Commons Sitting of 4 May 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. C. Buller, from Members of the Liskeard Literary Institution, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. Pulsford, from Robert Allen Kidley, of Hereford, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill—By Sir R. Ferguson, from Members of the Parochial Board of Dysart, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. O. Gore, from Andrew Moseley, of 53, Great Ormond Street, Queen Square, London, suggesting a Plan for Smithfield Market.

DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Upon the Order for the Second Reading of the Dublin Improvement Bill,
MR. GROGAN MR. GROGAN moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Despite of the petition presented by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), a vast majority of the wealth and intelligence of the city of Dublin were opposed to the Bill; and that petition could not really be signed by rate payers, for the number of ratepayers in Dublin was only 18,000, whereas the petition presented by the right hon. Gentle man was signed by 35,000 persons. The Commissioners appointed to consider the propriety of the changes contemplated by the Bill, had strongly opposed it; and the evidence heard before them fully justified the conclusions to which they had come. It was a mistake to suppose that the ratepayers would be relieved from taxation by the operation of the present Bill. The hon. Gentleman concluded by making his Motion.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLcontended that at that hour in the evening it was impossible that the House could come to a sound decision. So much noise and conversation prevailed in every part of the House, that

375
nothing could be heard of the statements made at either side. He defended the Bill, and contended that they ought to consider it in Committee. He thought that a sufficient case had been made out for the House to go into Committee on the Bill—a Bill which he was of opinion would confer much advantage on the city of Dublin. No doubt faults might be found with the management of some of the wards; but the division of the six wards on the north side of the river was not for the purposes that had been stated; and he doubted whether the reconstitution of the wards would satisfy the persons who complained.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that if the House would look at the evidence which had been laid upon the Table, it would not hesitate to reject the Bill. The wealth and intelligence of Dublin were against the Bill, and the petitions got up in favour of it were the work of imposture. To show the practices had recourse to, an Orange placard (which the hon. Gentleman produced), calling upon Protestants to oppose the Bill, and, appealing to the sectarian and religious bigotry of the citizens, had been posted on the walls of Dublin. This placard, apparently put forward by the Protestants against the Roman Catholics, had naturally excited the hostility of the latter; but it turned out that the placard had not been put forward cither by Protestants or by the genuine opponents of the Bill, but by the parties connected with Conciliation Hall, with a view to throw odium and discredit on the opponents of the present measure. This episode manifested the system adopted by its supporters. The corporation of Dublin had performed its duties in a sectarian spirit, and ought not to be trusted with the vast powers granted by the Bill.
MR. LABOUCHEREsupported the second reading of the Bill, with a view to sending it before a Committee up stairs. The two hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed the measure, expressed their opinions as rather unfavourable to the existence of municipal corporations in Ireland, of the same nature as those which were possessed by the great towns of England and Scotland. Now, however respectable the persons in Dublin might be who opposed this Bill, he would vote for the second reading, because he thought that Dublin had a right to the same municipal institutions as the great towns of England and Scotland. He thought it would be unseemly and dangerous and improper to deny to Dublin the
376
same advantages which other great cities of the empire enjoyed as regarded municipal institutions. On that account, and without pledging himself to support the details of the measure, he would vote for it in the present stage, in order to send it before a Committee. He would admit that the corporation had acted on too exclusively political principles—he regretted that in such an important city as Dublin, which ought to set an example to the rest of Ireland, sectarian feeling should be exhibited. But he would ask was it surprising that such feelings existed? What corporation was it which the present corporation succeeded? It was a corporation which exhibited religious and political feelings of the most exclusive kind. Was it not then human nature that such a system should produce reaction, and that when those who had been so long excluded came into power they would exhibit some of those feelings? But he would trust to public opinion and experience to correct that, and he would not allow it to be made in his mind a reason for restricting municipal rights. The corporation of Belfast applied some few years ago, when the right hon. Baronet opposite was in office, for powers of a more extensive kind than those proposed by this Bill, and they were granted; nor was the exclusive character of the corporation of Belfast rendered a cause for refusing the demand of that corporation. The corporation of Belfast was of such an exclusive character that there was not a single Catholic admitted to the corporation since the passing of the Municipal Reform Bill; and the Protestants admitted into it were all of Conservative opinions. Did he therefore mention that as a reason for depriving Belfast of the advantage of municipal institutions? Far from it, for he was prepared to bear with some abuses of that kind for the purpose of obtaining the good that resulted from such institutions. There was a great principle involved; and he hoped that it would not be made a question of petty local politics, but that they would show a desire to give to Ireland not only the name but the reality of equal institutions with ourselves. If the Bill were sent before a Committee, it was his intention to move that the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department be named on the Committee, with a view to directing inquiry as to the public offices through whose agency the functions of the local boards were exercised.
MR. SHAWwould detain the House

377
but a few minutes in stating his reasons for voting against the second reading of the Bill. Considering his connexion with the corporation and the city of Dublin, he would rather not have voted under ordinary circumstances; and for the many years he had been a Member of that House, he could not recollect that he had ever voted against the second reading of a private Bill. But the truth was, that Bill was not brought forward under ordinary circumstances, and that it could not fairly be called a private Bill. He disclaimed every party and political motive in opposing it. He would not be tempted by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) to compare the exclusiveness of the old with that of the new corporation of Dublin. He would not refer to the constitution of the present corporation; for, constituted how it might be, he did not believe they would be competent to exercise the great powers that Bill would confer; and sure he was, that the question whether the functions at present discharged under old charters and Acts of Parliament by various important boards in the city of Dublin, should be suddenly transferred to the new corporation, was one of public policy that could not properly be decided by means of a private Bill. Then, again, the principal reason why the second reading of a private Bill was seldom refused by the House was this—that, as the parties brought it forward at their own private expense, it was considered but reasonable to give them a fair hearing before a Committee. Such, however, was not the case in the present instance; for the Bill was brought forward at the expense of a borough rate raised upon the city of Dublin at large, to be paid in a very large proportion by the opponents of the measure; for he had never known a subject upon which greater unanimity of opinion prevailed in the city of Dublin, without distinction of party, politics, or religion, than there did against that measure. The Duke of Leinster headed the list of the representatives of property in Dublin in subscribing to oppose the Bill. The Crosthwaites, the Latouches, the Guinnesses—all the mercantile firms of liberal politics—were to be found in the same list. A paper had just been put into his hand, from which it appeared that the Council of the Chamber of Commerce, composed of twenty-six persons, ton of them being Roman Catholics, and seven others of polities opposed to Conservative, making' seventeen
378
out of twenty-six of what were called liberal politics, were the leading opponents of the measure. He would defy any Gentleman opposite who supported the Bill to name any one banker, merchant, independent trader, or resident of weight or property in the city of Dublin, of any politics, party, or sect, not connected with the corporation, who approved of the measure. They had, on the contrary, almost universally subscribed their names, with considerable sums of money annexed to them, for the purpose of opposing the Bill; and it really amounted to this, that those persons, representing nearly the whole property of Dublin, would have, first as ratepayers, to pay for the promotion of the Bill, and afterwards, as private individuals, to put their hands into their pockets and bear the whole cost of resisting it before a Committee; in short, the measure had none of the characteristics of a private Bill, and he trusted the House would not allow it to be treated or read a second time as such.
MR. SHEILhad presented a petition from Dublin, signed by 9,000 persons, in favour of this Bill, and representing property of the value of 221,000 l. The facts stated in the report of the Commissioners who visited Dublin were conclusive as to the necessity of a change. The Commissioners found that the different boards intrusted with the sanitary charge of the city did not do their duty. The sewers of Dublin were in a lamentable state. The next fact was, that a great saving to the public would be effected by concentrating all the powers now held by different boards into one body. There must then be a change; and the next question was, in whom these powers should be invested? Some hon. Members proposed to neutralize the municipal authorities; but it should be remembered that the corporation of Dublin were elected by a 10 l. franchise, and that a franchise to that amount was a condition on which the Conservative party agreed to give a municipal corporation to Dublin. The corporation must, therefore, be held to be the representative of the ratepayers of Dublin; and the House was bound to invest them with the same powers which they gave to corporations in other parts of the kingdom. Now Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Chester, all had the same powers that were sought to be given to the corporation of Dublin by this Bill. Would they withhold from the metropolis of Ireland, with a 10 l. franchise, the same powers which were exercised by towns in

379
England and Scotland, having only a 5l. franchise? He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite, who remembered the declaration of the right hon. Baronet the late Prime Minister at the end of last Session, would concur in throwing out this Bill. That right hon. Gentleman said—"He would extend to Ireland all the rights enjoyed by England; all the civil, political, and municipal rights of England."
The EARL of LINCOLNthought it necessary for the House to reflect whether, by passing the measure before them, they would be assimilating the law of Ireland with that of England. By the English Municipal Corporation Act, boards for sewerage and drainage might, if they thought fit, hand over their powers and functions to the town-councils; but it was not compulsory upon them to do so. Two years ago, when preparing his Bill on the health of towns, he made some inquiries as to how far this voluntary amalgamation had taken place. He found that in very few cases had the local boards made over their powers to the town-councils. In almost all the large towns in England the functions sought to be intrusted to the corporation of Dublin, were exercised by paving and local boards. If the House thought it right to give these powers to the corporations of Ireland, let them do so, but not by a private Bill. He had shown that this Bill proposed, not an assimilation between the practice in England and in Ireland, but a wide deviation from it, when it gave to the corporation of Dublin compulsory powers which the noble Lord opposite had not thought it right to confer upon town-councils in England. He thought that, considering the feeling existing in Dublin respecting this Bill, it ought to be withdrawn. Let the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) bring the opposing parties together, and then produce a Bill next Session on the part of the Government which should be free from the objections felt to this measure by the ratepayers of Dublin.
MR. DILLON BROWNEobserved, that this was a subject deeply affecting the rights of the Irish people; for the question was, whether the same municipal institutions which were enjoyed by the people of this country were to be extended to them. If they were anxious to maintain the union between the two countries, they would give the people of Ireland similar municipal institutions to those which had been established in this country.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes 108; Noes 120; Majority 12.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Antrobus, E.

Lawless, hon. C.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Layard, Maj.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Le Marchant, Sir D.

Loch, J.

Austen, Col.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Baine, W.

M'Carthy, A.

Bannerman, A.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Maher, N.

Barnard, E. G.

Maitland, T.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Mangles, R. D.

Bellew, R. M.

Marshall, W.

Bernal, R.

Marsland, H.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Moffatt, G.

Bowring, Dr.

Monahan, J. H.

Bright, J.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, C.

Brown, W.

O'Brien, T.

Buller, C.

O'Conor Don

Butler, P. S.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Callaghan, D.

Parker, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Pinney, W.

Chapman, B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Price, Sir R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Rawdon, Col.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Rice, E. R.

Crawford, W. S.

Rich, H.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Romilly, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Ross, D. R.

Duncan, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Duncombe, T.

Rutherfurd, A.

Dundas, Sir D.

Scrope, G. P.

Ebrington, Visct.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Escott, B.

Smith, B.

Evans, W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Evans, Sir De L.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ewart, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ferguson, Col.

Stanton, W. H.

Forster, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Gisborne, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Towneley, J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Trelawny, J. S.

Heron, Sir R.

Tufnell, H.

Hill, Lord M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Ward, H. G.

Howard, P. H.

Watson, W. H.

Hume, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Humphery, Ald.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Hutt, W.

Wyse, T.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Jervis, Sir J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Browne, R. D.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Bankes, G.

Adderley, C. B.

Beckett, W.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Arkwright, G.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Ashley, hon. H.

Beresford, Maj.

Bagot, hon. W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Bailey, J., jun.

Boldero, H. G.

Baille, H. J.

Bowles, Adm.

381

Bramston, T. W.

Jones, Capt.

Brisco, M.

Knight, F. W

Brooke, Lord

Lawson, A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Lennox, Lord G. H. G.

Buck, L. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Burroughes, H. N.

Lindsay, Col.

Carew, W. H. P.

Lockhart, A. E.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Clayton, R. R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Clive, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Collett, W. R.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Compton, H. C.

Manners, Lord J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Masterman, J.

Cripps, W.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Deedes, W.

Mildmay, H. St. John

Denison, E. B.

Munday, E. M.

Dick, Q.

Newdegate, C. N.

Disraeli, B.

Newport, Visct.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Newry, Visct.

Douglas, J. D. S.

O'Brien, A. S.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Packe, C. W.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Pakington, Sir J.

Egerton, W. T.

Palmer, G.

Fielden, Sir W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Prime, R.

Ferrand, W. B.

Rashleigh, W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Floyer, J.

Round, C. G.

Fuller, A. E.

Round, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Seymer, H. K.

Gladstone, Capt.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Gooch, E. S.

Sheppard T.

Gore, M.

Shirley, E. J.

Gore, W. O.

Shirley, E. P.

Gore, W. R. O.

Smith, A.

Goring, C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Granby, Marq. of

Spooner, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Halford, Sir H.

Taylor, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Tollemache, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Tower, C.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Trotter, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Henley, J. W.

Villiers, Visct.

Hill, Lord E.

Vivian, J. E.

Hodgson, R.

Vyse, H.

Hope, Sir J.

Walpole, S. H.

Hotham, Lord

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Houldsworth, T.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Hudson, G.

Young, J.

Hussey, T.

Ingestre, Visct.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Gregory, H. W.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Grogan, E.

Second reading put off for six months.

FEES IN COURTS OF LAW.
MR. WATSON MR. WATSON moved for—
"A Select Committee to inquire into and report to the House on the Taxation of Suitors in the Courts of Law and Equity by the collection of Fees, and the amount thereof, and the mode of collection; and the appropriation of Fees in the Courts of Law and Equity, and in all inferior Courts, and in the Courts of Special and General Sessions in England and Wales; and as to the Salaries and Fees received by officers of those Courts; and whether any and what means could be adopted, with a view of superintending and regulating the collection and appropriation thereof"
382
The hon. Gentleman said, the matter was of immense importance; for delays and expense gave a great advantage to dishonest parties, and threw obstacles in the way of honest suitors. Every person must be aware of the immense extent to which fees were collected in courts of justice—fees of the foundation or origin of which no reasonable account could be given. A full and searching inquiry should therefore be instituted into the origin and amount, the legality and justice of those fees. In 1845, the total amount of the sums collected in fees and otherwise from suitors in Courts of Equity and Common Law amounted to 250,807 l., and the ostensible object was to pay salaries and compensations for abolished offices. This enormous sum was paid by the officers who collected the fees, without the slightest check being in existence to secure an honest return. The courts of law were particularly objectionable, inasmuch as more was collected in fees than was necessary to pay the salaries and compensation allowances of the officers. In the three years ending with 1843 the Court of Queen's Bench paid into the Consolidated Fund, as the surplus which remained after paying the salaries and allowances, the sum of 50,128 l.; the Exchequer, 46,127 l.; the Common Pleas, 4,731 l., One cause of the great increase which had taken place in the amount of fees, was the delay which occurred in the disposal of causes. At Westminster Hall there was only the same number of Judges as officiated in the time of Queen Elizabeth and of Edward III.—five in each court—whilst the money paid into the Consolidated Fund, being the balance which remained after paying all expenses, averaged from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l. a year. He thought the suitors had a right to require that the fees exacted from them should be applied to the purpose for which they were ostensibly levied—the payment of a sufficient number of Judges to secure the speedy administration of justice. He thought the number of Judges should be increased by one or two in each court. In the Courts of Bankruptcy, Lunacy, and similar tribunals, fees were also levied, and there was not the slightest check upon the accuracy of the return. In connexion with the inquiry, which he hoped the House would agree to, was the question of how far it was right and proper that fees should be levied at all from persons who sought justice, and how far the expense should not be borne by the nation, care

383
being taken that no improper suits were instituted. Upon that question, however, he would not enter upon that occasion. He had understood that objections had been taken to that part of his Motion which related to the compensation allowances which were paid to certain officers; and rather than endanger the other branch of the inquiry he would consent to the exclusion of the part which related to such compensations, reserving to himself, however, the right of bringing forward that subject upon some future occasion, should be deem it proper to do so.
MR. ROMILLYseconded the Motion. The proposed inquiry was intimately connected with the great question of law reform, one of the essential characteristics of which was that law should be made as cheap and expeditious as possible. It was commonly said that a person who embarked in a suit ought to bear the expense of putting and keeping the machinery of the law in motion; but this, he thought, was a mistaken view of the question, as it was the public who actually derived the benefit of the administration of justice. It appeared to him to be as wrong to compel a person to pay for obtaining justice in a court of law as it would be to compel a person who had his house robbed or his person assaulted to pay for the expense of the police. He hoped the ultimate result of the inquiry sought for by his hon. and learned Friend would be the establishment of the principle that, instead of taxing suitors to the extent of 100,000 l. a year for the benefit of the country, the converse should be the case, and that the country should bear the whole expense of upholding the administration of justice. He hoped that another object to be gained by the appointment of a Committee would be the convincing of the House and the Government of the importance of the subject to which he called attention at the close of the last Session of Parliament—the absolute necessity which existed for having a department of the Government devoted to the superintendence of the administration of justice. That duty was now discharged by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor; but these departments were absolutely overburdened with work already, and to throw additional work upon them was merely to increase the amount of business which would remain undone. The dislike which he felt to the bringing forward of any abstract question, and not having had sufficient time to prepare a Bill on the subject, had prevented
384
him from bringing the subject so prominently before the House as his sense of its importance would have otherwise induced him; but he would say, that he deemed it essential to the right administration of justice and to the progress of safe, salutary, and progressive reform in the law itself, that a Minister, unconnected with its administration, should be appointed to superintend the working of every court of justice throughout the country. This arrangement would supersede the necessity 6f issuing commissions of inquiry; the results of which were too frequently the accumulation of a mass of crude suggestions, which for the most part could not be converted into anything practically useful. In regard to fees, the present state of the Court of Chancery was as bad as it could be. There was no check upon the officers who collected the fees. They were merely required to swear by affidavit that the return was correct; and he did not think it right that so strong a temptation to make a dishonest return as existed at present should be allowed to remain. The fact was notorious—still he did not choose to mention names—that the successor of one of the officers who had died, had, without any visible increase having taken place in the business of the court, paid a half more fees to the Consolidated Fund than had been paid by his predecessor. This circumstance could not fail to give rise to the gravest apprehensions as to the kind of returns which were made.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when a similar Motion was made at the time the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in office, that right hon. Gentleman stated he had no objection to the inquiry, in so far as the question of fees was concerned; and when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was asked the same question, he stated he should have no objection to the inquiry to the extent approved of by the head of the late Government. Under these circumstances it was not his (the Attorney General's) intention to offer any objection to the Motion, the words relating to the compensation allowances being omitted. Still he did not wish it to be understood that he adopted much of what had been said in connexion with the Motion, as to the manner in which the fees ought to be applied. That question would more properly be disposed of by the House after the inquiry had terminated.
MR. HUME, after referring to the results of the inquiry which he proposed fourteen years ago on the fees of the courts, expressed his belief that the appointment of this Committee would issue in great benefit to the people. But, as an old reformer, he would just say that he had found it almost impossible to effect a reform where personal interests were concerned; and the first step should be to abolish the fee system.
Motion agreed to.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.
MR. O. GORE, in nominating the Members to constitute the Select Committee on Smithfield Market, apologized for the delay which had taken place, and assured the House that it had arisen from a desire to secure a full, a searching, and, above all things, an impartial inquiry. Since giving notice of the names of the Committee, he had received an intimation from the Government that it would be desirable to place the names of two Members, one connected with the city, and the other with a metropolitan county, on the list; and he, therefore, proposed to substitute Lord Robert Grosvenor for Mr. Baring, and Mr. Lyall for Mr. Burroughes. In connexion with this change, the hon. Member spoke of having the Committee so constituted as to prevent its decision from being biassed by considerations arising out of the anticipated general election. He knew of one body of men who had considerable influence at elections, who were strongly opposed to the removal of the alleged nuisance; but he did not think that the feelings and interests of these men should be allowed to stand in the way of the public good.
COLONEL T. WOODthought that in a matter which affected the supplies and convenience of 2,000,000 of persons, it was only fair that at least one-third of the Committee should be composed of Members more immediately connected with those persons as representing them in Parliament. As to the bias spoken of by the hon. Member, he did not see how it could exist on so broad a question. He would move that Lord Robert Grosvenor be substituted for Lord Mahon.
MR. O. GORE: Lord Robert Grosvenor is nominated already.
On the question that Viscount Mahon be one of the Members of the Committee, the House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 6: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Baine, W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

O'Conor Don

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Craig, W. G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Stuart, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Taylor, E.

French, F.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Grimsditch, T.

Williams, W.

Hawes, B.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Maher, N.

Young, J.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Gore, O.

Morpeth, Visct.

Gore, W. O.

List of the NOES.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Thornely, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Humphery, Ald.

TELLERS.

Morison, Gen.

Hume, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wood, Col. T.

Forty Members not being present, the House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.