§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the corporations of Yarmouth and Brading, in the Isle of Wight, said, he did so with the view of correcting some exaggerated and incorrect statements made with respect to these corporations by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in a speech which he recently made on unreformed corporations. The hon. Baronet had asserted that the town hall of Brading had an area of only 8 feet by 10 feet, and that the whole of the corporation funds were expended upon dinners. The real facts of the case, however, were that the town hall measured 30 feet by 15 feet, and that the expenses of the corporation only amounted to £9 13s., of which sum only £5 10s. was spent upon an annual dinner, the remainder of the funds of the corporation being expended in an unexceptionable manner. The hon. Baronet's statements with regard to Yarmouth were also altogether without foundation, and were indignantly denied by the corporation. The annual income of that borough, which amounted to £237, was applied to the repayment of a large debt which had been incurred for the construction of a breakwater, a large quay, and a pier, and it would be 200 years before the principal was paid off. Instead, therefore, of the members of the corporation embezzling or misappropriating monies which they held in trust for the public, the interest of the debt absorbed the whole of the available income from 1620 all sources, as was shown by Returns which had been made to the House since the speech of the hon. Baronet had been delivered. The actual expenses of the corporation did not exceed £15 per annum, and although there was an annual dinner, it cost the corporation nothing, the mayor having the privilege of paying for it himself. He trusted that he had clearly shown that the observations of the hon. Baronet with regard to these boroughs were not justified by the facts, and that the members of these ancient and loyal corporations were not guilty of the charges that had been brought against them. He also trusted that other corporations might be able to disprove some of the charges which had been made against them by the hon. Baronet in his recent speech to the House.
§ MR. CLIFFORDhumorously complained of what he described as a "ferocious attack" which the hon. Baronet made upon an hon. Member who carried the Yarmouth bridge scheme—he (Mr. Clifford) being himself that hon. Member. It was very ungrateful in people to find fault with that bridge, seeing that it saved them a walk of several miles, and was otherwise a thing of great public advantage. He merely wished to corroborate the statements of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight with reference to the proper disposal of the funds of the corporations in question, the members of which had been charged by the hon. Baronet with what amounted to little short of embezzlement.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas sorry that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had thought fit to bring the question before the House of Commons, instead of advising the members of the two corporations in whose interest he had spoken to rebut by evidence, if possible, before the Royal Commission which had been appointed the statements he made when moving for the appointment of the Commission in question. The Members of the Commission were, for the most part, Conservatives, and therefore presumably would have a due regard for the rights of property and the interests of ancient corporations, so that Yarmouth and Brading would probably have been safe in their hands. Matters affecting these corporations were important in and to the localities concerned, but the House could not be ex- 1621 pected to give much time or attention to them. He had, therefore, embodied his statement on the subject in a written document, which he intended to lay before the Commission, and it would then be competent for the corporations of Yarmouth and Brading to bring rebutting evidence. Briefly, his statement would contain stronger allegations as to the way in which the corporations in question conducted their business than he was in a position to make when moving for the Commission. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, while defending Yarmouth, had entered at some length upon a defence of the corporation of Brading, but nothing had been said as to the disposal of the corporate funds or the management of the corporate business, save what was, in his view, perfectly easy of disproof. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) denied they paid all the expenses of the town. The town hall had certainly been rebuilt, but it was still ridiculously small, and there was no evidence to show what had become of the revenues of £500 or £600 received during the last eight years. [Mr. Baillie Cochrane reminded the hon. Baronet that they had built a new town hall.] They had, however, got into debt. He also denied that he had said that any portion of the revenue of Yarmouth was embezzled, although he was ready to allow that persons with very tender consciences might think that his words were liable to that construction. What he had said was that a large sum of money seemed to have mysteriously disappeared every year, and he now repeated that statement. The evidence he intended to lay before the Commission would prove that the corporate officers were elected by private meetings; that the members of the Court Leet were cautioned on election not to make public statements as to the business that might come before them; that no authentic evidence was forthcoming as to the way in which the corporate funds were expended. The borough accounts were never seen, except by the members of the corporation, until they were presented to that House on the Motion of an hon. Member, and it was incorrect to say that they had annually audited and published their accounts. All the unreformed corporations printed their accounts for the use of the members, but in Yarmouth he 1622 had been unable to obtain a copy. The accounts might be audited by a member of the corporation, but certainly there was no public audit. But he was now forced, in consequence of the defence offered by the hon. Member, to make a more serious charge against the corporation of Yarmouth, which was that their accounts were fictitious. The accounts contained in the Return ordered by the House represented that during the last six years they had spent about £700 upon repairs of the harbour, and £146 in 1875 on new works, improvements, and maintenance. He had the evidence of persons well acquainted with Yarmouth harbour, and they declared that in the year 1875 nothing was done to the harbour beyond placing 100 tons of rough stone on the breakwater—thecost of which was £26. That was the only set-off he could find to the £146. The breakwater cost originally £560, and yet the corporation made out that they had spent £120 per year on an average of six years. Considering the defective condition of the breakwater, that, on the face of it, appeared to be a monstrous expenditure. Evidence would be forthcoming before the Commission to prove these facts, and, he believed he should be able to show the Commissioners a very much worse state of things than any one would gather from the remarks of the hon. Member. As, however, that evidence would involve points of detail which could not conveniently be discussed in the House, he could only again express his regret that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had raised the question in its present form, instead of bringing it in some shape before the Royal Commission.