DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT BILL.

HC Deb 04 May 1847 vol 92 cc374-80

Upon the Order for the Second Reading of the Dublin Improvement Bill,

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'CONNELL

contended 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 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. GREGORY

said, 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. LABOUCHERE

supported 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 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. SHAW

would detain the House 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 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. SHEIL

had presented a petition from Dublin, signed by 9,000 persons, in favour of this Bill, and representing property of the value of 221,000l. 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 10l. 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 10l. franchise, the same powers which were exercised by towns in 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 LINCOLN

thought 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 BROWNE

observed, 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.

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.