MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). (Hansard, 3 March 1840)

§ Viscount Morpeth
opposed the motion, as tending to throw suspicion, on the motives and characters of the individuals to be elected by the new corporation. He considered that the bill as it now stood; provided a sufficient check against an extravagant appropriation of the corporate funds, and he objected to the amendment therefore, on the ground that it was as unnecessary as it was offensive

§ Mr. Goulburn
could not see that the amendment of his hon. Friend threw any greater light of suspicion upon the officer's to be elected, than the clause itself, which provided various checks; and he agreed in the propriety of giving the Government a control over any extrava- 875 gant application of the public money. The liberality of people in Ireland was such, that they were always more disposed to err on the side of extravagance, than on that of economy.

Colonel Perceval
said, that his only object was to place the salaries appropriated under the new bill, under the control of the Lord-lieutenant.

Mr. Pigot
said, that the effect of this amendment was to prevent the new corporations from re-appointing any of the old officers, or appropriating their salaries without the approval of the Lord-lieutenant; so that the appointment of every officer who had been appointed from the granting of the charter to the present time, would have to be brought under the consideration of the Lord-lieutenant and the Council. In his opinion, the amendment was not merely unnecessary and offensive, but it was calculated to do away with all the benefit of the measure.

§ Colonel Verner
hoped, that this clause would receive the sanction of the Government. It was quite certain that the effect of this bill would be to transfer the corporation of Dublin from the hands of one party to those of another. One individual had held an office in that corporation for fifty years, and it would be a great hardship if he were not permitted to retire and receive compensation.

Colonel Perceval
supported the clause. It proved the truth of what he had 876 stated, that this bill would transfer the Irish corporations from one party to another.

Mr. O'Connell
said, the transfer would, be from a limited number to the citizens at large.

§ Lord John Russell
said, it seems that there is a much better understanding between the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the subject of this amendment, than there is between him and the Government, for I feel great difficulty about the clause. In the first place, it seems to take for granted that there will be in most cases such an entire difference between the parties holding offices in the new corporations and the existing officers; but be sides that, in the next place, the clause appears to be calculated to lead to some agreement or bargain between the different parties in the corporations, by which large compensation will be given to particular persons, in order to obtain the appointment to the offices which they hold; so that a great additional expense will be imposed upon the inhabitants. I think the clause is liable to that interpretation, and that it will necessarily lead to the introduction of other clauses, and I therefore am not prepared to agree to it.

Mr. O'Connell
hoped, that the Government would not resist the next clause. They had admitted the claims of Mr. Dickinson and of the Sword Bearer and Marshal of Dublin to compensation, and the four junior aldermen of that city, had precisely the same claim. The Lord Mayor was allowed a compensation for his expectancy of the office of president of the Court of Conscience; and each of the four junior aldermen would in rotation become Lord Mayor, as certainly as the present Lord Mayor would become president of the Court of Conscience, if this bill were not to pass. The office of alderman, too, was one of considerable dignity; and that was taken from them by this bill. The compensation would come out of the funds of the corporation, so that the public would lose nothing, and this clause proposed what was only an act of justice to those individuals. He begged to move a compensation clause.

§ Colonel Verner
considered it useless to press the amendment. The Government appeared determined to resist every amendment; and it was because he felt 877 sure that they would do so, that he had opposed the second reading.

Colonel Perceval
said, the argument of the noble Lord on the last clause, did not apply to this. Men underwent considerable expense in order to arrive at the station which he had now, for the first time, heard the hon. and learned Member for Dublin describe as an honourable situation. They must have served the office of sheriff, or paid a fine of 400l. or 500l.

Mr. Pigot
said, that the claim now put forward, admitted of considerations quite different from those which affected the other cases to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had alluded, and in which it clearly appeared that the parties had an insurable interest in the offices which they held. The Government, after much consideration, had determined to accede to the clause under certain limitations. He proposed to amend the clause by providing that it should be lawful for the town council to grant such sum by way of compensation to the four junior aldermen of the city of Dublin as to the town council or to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury should seem fit; but with this further limitation, that in case they should have received or acquired a title to any sum or benefit which ought justly to be taken into account in estimating such compensation, then such sum or benefit should be considered as extinguishing their claim or diminishing its amount.

Mr. O'Connell
wished to know, whether it was intended by that clause to give the aldermen an appeal to the commissioners of the Treasury? [Mr. Pigot: "Yes."] If that were so, he did not know that he could quarrel with that limitation; but he was afraid of the generality of the terms in the latter proviso—was it confined to pecuniary benefit?

§ Mr. Hutton
conceived, that the aldermen had no claim whatever, and therefore he should oppose the motion, however amended, and divide the committee.

List of the AYES.
Archbold, R.	Gordon, R.
Barnard, E. G.	Hodgson, R.
Blandford, Marq. of	Hollond, R.
Brodie, W. B.	Howard, Sir R.
Browne, R. D.	Hume, J.
Busfield, W.	Lushington, C.
Dunbar, G.	Morpeth, Viscount

O'Connell, D.	Turner, W.
O'Connell, J.	Verner, Colonel
O'Connell, M. J.	Wallace, R.
Perceval, Colonel	Wood, Sir M.
Plumptre, J. P.	Wood, B.
Russell, Lord J.	Wyse, T.
Somers, J. P.
Somerville, Sir W. M.	TELLERS.
Stock, Doctor	Pigot, D. R.
Sutton, hon. J. H. T. M.	Curry, Sergeant

List of the NOES.
Ellis, W.	Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B.	Wakley, T.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Wood, G. W.
James, W.
Marshall, W.	TELLERS.
Scholefield, J.	Hutton, R.
Thornely, T.	Strutt, E.