§ The order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill having been read,
§ The Marquess of Lansdownespoke to the following effect:—My Lords, I rise to move the third reading of the altered Bill, which now stands entitled—"A Bill for the regulation of Municipal Affairs in Ireland and for the abolition of Municipal 1044 Corporations therein." In rising to move this third reading, it certainly will be necessary for me to occupy but a very short portion of your Lordships' attention, and I shall be glad if my comparative brevity upon, this occasion shall in some degree mitigate the inconvenience to which I am sensible I may have put some of your Lordships, by requiring as a favour your attendance here on this usually vacant evening. That the subject to which I am about to direct attention is one of paramount importance I am but too well aware; but, nevertheless, it certainly would be unpardonable in me were I to occupy any considerable portion of your Lordships' time, when I feel it impossible to ask you to give a third reading to this Bill on any other argument than the one I shall presently have to state. The position in which your Lordships stand in connection with this measure is simply this:—The Commons' House of Parliament having sent up to us a Bill, the object of which was the substitution for self-elected and irresponsible Corporations in Ireland, Corporations that should be responsible, and should be fairly elected by the people of that country, it has seemed fit to the majority of your Lordships materially to alter that measure, and carefully to take out of the Bill all those portions of it which gave life and existence to new Corporations, while you have been pleased to retain all that distinguished life in all existing Corporations whatever. The effect, therefore, of the Bill as it now stands adopted by your Lordships, is, that the corporate system is for ever annihilated in Ireland, and that the title of the Bill—for the preliminary words are somewhat unnecessary—should be, instead of being "A Bill for the regulation of Municipal Affairs in Ireland, and for the abolition of Municipal Corporations therein," be "a Bill for abolishing the corporations of Ireland, and making the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland for the time being sole corporate thereof." My Lords, I have sometimes heard persons out of this House less learned than your Lordships, who expressed some difficulty in knowing what was the meaning of the legal term "corporation sole." My Lords, if this Bill shall pass into a law, you will be able to boast of 'having given to the world an opportunity of witnessing in my noble Friend near me, the present Lieutenant of Ireland, a living specimen of that legal character, exercising, in the vulgar as well as legal sense of a corporation sole, all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the 1045 existing corporate bodies of that country. This, my Lords, it is needless for me to assure you, was far from the view of those who introduced this Bill in the other House of Parliament—it was far from the view of the majority of that other House of Parliament who adopted this Bill on its being so introduced to them. They contemplated no such unheard-of concentration of powers in the hands of any single man. They did, undoubtedly, contemplate that measure to which your Lordships have been pleased to assent—and the full value of that assent I undoubtedly feel—they did, certainly, propose to extinguish all that was proved to be corrupt and mischievous, and all that was liable to become corrupt and mischievous, in the existing Corporations of Ireland, but they did not propose by their measure to pass sentence upon the character and institutions of that country, and to record its people as unfit and incapable of sustaining anything like those functions which for centuries have been exercised, fairly exercised, by their fellow-subjects in the Corporations, great and small, of Great Britain and Scotland. I have said, that I feel the full value of the assent given by your Lordships to the first principle of this Bill. I mean that which relates to the extinction of all the existing Corporations in Ireland in their objectionable and exclusive form. I feel, that in so doing your Lordships have given the strongest Parliamentary sanction on the part of this House that you could give to the wisdom of that policy which instituted an inquiry exhibiting the defective and corrupt state of those institutions. I feel you have recorded your approbation of that policy, and, therefore, I conceive a great object to be attained even by the Bill as it stands in its present state. But, great as I think that object is, I do also think that object great which you have declined assisting the other House of Parliament in attaining. I allude to the construction of a more wholesome corporate system than that destroyed, by the infusion of a due proportion of popular control, and by an amendment in the forms of election. In the attainment of that object your Lordships have refused co-operating, and I, therefore, think it is but right and fitting that the other House of Parliament should be apprised of the way in which your Lordships have dealt with their pleasure; and apprised of the reasons and motives which guided your Lordships in your decision respecting this measure, I fear, that neither the other House of Parliament nor the 1046 public, are ever likely to be satisfied with that statement; and I am sure it would not be for me to undertake the difficult task of explaining them; and as the only course by which they can be duly made acquainted with the state of events on this great question of legislation, no noble Lord having moved for a conference with the other House of Parliament, will be to put them regularly in possession of the Bill in its amended—I should say in its altered— form, I have come forward for the purpose of requesting your Lordships to pass the Bill through its remaining stages. My Lords, I desire it may be distinctly understood that it is on these grounds alone I beg of you to give the Bill a third reading. I thought it my duty the other evening to tender to those who made this Bill their own the opportunity of putting it through its latter stages, but, as your Lordships are aware, that offer those to whom I allude thought proper to decline. I make use, my Lords, of the words "made this Bill their own," because, according to a memorandum which I have now before me, I find that the state of the Bill, as it passed the other House, is entirely different from what it is at present. The preamble has been amended, sixty-six of the clauses have been altered so as scarcely to be recognised, of new clauses twenty-seven have been added, and of the clauses sent up by the other House of Parliament only eight have been preserved. I think therefore I am justified in stating that the noble and learned Lord, and those who acted with him, have made this Bill their own; and further, that I was justified in proposing to the noble and learned Lord to conduct to its termination the Bill which he had so made his own. But, when the noble and learned Lord declined the task, I undoubtedly felt it to be my duty to offer to your Lordships to conduct this Bill to the final stage, by which would be insured its regular transmission to the other House of Parliament. If on this occasion I could have hoped to alter your Lordships' determination, I should undoubtedly have thought it my duty once more to ask your Lordships, as a question of policy and as a question of wisdom, to consider whether it became the House—the depository of many of the most valuable privileges that are maintained by law in this country, and the guardian by profession of many other privileges, which, although not attached to it, are protected and supported by its existence—I say, my Lords, I should have ventured to suggest 1047 the policy of re-considering whether it is wise and prudent in that House which is the first privileged body in the country, to make itself the instrument of stripping all the corporate bodies in Ireland of their privileges, and to use the prerogative vested in it by the laws in infringing the liberties and rights of the people. This course I certainly should have ventured once more to suggest to your Lordships' consideration, if I could have hoped to shake the determination you have come to; but entertaining the feeling that such a hope is now altogether futile, it is not my intention to-night to give your Lordships the trouble of a debate, for the purpose of restoring the Bill to its former state. I shall, for the reasons I have given, now move that the Bill be read a third time, but I do so with a decided protest against the supposition that such a motion involves, on my part, any approval of its contents; or at least of that portion of its contents which effects the perpetual destruction of all corporate bodies in what once was the sister kingdom of England. Having made that protest in a manner which I think will be understood in this House and in the country, I can have no hesitation, on the grounds I have stated, and on those grounds alone, in asking your Lordships at once to give to this Bill a third reading.
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to this measure, as injurious to the people of Ireland, and insulting to the other House of Parliament. He considered it as a Bill of the most mischievous description, and he for one would never agree to it. When he considered the speeches and arguments that had been addressed to their Lordships in proposing the alterations in different clauses, he felt that it would have been infinitely less injurious and less dangerous if it had been simply presented to the people of Ireland as it stood, in its altered state, unaccompanied by such comments. After the decision of last year, with reference to the corporations of England and Scotland, it would be felt by the people of Ireland that they were not deemed capable of advantageously receiving the same measure of reform. What had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Fitzgerald, we believe), and by the noble Earl (Haddington) on the floor, whose character and experience gave weight to everything that fell from them, aggravated the insult that had been offered to the people of Ireland. The noble Earl had said, in answer, he believed, to some observations which he bad 1048 made with reference to the proposition of the noble Duke (Richmond) on the cross benches, that corporations should be allowed to some of the great towus—the noble Earl had observed that the large towns were precisely those which he was most afraid of, because the people were apt to congregate for the purpose of discussion.— [The Earl of Haddington: I made use of no such expression.] Why, the noble Earl said, that, above all other places, he dreaded Dublin! He expressly mentioned Dublin. And what was the reason? Because there the people were in the habit of meeting. The noble Earl said, he was not afraid of the small towns, but he was of the large ones, and the reason was, because in the latter the people came into play. Could this be doubted? Again, what must the feelings of the people of Ireland be, when the noble and learned Lord opposite called them alien to Englishmen—alien to the habits of Englishmen—alien to the religion of Englishmen—anxious to disunite themselves from this country, and to expel Englishmen from their soil? Was not that an attack that ought not to be made on them as British subjects? The noble and learned Lord spoke of the necessity of encouraging loyalty, and of keeping up the connexion with Great Britain; and at the same time he asserted, that the people of Ireland were inclined to throw aside the British connexion. Now, he did not think that there was any great degree of political sagacity manifested in propounding such a proposition. But let their Lordships look at the Bill on the table. Was it calculated to strengthen and extend the principle of loyalty? No person had a higher respect than he had for loyalty. It was a noble sentiment; and in this country, he thanked God, it was a patriotic sentiment. It was a glorious sentiment; because a reasonable one, among freemen. But, when freedom did not exist, it might degenerate into servility and sycophancy. The Union, as he understood it, between the two countries, which they were all so anxious to preserve, was founded on a large, and comprehensive, and wide, and politic basis. It was founded on a community of interests, on an identification of feelings. If it were not so, then it was no union, but a cheat with respect to one party, a disgrace with reference to the other, and nothing better than a mischief to both. Then he would say, that if they did not grant similar institutions to the people of the two countries, and they were refused by this Bill, they might call 1049 the Union a union of subjugation—they might call it a union of conquest—they might call it a union of injustice, but it could not be fairly viewed as a legislative bond of Union. This, therefore, he contended, was a most dangerous Bill to send to the people of Ireland. He believed, however, that the Bill would never pass into a law; and, when he said so, he was sure he spoke the sentiments of the British people, who never would suffer such wrong to be done to Ireland. And what, he asked, would the other House of Parliament say to their Lordships' proceedings? They surely could not receive such a measure. It was most unjust to treat Ireland in this manner, because he would contend that the Irish people had shown themselves fit to appreciate free institutions as they ought to be appreciated. They had shown a willingness to identify themselves with the feelings as well as the institutions of the British people. There was an identity of interests between the two countries, and it was not because a portion of the Irish people were obnoxious to the party of the noble Lord opposite that a slur should be thrown upon them, and that they should be subjected to a degradation which, under other circumstances, they dared not offer. These facts, they might depend upon it, were well marked and noted out of doors. If noble Lords opposite did not take another course—if they did not do the same justice to Ireland that had been done to England and Scotland, they would strike a severe blow at the Union. That blow, however, would be vain; it would pass away harmlessly, because he was convinced that the good feeling of the British people would atone for the error, and would render that Union firm and lasting. Because there were riots at parliamentary elections in Ireland, they were called upon not to give to that country popular municipal institutions. But the advantages that flowed from a free and liberal system greatly out weighed the minor inconveniences that attended it. If they refused to Ireland that which had been granted to England and Scotland, he thought they went somewhat nigh to teach the people of Ireland that their obedience to an united legislature was not beneficial to them, and the consequences of raising such a feeling might be most dangerous. He, however, placed his confidence in the House of Commons, and was impressed with the belief that this Bill would never pass into a law.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that if he had not been personally alluded to by the noble Marquess, he should not have deviated from his original intention of remaining silent. If any stranger came within those walls in the course of the speech of the noble Marquess, (and the same remark would apply to many other speeches which had been delivered by noble Lords on this subject,) he would be led to suppose that their Lordships were going to deprive the people of Ireland of long-enjoyed and much-valued privileges. Instead of which, the plain fact was, that they had merely sanctioned the abolition of Corporations, to which measure, so far as they knew, the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland were favourable. Those Corporations had long been complained of as a nuisance that ought to be abated. They had, it was admitted, been for a long period the engines of persecution, and the great means of carrying on an exclusive system throughout that country. What their Lordships refused to do was, to recreate on the ruins of that system so abolished, another system, still more exclusive. It was not for him to go into the details of the subject. He could not do so without restating arguments which had been reiterated over and over again. He should therefore mainly adhere to the purpose for which he rose, to point out and correct the very great misrepresentations which the noble Marquess had made with respect to what fell from him on a former evening. The noble Marquess had certainly most completely misrepresented the whole scope and tenor of what fell from him on that occasion. The noble Marquess had represented him as offering insult to the people of Ireland—as stating that he was unwilling to see the amendment which involved the existence of the great Corporations of Ireland carried into effect, because he distrusted the people of Ireland; at the same time, that he was willing to see such a principle carried into effect, where towns were small, and had but few inhabitants. Now that was not what he said. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: I must deny the correctness of the noble Lord's remark] I understood the noble Marquess to say that I asserted that I saw no great danger in allowing Corporations in small towns, because there were few people in them; but that great towns ought not to be intrusted with such privileges, on account of the large number of 1051 people they contained. That, however, was not my statement. What I stated was, that there was more danger to be apprehended in giving those privileges to large towns than to small ones. But, mark the ground which I took on that occasion. We object to the continuance of those Corporations generally on account of the spirit of agitation which would be likely to pervade them; and I cannot conceive that that spirit would be half so dangerous to the security of the country, when it rages in a town of limited extent, as when it is used to excite the population of a larger and more numerous community. That is the utmost extent to which any distrust goes. My distrust is not to the people, but to those who agitate the people and influence the government. Such is my distrust. If any insult has been given, it is offered to the agitators, and not to the people of Ireland, whom I wish to protect from that baneful influence which is so dangerous to the interests of this empire. I pointed out the city of Dublin as a proper criterion by which to judge, and I repeat it. If Dublin were to be left with a Corporation, and placed under the influence of a priesthood that joins in agitation, and open to the arts of lay agitators, why then we might as well pass the whole Bill as it was sent up from the other House of Parliament; because, by adopting such a principle, we should be legalising a perpetual Catholic Association. The noble Earl proceeded to say, that was the reason why he objected to the proposition of the noble Duke on the cross-benches, and not because he wished to insult the people of Ireland. It was because he valued the peace and repose of Dublin — it was because he wished a government to be established in that country powerful enough to command respect—that he was anxious not to take any step the effect of which would be to legalize a permanently-standing Catholic Association. He never stated, that he saw no inconvenience from a system of agitation in the smaller towns. It was purely a matter of comparison. But very many reasons induced him to prefer the Bill as it now stood, rather than to take it with the alterations proposed by the noble Duke on the cross-benches. He thought that the greatest danger would result if they adopted the amendments of the noble Duke. In point of fact, he looked upon the Bill, as originally framed, 1052 as presenting a minor danger compared with that to which such an alteration would inevitably lead; and he trusted that their Lordships would adhere to that, which he conceived not to be a hardship to the people of Ireland, but a measure that would save them from the arts of agitators, and secure to them the best chance of equal justice. The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) had represented the amendments or alterations (he did not object to the noble Marquess's words, for the Bill was altered, as well as amended, very extensively) as precluding the people of Ireland for ever from all the benefit of Corporations. The noble Marquess did not explain to the House how that appeared. The gist of the argument applied to the present state of Ireland; it was upon that view that the measure was founded. But if a happier day arrived for Ireland what was to prevent the Government or Legislature of this country, if the people made application for Corporations, from consenting to form them? No man would be more happy than he at the arrival of a day of peace and tranquillity, when they might entertain such a proposition with propriety, if it were made by the people of Ireland. But he believed that if such an unexpected day did arrive, the Government would receive no application of the kind. He had trespassed further on their time than he had intended, but he was obliged to rise for the purpose of correcting the misrepresentations of the noble Marquess, which were opposed to every feeling of his mind. When he formerly addressed their Lordships he thought he had so expressed himself as to render it impossible that any such interpretation could have been put on what he stated, for he was the last man that would think of saying any thing unkind of, or insulting to, the people of Ireland.
Viscount Gortexpressed his regret that the city of Limerick should be deprived of privileges which had been handed down to the Corporation from a very early period. An inquisition, almost unparalleled in the history of this country, had been sent forth to inquire into the state of the Irish Corporations, and, in his opinion, those who constituted that Commission had no just reason for visiting the Corporation of Limerick with the severity which they had done. The noble Viscount was proceeding to animadvert on what had been said in the House of Commons by an hon. Mem- 1053 ber with respect to the noble Lord's influence with the corporation of Limerick, when
§ The Earl of Devonrose to order. The noble Viscount was applying himself almost personally to what had passed in the other House of Parliament, a course never permitted on ordinary occasions.
Viscount Gortsaid, he had over and over again heard allusions made to speeches delivered elsewhere; but he should obey the wish of the House, and abstain from going further into the subject. Neither he nor the Corporation had the power of appointing the officer connected with the city of Limerick, who was mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners. Under the regulations of Charles 2nd, they could only recommend an individual who must be approved of by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. If this Bill would give peace to Ireland, no man would be more interested in agreeing to it than he should; but instead of giving peace, it would only add to the feuds and animosities which existed in that country, and would be followed up by demands still more unreasonable, which would never cease to be made till the Protestant religion was trampled under foot.
§ Lord Alvanleywas aware of the natural impatience of their Lordships to get rid of this discussion, but he wished to make a few observations in consequence of what had fallen on a former occasion from his noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, imputing to him that he had, in supporting this measure in its present shape, thrown overboard his opinions respecting the principle of centralization. In answer to that charge he had to say, that his objections to that principle were not shaken by his acceding to the necessity of this measure, which was one great exception to prove the general rule. His vote upon this occasion would be given on this very strong reason for supporting the Bill in its present state that Ireland was not in a situation to receive Corporations. His vote was founded upon the evidence which he had read with very great attention, collected in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Irish poor, and upon the state of elections generally in that country, and he would say, that greater riot, intimidation, and agitation could not be conceived than was practised there, accustomed as we were in this country to see these matters go quietly off. Under these 1054 circumstances, he should be sorry if he voted for increasing popular election in any one single instance. He was clearly of opinion that Ireland was not at present fit for Corporations, not but that she might receive the where after, if the state of the country would admit of it. The House was bound to legislate for the present, not for the future or for the past, and every noble Lord who wished to see tranquillity re-established in that distracted country would not consent to give it Corporations in its present situation. Much had been said of the efforts that had been made to tranquillize Ireland, but what was the nature of the measures which had been brought before the House for the last two years in reference to that country?—There was the Constabulary Bill, the Tithe Bill, and the present measure, and as soon as any one of these measures was mooted anywhere, a strong party in the country, and among the public press, had opened the batteries of attack upon their Lordships; loud lamentations were raised, and it was said these measures had very little chance of succeeding. Their Lordships were assailed as the friends of corruptions and abuses of every kind, too bigoted to do their country good, and as incapable to govern it in their hereditary legislative capacity, as hereditary tailors would be to cut out clothes for the half-naked inhabitants of Ireland. In fact, however, the only result of these measures would be to increase the power of those who were already powerful, and add to the wealth of those who were already rich. By the Tithe Bill no less than thirty per cent. would, in three years' time, find its way into the pockets of the Irish landlords, for he supposed that the Irish clergy would not get it, nor would the other measures give one meal of victuals, or a day's work, to any man in Ireland who now wanted it. These measures, therefore, were no measures of relief, though there were measures which would give Ireland relief, and why were they not brought forward? Their Lordships might not have observed it, but a very curious circumstance occurred the very day that this Bill was read a second time. On that day notice was given in another place that no measure would be brought forward by the Government this Session, founded on the Report of the Commissioners of Poor-laws in Ireland. He did not say that the Government was to blame in wishing to take lime to consider before they brought forward this very important 1055 measure, but their Lordships would not forget that there was a party in the country who arrogated to themselves the exclusive merit of originating every measure that was calculated to protect the interests of the people of Ireland. How was it, then, that this measure had not been introduced before? He was convinced that unless a measure of this kind was brought forward, it would be impossible to tranquillize Ireland, and such a measure must be brought forward by others. Till that measure was introduced—till they had made up their minds to pay the Roman Catholic clergy, and to prevent them by legislative enactment, from receiving payment of dues from their flocks, and till they had reformed or done away with the great College of Maynooth, which was the real Normal school of agitation in Ireland, they would have done nothing.
A Noble Lordwished to correct a misstatement of the noble Baron, with respect to the effect of the Tithe Bill. It did not put more than fifteen per cent, instead of thirty per cent., into the pockets of the landlord, at least he would not get more for taking the payment to the clergy upon himself.
§ Lord Alvanley— I said it would in three years.
§ Bill read a third time.
§ On the question that it do pass,
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid; after what has already taken place, and the observations which I addressed to your Lordships when the amendment which I am now about to submit was proposed by me in Committee, I do not feel that there is any necessity for trespassing upon your attention at any length. I shall only remind your Lordships that the main argument used against leaving the Corporations in seven great towns in Ireland is, that the elections in those places would be placed in the hands of one individual. My Lords, must I then bring myself to think that you are legislating solely with reference to one individual. Is it fitting that the House of Lords of England should shape their course of legislation in a different way from what justice would direct, because one individual happens to possess influence over his fellow-countrymen. My Lords, if you wish to take the power which he possesses from that individual, show the people of Ireland that you are willing to render them full, fair, and impartial justice. Do not permit that individual to go into the great towns to 1056 which my motion refers, and to say, "You, the inhabitants of Dublin, Belfast, or Cork, —you, 10l. householders, are considered by the Legislature that governs you, unfit for the exercise of corporate privileges, whilst the poor fishermen of some of the small out ports of England and Scotland, are looked upon as entitled to the right of managing their own municipal concerns." I object, then, to the system which you seem disposed to adopt, my Lords, because acting upon it, you put weapons into the hands of agitators. It appears to me, that those who argue against providing Corporations for the great towns in Ireland, seem to think that the people who are to take part in the elections are to be persons who pay no taxes, and who have no stake or property in these places. But what is the fact? Why, it is proposed that they should be the 10l. householders. Now, take the city of Dublin with reference to the principles of qualification which I wish to see established. Is it quite certain, that the 10l. householders of that city have proved their willingness to elect even that individual whose influence is so much dreaded? Are your Lordships not aware that in the last election, that individual had not a majority of1 the 10l. householders. I firmly and conscientiously believe, that if your Lordships agree to the amendments I propose, you will satisfy the great body of the fair people of Ireland, and I believe you will take away a great deal of the power from those individuals, whoever they may be, who wish to excite the people of that country. My noble Friend (Lord Alvanley) has stated, that whenever measures are brought forward for the relief of the people of Ireland, batteries are immediately opened upon your Lordships' House. My Lords, I know, and most of your Lordships know, that the existence of this House is absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights and liberties of the people, and I shall ever be ready to stand up in defence of our privileges. But, my Lords, I am too old a soldier not to know, that when a battery is opened upon a party, the proper step to be taken is to take up a strong position, by which that attack can be successfully insisted. When a serious battery has been commenced, the way to meet it is not, I think, to open the gates to the opposing party: but I am desirous that we should entrench ourselves, if possible, in a still stronger position than that which we have hitherto oc- 1057 cupied. Now, my Lords, it is not because I am of opinion that there is any great body of the people opposed to this House, but because attempts have been made to excite the people to an opposition to it, that I think you ought to be more careful than ever in your proceedings; and under this impression, I have brought forward the present amendment, without any particular party or political views, for I stand in this House unconnected with any party whatever. Therefore I may, perhaps, urge a peculiar claim to make the proposition which I mean to submit on these grounds,—because I think it is just, because I cannot see the slightest danger from acceding to it, and because, more than all, you will, by sanctioning it, take that course which I have ever warmly advocated—you will reform and correct existing abuses, without destroying the institution to which they are incident—you will repair and reinstate these Municipal Corporations, and not utterly abolish them. I object to the Bill which has been read a third time, because it destroys these Corporations altogether, for I do not believe that there is a single man in Ireland who can bring himself to believe that there is any probability of these corporate bodies being restored after they have once been abolished. I feel that the people of these large towns in Ireland are entitled to have Corporations; I feel that they have a right to have them, if they can be given by your Lordships, without any fear that danger would result from the concession; and I appeal to you whether, the voters being 10l. householders, there is any ground for such a fear. My Lords, I shall not detain you by saying anything more; but I am most desirous to record my opinion on the Journals of this House, by moving that schedule A, in the first clause, be left out, and another schedule, including the towns of Belfast, &c, be substituted.
§ Lord Lyndhursthad so frequently troubled their Lordships, that it was not his intention to trespass now upon their attention by any general observations on the subject of the motion which the noble Duke had made, more particularly as he had pronounced an opinion upon it when it was brought forward on a former occasion; but he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the noble Duke that it was impossible to engraft his amendment on the Bill in its present shape. It would be 1058 necessary to reinsert thirty or forty clauses which had been excluded, as well as to alter and amend every one of them. Now, unless their Lordships were prepared to do that, the Bill would be inconsistent on the very face of it; and there was no mode, consistently with retaining these clauses, by which the object of the noble Duke could be carried into effect. He merely suggested to the noble Duke the difficulty, in point of form, with which he had to contend.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the objection of the noble and learned Lord seemed to him to be one of form, and did not affect the principle of his amendment. As for himself, he should be perfectly willing to devote even to-morrow to obviating the objection of the noble and learned Lord, when, by doing so, he thought he was forwarding a great national object.
The Marquess of ClanricardeCan anything afford a stronger illustration of the manner in which the affairs of Ireland are legislated upon, than that the noble and learned Lord should get up in his place, and seriously object to the amendment of the noble Duke, because it would delay the progress of this measure for a day, a week, or even a month? Is it to be urged as a serious objection to a measure involving objects of the highest importance, that a point of form, which might cause the delay of a day, was to be got over before it could be passed?
§ Lord LyndhurstThe noble Marquess has misapprehended what I said. I merely suggested, that in order to carry the object of the noble Duke into effect, it would be necessary to alter a great number of the clauses of this Bill. I made no objection whatever to the amendment of the noble Duke, except that I stated that I have, upon a former occasion, expressed my sentiments with respect to it.
The Marquess of ClanricardeThe only objection the noble and learned Lord took to the amendment of the noble Duke was one of form. Is he now prepared to say that he will agree to it in principle? What quibbling to urge a mere formal objection to an amendment of this nature, and, when charged with having done so, not to admit either that no other could be preferred to it, or not to oppose it on principle. It certainly is somewhat unusual to rely on a formal objection to a measure 1059 of this description, by which these Corporations are suppressed, and their property transferred to the Crown—a measure, I maintain, which involves considerations more important than any measure has supplied since the time of Henry 8th. Now, as to the great difficulty which was said to exist in appointing those Corporations, which it is the object of the noble Duke's amendment to have established, I do not see why a clause could not be inserted in the Bill, enabling the Crown to grant Corporations to those particular towns. At all events, if the measure be passed in its present shape, it will fill the minds of the people of England with indignation—I believe that the people of this country take a lively interest in the welfare of the Irish people—as it will, in my opinion, be attended with the worst consequences, and will endanger, if it do not prove fatal, to the union between the countries.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that if there were no difficulty in the course which the noble Marquess suggested, he ought himself to have come prepared with a clause to attain the object he had in view.
§ The Marquess of LansdowneBefore the House proceeds to a division, I wish to make a few remarks, carefully avoiding, however, to go into any general topics which have been introduced. I must, in the first place, confirm the statement of the noble Duke, that his proposition was not the result of any previous communication between myself and the noble Duke. At the same time I must state what I wish to be distinctly understood, that his Majesty's Ministers, in bringing forward this measure, did not wish to preclude a fair inquiry into, and consideration of, what were the corporate towns to which it might be expedient to extend these new municipalities. They thought that a matter for fair consideration. What they most anxiously wished to maintain was, the preservation of the corporate principle. If that corporate principle is to be preserved in Ireland, I do not say that it must in the first instance be extended to all the towns in Ireland, but if any preference be given, it ought to be to the large towns, where the interests were larger and the property concerned was of greater value. If the corporate principle he good at all, it is impossible that it should not prove beneficial in proportion to the amount of property to be preserved, and the interest 1060 taken in it by large and influential bodies of people. If it were good for anything to establish intermediate bodies between the Government and the people, through which local affairs are to be administered, and public opinion elicited, it must be most desirable to establish that principle in the large towns; and in proportion to the number of inhabitants, and the complexity and amount of interest existing in such places, will be the certain policy and certain ad-vantage of creating Corporations, or rather reforming and preserving them in the large cities. Such establishments have been found, by the experience of all times in England at least, attended with great advantages (and I have no doubt they will hereafter be attended in Ireland) with the most beneficial and salutary effect even in restraining that very spirit of agitation which is the bugbear upon which the necessity of these institutions is opposed, and which arises solely from the fears and apprehensions of those who urge it, for they cannot rest their assertions on any specific grounds, inasmuch as there has not been any experience of the particular forms of election in Ireland. My Lords, I do then most sincerely express my hope—though a feeble hope I confess it is—that even at this hour you will adopt the motion of my noble Friend on the cross-benches. The noble and learned Lord has stated, that this amendment interfered with the object which I ventured to state I had in view—namely, that the Bill should go down to the House of Commons, with the exhibition of all the alterations which have been made in it, on as early a day as possible. That hope I expressed through a fear that you would not re-consider your former determination, or adopt any amendment so important as that which the noble Duke has proposed. But, so far from regretting any delay that might take place were the noble Duke's amendment carried, I should think every hour, every day, and week well employed, which was- necessary for carrying the spirit of that amendment through all the provisions of the Bill. I feel persuaded that it would be time usefully devoted to the public service, and well employed in reconciling the House of Commons to the adoption of the alterations which your Lordships have made in the Bill, and raising the character and reputation of this House. If your Lordships assent to my views you will show an anxiety to maintain in Ireland ancient institutions, framed and based upon that principle which in England you have declared 1061 to be essential to their existence. Having said thus much, I shall not detain the House by referring to the topics introduced by the noble Baron (Alvanley), as to the general system of legislation pursued regarding Ireland, and the character of those measures, which I at once admit are founded on the obvious policy, and indeed, necessity of meeting the popular demands by those salutary reforms which I am prepared to defend, though not undoubtedly excluding the admission that there are other measures of a character of permanent and important legislation which it is also necessary to adopt. Hereafter I shall be glad to call the attention of the House to the observations which the noble Baron has made, and to examine the whole question to which they refer. Following the example which has been set me by other noble Lords, I shall not detain the House by any lengthened observations, but merely express an earnest hope that your Lordships will adopt it.
§ Their Lordships divided—Contents, present 45; Proxies 37, 82. Not-contents, present 80, Proxies 6l, 141. Majority 59.
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| DUKES. | Oxford |
| Grafton | Litchfield |
| Argyll | |
| Richmond | VISCOUNT. |
| Norfolk | Falkland |
| Leinster | BARONS. |
| MARQUESSES. | Lord Chancellor |
| Lansdowne | Holland |
| Conyngham | Glenelg |
| Tavistock | Hatherton |
| Clanricarde | Langdale |
| Breadalbane | Strafford |
| Headfort | Segrave |
| EARLS. | Templemore |
| Sefton | Gardner |
| Mulgrave | Foley |
| Ilchester | Lynedoch |
| Charlemont | Uxbridge |
| Leitrim | Denman |
| Minto | King |
| Stradbroke | Lilford |
| Burlington | Dacre |
| Cork | Dinorben |
| Scarborough | BISHOPS. |
| Thanet | Hereford |
| Carlisle | Bristol |
| Proxies 37. | |
| DUKES. | EARLS. |
| Sussex | Granville |
| Brandon | Fingal |
| Devonshire | Huntingdon |
| Marlborough | Ranfurley |
| MARQUESSES. | Essex |
| Wellesley | Spencer |
| Winchester | Ferrers |
| Ludlow | Dorchester |
| Granard | Audley |
| Gosford | Chaworth |
| Derby | Plunket |
| Shrewsbury | Vernon |
| Grey | Barham |
| BARONS. | Sherborne |
| Auckland | Cloncurry |
| Arundel of Wardour | Dormer |
| Stourton | Mostyn |
| Brougham and Vaux | Erskine |
| Littleton | BISHOP. |
| Carleton | Norwich |
| Paired off. | |
| FOR. | AGAINST. |
| Earl Radnor | Earl Brownlow |
| Duke of Cleveland | Viscount St. Vincent |
| Earl of Craven | Earl Verulam |
| Lord Saye and Seale | Lord Reay |
| Lord Dunally | Marquess Camden |
| Lord Poltimore | Lord Boston |
| Lord Dundas | Lord Farnborough |
| Lord Byron | Earl Talbot |
| Marquess of Anglesea | Earl Beverley |
| Lord Teynham | Earl of Aberdeen |
| Earl Scarborough | Lord Stuart de Rothsay |
| Earl Rosebery | Marquess of Ely |
| Earl of Suffield | Earl of Chesterfield |
§ The Duke of Richmondhad next to propose an amendment on Clause 64, to leave out the words, "The recorder for the county of the city of any town shall not be disqualified from sitting in Parliament." The object was to prevent persons holding the office of recorder from sitting in Parliament at all. It appeared from all that had been stated of affairs in Ireland that there was something in the present constitution of society in that country which rendered it inexpedient that the same laws should be extended to Ireland as to England. Now, if those causes of excitement really existed in that country he thought it most expedient, for the sake of the due administration of public justice, not only that recorders should not be political partisans but should not be suspected by the public of being so. A circumstance had occurred, even in England, within the last four years, which showed the importance of adhering to this rule. It had happened, as their Lordships must recollect, that a learned person, of whom he could not speak but in terms of the highest respect, who filled the office of recorder for the city of Bristol, and who also held a seat in Parliament, had thought it incumbent upon him to take an active part, as a Member of Parliament, in opposing the Reform Bill; after doing so the learned Gentleman in question went down to Bristol in his judicial 1063 capacity, when his appearance there led to disturbances which ended in the destruction of a very large portion of that city. It appeared from this event that there were times, even in England., when it would be expedient that recorders should not be Members of Parliament. But there was another important consideration in support of his position. It appeared to him that if recorders, being Members of Parliament came over from Ireland to attend to their Parliamentary duties, it would be impossible for them adequately to discharge those of their judicial station, at the usual period of the sessions. Now he was one who thought that the sessions should be even more frequent than they were at present: but even putting aside the notion of intermediate sessions, to which he certainly was attached, he did not think that, even under the present arrangement, the double duty of Member of Parliament, and recorder could be properly and fairly discharged. His principal object as he had at first stated in moving this amendment was, that the recorders of Ireland should be free from all suspicion of political influence. This principle itself seemed to be in part acknowledged by the Bill as it stood, where it was expressly provided that a person being a recorder should not serve as a Member of Parliament for the town in which he was recorder. He thought that the restriction should be enforced more generally, and that a person holding the office of recorder in Ireland, should not be allowed to sit in Parliament as representative for any town whatever.
§ Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the clause, as it stood, was in the respect referred to precisely the same as it came from the other House. He objected to the taking the discussion upon such a question as that mooted by the Noble Duke in the present advanced stage of the Bill. He thought, if the question were to be touched at all, that it ought to be by a Bill for that purpose, applicable not only to the office of recorder but to all judicial situations whatever.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, he would not press his amendment to a division, though it was not his fault that he had not proposed it before; he was quite prepared to have introduced it in Committee, but in order to consult what he understood to be the convenience of the House, had deferred the discussion of it till the present occasion.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Lord Templemoreproposed to introduce a clause for the purpose of constituting the 1064 town of Belfast a county of a city for all purposes of this Bill.
§ Lord Lyndhurstopposed the clause, on the ground that it would place the town of Belfast upon an entirely different footing to that which it had hitherto enjoyed.
§ Lord Templemoresaid, he could see no reason why the town of Belfast should not be upon the same footing as Kilkenny or Cork.
§ Clause was negatived. The Bill passed.