HL Deb 20 July 1840 vol 55 cc815-7

On the order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill,

Viscount Duncannon

wished to state to their Lordships that arrangements had been made for bringing in two other bills concerning the two disputed points—the compensation clauses and the boundary clauses. He had, therefore, to propose that the further consideration of this bill be postponed to Monday.

The Duke of Wellington

hoped the noble Viscount would state his reasons for the alterations he now proposed, so that they might be known before the next discussion of the bill came on. He, for one, considering what bad been passing in Ireland lately on the subject of the Poor-laws and this subject generally, could never consent to this measure passing while such great powers of taxation were given to the corporations to be established under it. He saw that this subject had been lately under consideration in reference to the Scotch corporations, and so far from the taxation under Scotch corporations being unlimited, it was limited to 3d. in the pound in cases in which the corporation had no charges to incur for paving, lighting, or watching; and in cases where it had, it was on no account to exceed Is. in the pound. He could not at all see why the powers of taxation should not be equally limited in the Irish corporations. Their Lordships knew to a certainty, that in Dublin there were taxes levied for all these and other services; that, in fact, the corporation of Dublin would have no expense to incur for any purpose whatever as a corporation, and that it would not be asked to interfere in reference to those expenses. Under these circumstances, it was ridiculous to give the corporation a power of levying large taxes on the inhabitants. He must say not-content to this bill, if it did not contain some clauses of limitation of the same nature as those contained in the Scotch Act of Parliament.

Viscount Duncannon

would endeavour to accommodate the principles of the proposed bills to the suggestions of the noble Duke. As there would be great difficulty in fixing the amount of the limitation, he would not commit himself as to that point on the present occasion.

Lord Lyndhurst

wished to have a complete understanding as to the compensation and boundary clauses; and begged to refer the noble Viscount to the amendments which had been proposed and printed on the first bill on this subject which had been laid on their Lordships' table, as expressing the wishes of those with whom he acted. As far as related to the boundary question, if the noble Viscount would compare the provisions contained in the Grand Jury Cess Bill with the amendments alluded to, he would find that they did not exactly correspond. He hoped, also, that they might expect a clause of compensation, in substance the same as that contained in the amendments.

Viscount Duncannon

said, that the clauses would be, in substance, the same as those to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, but he could not pledge himself to their exact terms.

Third reading postponed.

Back to