HC Deb 14 February 1884 vol 284 cc883-5
MR. M'COAN

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether ratepayers in townships constituted under 9 Geo. 4, c. 82, have any and what remedy against their Town Commissioners in the following cases:—Where one of such Commissioners was co-opted by the others to fill a casual vacancy at the same meeting at which the resignation of the retiring Commissioner was received, and not, as the Act requires, at a meeting specially held therefor, after summons duly issued by the chairman; where the oath was not administered to the person so co-opted by one of the other Commissioners, as the Act directs, but was taken by himself, and where, notwithstanding such irregularity, he has since sat and voted as a Commissioner; where the cost of making or repairing a sewer or drain through the private house of the chairman of the Board has, by a vote of the majority obtained by his influence, been paid out of the rates, instead of by the owner or occupier, as the Act provides; where corporate property has by a vote of the majority, and against protest of the minority, of the Board been let, through private favouritism, at rents much below its ordinary and proper value; and, where, also through favouritism, a scheme for a local public work wholly in excess of the wants and revenue resources of the town, and so involving an oppressive addition to the rates, has been sanctioned by a majority of the Commissioners, in preference to another, at less than half the cost, proposed by an eminent engineer, and approved by all the principal ratepayers of the township?

MR. W. J. CORBET

Sir, I wish to ask you, on a point of Order, whether the Solicitor General for Ireland is at liberty to give an opinion in this House to any hon. Member who puts a hypothetical Question like this, involving grave charges against members of a Corporation, who, from the way in which the Question is framed, had no opportunity of defending themselves from such gross imputations?

MR. M'COAN

The statements in this Question are not hypothetical. They are actual facts; but the reason I abstained from giving names is obvious; and I think that, according to the practice of the House, I am entitled to put the Question.

MR. SEXTON

On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to direct your attention to paragraph five of this Question, where you will find that a motive—private favouritism—has been attributed to the members of a certain public Board. I wish to know whether the Standing Order prohibiting the importation of matters of opinion and argument into Questions in this House does not apply to that case?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot say that I see any grounds for interposing between the hon. Member who put the Question and the House.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

The five Questions which are involved in the inquiry of the hon. Member raise five abstract questions of law. Any illegal election can be contested by Election Petition; any illegal order to pay out of rates can be contested by certiorari, or before the public auditor. Any illegal letting of corporate property can be impeached by action; and with regard to Question five, it seems clearly to involve a case in which the majority, rightly or wrongly, overruled the minority.