HC Deb 02 February 1838 vol 40 cc723-5

Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the above Bill.

Sir Robert Inglis

On former occasions when this question was in its corresponding stage before the House, I resisted it by a negative; but having never detained the House either by a statement of my objections, or by a division, I am anxious, with their permission, to take this opportunity of expressing briefly the general grounds of my opposition to the principle of the measure.

In the analogous case of the municipal corporations of England, we resisted the principle of the measure in that stage of the Bill, which, conventionally, in the practice of this House, is deemed the fittest stage, namely, the second reading. I see no sufficient reason for not resisting the present Bill at its present stage, namely, its second reading. The two grounds upon which I think any man can come to a contrary conclusion in this instance are—I, That the Act of Parliament which annihilated and re-created the corporations of England has established a precedent for treating every thing in the name of corporation with equal disregard, and has virtually destroyed the corporations of Ireland when it destroyed those of England; and 2, That if it were not so, the case of the Irish corporations is so bad that no one can uphold them; and that it is better to say at once, they are all bad together: let us get rid of them, and consider afterwards what to build on their ruins.

On the first point I say at once, that I will not be withheld from voting against the destruction of the Irish corporations, because others have previously destroyed the corporations of England. I will not be bound by that precedent; I was not a party to that proceeding; I think it bad in principle; and I will, therefore, consider the case of the Irish corporations exactly as if the fall of those in England had not taken place.

In the second place, I say, that there is no legal or Parliamentary evidence for the destruction of these boroughs in particular. If no man would condemn these boroughs except those who had read the evidence, not the tenth of the tenth of the House would probably be left to pass the sentence. Some, indeed, of the most important measures of later times, have in fact been decided before all the evidence upon the subjects in question had even been issued to us. It is true that now, at least, we have the materials before us; but who has read them; who has looked at them? If this bill were a bill in the nature of a private hill to alter the constitution of any one of these boroughs, say Cashel, for instance, there is hardly any one Member on either side of the House who would vote for or against it without knowing something of the case. He would say, it affects private interests; and I will not run the risk of injuring any man, without knowing more than I do know of the case. But what we will not do in the case of one borough, we do, without fear or shame, in the case of fifty. So much for our ignorance on the subject; hut, for the sake of argument, I will admit, first, that we all knew the evidence; and, secondly, that the evidence all proved the guilt of the boroughs which we propose to disfranchise; that is to say, the existing municipal corporation of which we propose entirely to destroy and remodel. I ask any lawyer in or out of the House to say, whether the gravest allegation made against any of these boroughs of wilful alienation of the corporate estates could not be remedied by the existing law of the land, without destroying the character of that perpetual existence, the body corporate. The Court of Chancery is the remedy for one set of abuses; the Court of Queen's Bench is the remedy for the other. Has either been tried? Till both have been tried, and found wanting, I, for one, shall continue to hold, that the remedies provided by the constitution have been wilfully and systematically neglected.

Mr. Shaw

said, if the noble Lord intended to name another day for the discussion of this measure, he should not impede the second reading of the Bill, but defer expressing his opinion till a future stage. If it was put off, he hoped it would be deferred till after the Committee on the Poor-law Bill, with which it was connected. The Poor-law Bill ought to have the precedence.

Lord John Russell

intended to take the Poor-law Bill first, and to defer the discussion of this measure till afterwards, though he could not name a day for that Committee.

Bill read a second time.