading, if it were done as a compromise, and on the understanding that some future arrangement should be made. He was quite convinced, that if the Bill were passed this Session, it must be forced through the House by the main strength of a majority, and without any opportunity for a fair discussion of its provisions. He should, therefore ask no favour, and accept no compromise. If the Motion were passed, he should shortly state the grounds on which he entered his protest against it: but he should certainly ask for no accommodation at the hands of his Majesty's Ministers.

§ Colonel Perceval
said, that unless the hon. Member for Salford persevered in moving the adjournment of the House, he would move it himself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), hoped that the House would support his hon. and learned Friend in moving the second reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. Shaw,
I only ask whether it is decent to proceed at this hour of the night to read a Bill of such importance a second time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
I only ask the House to consider how the case stands. I put it to the House, whether anything could be fairer than the proposition I made to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who was the only hon. Member who had spoken on that side, asked for postponement; I said, "If you ask for it merely on account of the lateness of the 232 hour, I am the last person to refuse;" but you either ask for postponement or you do not. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to me, stands up and says, that he does not wish for postponement—but that he asks for something else. Why, really, when we are ready to do what he asks, it is rather too much that the hon. and learned Gentleman should turn round and accuse us of acting with indecent haste.

§ Mr. Shaw
repeated, that he did not mean to ask for the postponement of the Bill on the ground that it would be improper to take the discussion upon it in Committee, but because it was most unfair to the parties whose interests were affected to bring on the measure at such a period of the Session. The city of Dublin comprised one-third of the whole of the Irish Corporations, as stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, and he had that day received an application from the Corporation of Dublin, stating that they were wholly ignorant of the evidence on which the Bill was founded, they never having received a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, and indeed it was impossible they should, for the first part of that Report (the other not being yet published) had only been put into the hands of Members the middle of that day. Was the Legislature to deprive the citizens of Dublin of Charters, privileges, and property, which they had enjoyed for more than six centuries, not only without hearing either evidence or statement on their behalf—but without even letting them see a copy of the charge made against them? It was inconsistent with every principle of sound legislation and justice. He was no advocate of abuses—he had no objection to true Reform, and on the proper occasion would be ready dispassionately to enter upon the entire Question as regarded the Corporations in Ireland—but at that period of the Session, when most of the leading Members unconnected with office had left town, and above all, before the local Reports were published, he earnestly protested against the measure being forced through the House by the mere numerical strength of a Ministerial majority. The Ministers knew the Bill could not be discussed this Session; but such might be their object. They knew it was impossible the measure could become a law during the present Session, but it might serve a party purpose to have it thrown out elsewhere. All he could say was, that if the Ministry did force on the Bill in that House; he would take no part in the dis- 233 cussion of it, but simply enter his strongest protest against a proceeding so unprecedented and so unjust.

Mr. Ruthven
said, that such an observation came well from the learned Recorder, who supported the Corporation of Dublin in all their gross peculations and abuses, and was their legal adviser in the opposition which they gave to this Bill ["Order, and Chair."]

§ Mr. Shaw
said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had been guilty of the most disorderly language in imputing to him a desire to support peculations and abuses. He was desirous to vindicate himself from such a gross and unfounded attack, and he called upon the hon. Member to retract the expressions he had used.

§ The Speaker
said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had undoubtedly used very strong expressions to a Member of the House, but he was quite sure that he would be willing to retract them.

Mr. Ruthven
said, that the words he had used were not directed to a Member of the House, but to an official person out of the House—he meant the Recorder of Dublin.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that if the expressions used were objectionable and offensive, it did not signify whether they were applied to a Member of the House, or to a person out of the House. It was equally the duty of the hon. Member to retract them, particularly as he had been called upon to do so by the Chair.

Mr. Ruthven
observed, that the Corporation of Dublin was a many-headed monster—the hydra of corruption and misrule, and then referring to certain persons who had mixed themselves up with shameful conduct—

§ Mr. Shaw
was determined not to submit to such language as had been used by the hon. Member for Dublin, unless the Speaker ruled that it was orderly.

Mr. Ruthven
said, what he meant to state was this, that the House could not proceed to pass this Bill without encountering the opposition of persons who were anxious to perpetuate the abuses which it sought to remedy.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
rose to order. The hon. Member for Dublin had applied expressions of an offensive nature to the right hon. Gentleman, and he was bound to retract them.

§ The Speaker
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, had called for an explanation of the expres- 234 sions used by the hon. Gentleman. The demand of such an explanation was quite reasonable, and it therefore behoved the hon. Gentleman to explain or retract the words he had used.

Mr. Ruthven
said, it was very curious that everything bad which was said at that side of the House must be taken to apply to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) was mistaken, however, if he supposed that he could be whitewashed by calling for any explanation from him.

§ The Speaker
must appeal to the House to support him in maintaining the order and decorum of their proceedings. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, had used expressions which the House could not sanction, and he once more put it to the good feeling of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the words he had used.

Mr. Ruthven
in obedience to the wish expressed by the Chair, begged to say, that he retracted any words that might have given offence to any hon. Member of the House.

§ Dr. Nicholl
said, that there was no Question before the House. An hon. Member had moved the second reading of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, and the Question upon that Motion had not as yet been put.

§ Mr. Brotherton
moved, that the further consideration of the Question before the House be adjourned to Wednesday next.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
wished to call the attention of the House to a speech made some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Recorder of Dublin, on the subject of Corporation Reform, in which he was reported to have said, that his Majesty's Government knew that they could not carry forward to its completion the proposed measure of Reform in the course of the present Session of Parliament, and he that night said, that they were now only urging it forward for party purposes.

§ Mr. Shaw
begged to state, that what he had said was, that they might now use it for party purposes.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
resumed—He would read the language of which the right hon. Gentleman made use from his own paper—from the organ of his own party—Saunders's News-Letter. He was there reported to have said, that he felt perfectly confident and assured, that the proposed Bill would not pass into a law during the present Session, for he had heard a Member 235 of the Government say, that they did not contemplate the passing of more than two Bills in the present Session of Parliament namely, the English Corporation Reform Bill, and the Irish Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to say, that it had been brought in for party purposes, but he would take leave to affirm, that there was not a man in England of impartial mind, who thought anything of the sort, and if the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth were in power, instead of the present Ministers, the Recorder of Dublin would not have dared to insinuate anything of the sort. The hon. Member was proceeding to read from the reported speech of the right hon. Gentleman some passages which he described as reflecting in very undeserved terms upon the measure of Corporation Reform, and upon the conduct of his Majesty's Government, and was putting a hypothetical case in reference to the learned Recorder of Dublin, assuming him to have been possibly the individual from whom those speeches proceeded, and described them as infamous libels, when

§ The Speaker
interposed, and called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the breach of order he was about to commit.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had not used those words, and if they did not relate to the Corporation Question.

§ The Speaker
said, that the hon. Gentleman might put his question to the right hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, provided he did so without any comment tending to convey offence.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, that one part of a speech made by him in Dublin had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, in which he was reported to have said, that "those who differed from him were Infidels in religion, and Revolutionists in politics." What he did say, was, "those who opposed the institutions of the country, would be joined by all who were Infidel in religion, and Revolutionary in politics." As to the rest of the report, it was substantially correct.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it did not appear to him that there would be any use in continuing a discussion of that nature, and he hoped that when they came formally to the consideration of the Question which gave rise to the present conversation, they would approach it with calmness and with moderation. He trusted that was scarcely necessary for him to assure 236 the House, that his Majesty's Government brought forward the Question of Irish Corporation Reform as an act of public duty, and not from any party or personal views. They proposed to themselves no other object than the direct and single aim of advancing the public good. Having introduced and carried through that House an important, and he hoped he might be allowed to say, a valuable measure, of Corporate Reform for England, they now hoped to be able to hold out to Ireland an equal measure of justice.

§ Mr. Shaw
said, he thought it fair to state that taking into consideration the late period of the Session, and that it would be impossible for the Bill to be properly discussed, he should content himself on Wednesday with entering his Protest against it; he would be no party to the discussion of a measure under such circumstances. If he had said any thing in connexion with this subject that had wounded the feelings of hon. Gentlemen he was sorry for it: all he intended was, to point out the difficulties in the way of giving, at this period of the Session, to a Bill of so much importance, the attention which it ought to receive.