HC Deb 07 July 1835 vol 29 cc295-7
Mr. Lechmere Charlton

observed that as the hon. Member for Huddersfield was now present, the noble Lord would, perhaps, allow him to trespass, upon the attention of the House for a few moments. It was well known that the Report of one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Municipal Corporations had not been laid on the Table of the House. Mr. Hogg, the individual in question, finding that he differed from his brother Commissioners on the subject, sent a Report to the noble Secretary of State, which the noble Lord, however, declaring that it was personal and irrelevant, declined to receive. He had reason to think, that it was neither personal nor irrelevant. On the Report of the Commissioners, the so-named important Municipal Corporations Bill was founded; and yet it appeared that the opinions of two of the Commissioners were not in conformity with those of the other Commissioners. From their statements, it appeared that much of the evidence in favour of the existing Corporations had been kept back. In his opinion, the least that the House could do, before they consented to a measure which was calculated to derange social order, to invade the prerogatives of the Crown, to violate the rights and privileges of—

The Attorney-General

rose to order. There was no question before the House.

The Speaker

observed that the question before the House was to read the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations Bill, for the purpose of postponing it. It was not usual on such occasions to raise a discussion on another question; and the effect of the introduction of extraneous matter must be the defeat of those hon. Gentlemen who had notices on the books of the House.

Mr. Charlton

said, that to remove all objections in point of order, he would conclude by asking if the noble Lord had received Mr. Hogg's protest on the subject of the Corporation Report and if he would lay it on the Table.

Lord John Russell

answered, that he had received as he had told the House some days ago, a paper from Mr. Hogg, which that Gentleman had first called a report, and had then called a protest. Containing, as it did, only general observations, he did not conceive that it was his duty to receive it, and of course he could not lay it on the Table.

Mr. Blackburne

observed, that if Mr. Hogg had chosen to send in his Reports with respect to the places which he had been appointed to visit, they would have been published in the Report of the Commissioners. There was no disposition to suppress anything. If he had done that he, would have done what the other Commissioners had done, and what it was his duty as a Commissioner to do. Mr. Hogg had sent nothing whatever but Reports respecting two places, which Reports were published in the Report of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Blackburne) felt himself personally to blame for the appointment of Mr. Hogg as a Commissioner. He had especially recommended him to the noble Lord to whom the formation of the Commission devolved. He was sorry to say that he no longer entertained the opinion of Mr. Hogg, which he entertained at that period; and he could assure the House that that change of opinion was not occasioned by Mr. Hogg's thinking differently from him on this subject. By the terms of the Commission, any three or more of the Commissioners were entitled to make a report to his Majesty on the subject for which the Commission was appointed; but no single Commissioner was entitled to do so. If Mr. Hogg had sent in his Reports to the Commissioners he (Mr. Blackburne) would have taken care that they should have been laid before the Board. As the head Commissioner, he had pressed Mr. Hogg to send in such Reports. He had so pressed Mr. Hogg until the last two months; when circumstances, which he had rather not detail, had induced him to determine that he would have no further communication with that gentleman. He had had no further communication with him rather than renew it he would resign his situation tomorrow.

Mr. Lechmere Charlton

repeated that he only wished to have the opinions of Mr. Hogg, as well as those of his fellow Commissioners, especially as they totally differed.

Mr. Blackburne

said, that Mr. Hogg's duty was to have sent in his reports, accompanied with the evidence on which they were founded. He had done so, however, only in two cases. If he chose to send them in they should all be published.

Mr. Charlton

expressed his satisfaction with the explanation and promise of the hon. Member; and the subject dropped.