DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 2 March 1849)

§ MR. REYNOLDS
said, that considering as he did that the majority was in this instance wrong, and the minority right, he should persist in moving the second reading. The object of the Bill was to vest in the corporation of Dublin the powers enjoyed at present by the Paving Board, as well as other irresponsible bodies. Now he should beg to inform the House of some of the doings of the Paving Board. It was a body appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. It was presided over by three commissioners, at salaries of 500l. a year each, and they had thirty-six officers under them. The hoard had pensioned off four of their commissioners, after short terms of service, and had saddled the citizens of Dublin with their pensions. Those pensioners were—Sir Robert Alexander, after twelve years' duty as commissioner, a pension of 184l. a year; William John Alexander, after having been a commissioner for seven years, 184l. a year; Stephen Ormsby, after having 91 been a commissioner for eight years, 184l. a year; and Sir William Jephson Cockburn, after eight years' commissionership, 184l. a year. The total amount of monies received annually by the commissioners of paving was 36,000l.; and the salaries which they deducted for themselves and their officers amounted to 8,177l.; being something like twelve per cent on the amount received. He begged of the House to assist him in saving the citizens of Dublin from such a robbery. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whose name he never used in that House but with the utmost respect and affection—that right hon. Gentleman had promised to extend to his country all the advantages of municipal rights which were enjoyed in this country. But how had his supporters kept that promise? Thank God, he (Mr. Reynolds) was not a man of bad temper—but if he had been, certainly this opposition would have been quite sufficient to excite it. The House did not dare to refuse to the towns and cities of England the right of managing their own local affairs; but because Dublin was on the other side of St. George's Channel, they refused to extend that principle to her. As to the postponement, he objected to it upon the ground that it would place him in company with the other Bill to which allusion had been made, and which had been postponed from last Tuesday. Poverty was said to make people often acquainted with strange bedfellows; but the power of the House seemed inclined to make him acquainted with a bedfellow which he disliked extremely. He was about to be placed in bad company, to have his Bill put upon an equality with a Bill of a fraudulent nature; and if the House should agree to the Motion for postponement, he should feel grievously disappointed.

SIR J. Y. BULLER
was surprised at the expression of the hon. Member for Dublin, when he said, that he should feel grievously disappointed if the House agreed to the Motion for postponement, and if both bills were referred to the same Committee. From what he (Sir J. Y. Buller) had seen in former Committees of the difficulty, indeed the utter impossibility, of inducing the adverse parties connected with Dublin to come to any mutual understanding, he thought it would be advisable for the Irish Government to take all those private Bills into their own hands. In the present case he hoped the hon. Gentleman would agree to the postponement.

§ MR. REYNOLDS
, at the recommendation of the hon. Baronet, for whose opinion he entertained the utmost deference, agreed to the postponement.