MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). (Hansard, 5 August 1839)

The Marquess of Conyngham
could not but express the deep regret which as an Irishman he felt at the course which their Lordships had pursued with regard to this Bill. England and Scotland had received a liberal measure of municipal reform, but their Lordships had declared that Irishmen were unfit to enjoy municipal privileges. Was that fair to Ireland at a moment when greater tranquillity prevailed there than had been known for years. A force of 12,000 or 13,000 was now stationed in that country, whereas formerly the number was about 25,000. He lamented extremely that amendments had been made which rendered the rejection of the bill elsewhere certain, and that their Lordships had not taken that opportunity of setting at rest for ever this long-discussed and much wished-for measure.

The Earl of Haddington
said, that if this long-discussed and much-wished-for measure were not set at rest, it was the fault of those who rejected it elsewhere. He had been one of those who concurred in the opinion that it was advisable to abolish the old corporations, and not for to create others—until the state of parties in that country should be such as to afford 1204 a suitable opportunity for introducing a system of municipal government in which all parties might share. He feared that that state of things did not at present exist; but it had been found impossible to adhere to that plan, not so much from the feeling which existed in Ireland as that which naturally prevailed in this country on that subject. Accordingly, the noble Duke and those who acted with him adopted the principle of granting new corporations to Ireland as soon as the Government had enabled it to be done with security to the Church by passing a Tithe Bill, and with advantage to the towns themselves, by passing a Poor-law. Both these measures had since passed; and their Lordships had now agreed to the present bill with those amendments which they thought necessary to render it as sale a measure as possible. The best way to do justice to Ireland was so to model the bills that came before them, that when they were carried into effect they might conduce to the preservation of life and property, and to the support and supremacy of the law.

§ The Marquess of Lansdowne
had every reason to believe that their Lordships had introduced one amendment which would render it impossible for the other House in conformity with its usage, to pass that bill. He did not say that it was intended to have that effect; but it probably would, as their Lordships had not done everything in their power to render the measure palatable to the other House.

Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey
said, that it was quite consistent with the view which the noble Marquess and his Friends had taken to feel and tell their Lordships that they had not done all that they ought and might have done to reconcile the other House to this bill; but when they heard from the noble Marquess that one of the amendments which their Lordships had made in that bill, though not intended, was yet calculated to defeat that measure, because it interfered with the privileges of the other House, it was fitting that they who had supported it should state that their opinion on that subject was entirely different. The amendment to which the noble Marquess alluded was one which it had not been necessary for their Lordships to introduce into any of the former measures; for it referred to a provision which had been this Session for the first time introduced by the House of Commons 1205 into the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. Though the former bills had embodied all the wisdom of the Government—and had been put forward as all-sufficient, it had never been proposed until the present year to transfer to the town councils all the fiscal powers of the towns and counties of towns in Ireland, and to withhold them from the grand juries—a high, unimpeached, respected, and old constitutional body. Now for the first time that provision had been introduced; and they might, therefore, justly conclude that, on account of the jealousy which that House had exhibited of giving undue powers to the town councils, the House of Commons had been desirous of reconciling that House to the original bill by extending the powers which that House proposed to limit. He could not, however, find in that course any indication of a desire to meet the views of that House. But what was the interference with the privileges of the other House? The House of Commons proposed a new clause, which was to take the power of levying money from the grand juries, and vest it in the town councils; and their Lordships had rejected that clause; but were they for that to be told that they had interfered with the privileges of the other House? They had a right to reject a money bill and a money clause; and all they had done in this case was to leave the law as it stood. He had heard with astonishment that such an objection would be taken. Upon that subject he had referred to a noble and learned Lord, whose opinion, if He were to mention his name, would meet with the respect of the noble Marquess, as of every other Member of the House; and he had told him it was no interference with the privileges of the House of Commons. He knew that in various instances similar proceedings had taken place, when no objection was made, and when it was not necessary to find out a pretext whereon to hang an additional objection to the bill. When the noble Viscount (Melbourne) the other night objected to the various amendments made in that bill, and amongst others to one relating to the appointment of sheriffs, he thought that he was acting inconsistently with the course which he had taken on a former occasion; he thought that the amendment was precisely the same as a clause in the first bill which the noble Viscount had brought before that House 1206 on the subject; but, at that time he bowed to the assurance of the noble Viscount, that the first bill gave the appointment to the town councils, thinking the noble Viscount had a much better right to know his own bill than he had. However, he had since ascertained that the noble Viscount was incorrect in his recollection of what he himself had proposed. When that first Municipal Reform Bill was in the other House, a discussion arose, and an objection was made to reposing that trust of appointing the sheriffs in the town councils, whereupon an amendment was moved, or, at all events, admitted by the Government, which contained the very provision now introduced as an amendment into this bill, and forming, as the noble Viscount had said, one of his insuperable objections to the measure. The noble Viscount, upon introducing that former bill to their Lordships, had said— The 53rd clause gives to the Lord-lieutenant the power of appointing the sheriffs, who, in the English Bill, are to be appointed by the town councils; but it can hardly be necessary that I should explain to your Lordships how necessary it is that any function so intimately connected with the administration of justice, should in Ireland be confined to the Lord-lieutenant. Such was the argument of the noble Viscount three years ago, such was the sentiment of the Government embodied in the bill, and yet on Friday evening their Lordships had heard that same noble Viscount state that very amendment, amongst others, as an insuperable objection to the bill, and as one reason why he thought it to be his duty to record his dissent. He had felt it to be due to those who had taken the same view of the amendment with himself, and adhered to it, to remind their Lordships of these circumstances.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said—the noble Lord, I believe, has stated very correctly what took place with regard to that former bill. The bill when it was first introduced gave the nomination to the town councils; but it was altered in the other House. Now, my Lords, the other night I did not say that this was an insuperable objection to the measure; I said it was a strong objection, but besides that I beg leave to remind your Lordships that I did most distinctly state that upon general principles I concurred in the proposition of an appointment by the Crown, but that, in 1207 consideration of the circumstances of that country, and in consequence of conversation which I had had with those who are intimate with that country, I did think it wise and prudent to guard that nomination as it is guarded by this bill, which was sent up by the House of Commons.

Viscount Gort
was sorry that with regard to this bill he differed from a great number of their Lordships. He admitted that the measure was deprived of its worst features by the amendments of their Lordships; but this great objection still remained, that it took from the Protestants of Ireland the corporations, which were entrusted to them centuries ago. He thought that the example of Birmingham, where it appeared that confusion and riot went hand in hand with the Radical Charter, ought to serve as a warning to them, and that they ought to avoid similar results in Ireland by refusing their consent to this bill.