§ The Marquess of Lansdownehad several petitions to present with regard to the Irish Municipal Bill, and as these petitions were of an extremely important nature, it would be necessary for him shortly to explain them, which he thought he could better do that evening than if he delayed it till Monday. The petitions were from proprietors in Ireland, residing in liberties and counties of cities. He believed the opinion entertained by all those proprietors in common was, that it was desirable to join those liberties with the cities. Provisions to that effect had been introduced into the bill of last year, and had met with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament; but that bill having been thrown out, the measure, of course, fell to the ground. The bill introduced into the other House would have the effect of removing the objections to the present measure. In the discussions which took place on the bill, it was admitted to be a great hardship that the proprietors of land in agricultural districts should be subject to the imposition of rates about to be established by the bill; and it was thought fit last year to connect with the Municipal Bill a provision for separating these districts, and annexing them to the municipal towns, which met with the approbation of the House. Although these petitioners had naturally taken some alarm at the omission of these clauses, they would see that they were subsequently introduced into a bill then before the other House. But these considerations arose out of the details of the measure, though he had felt it his duty to the petitioners to state to the House their views on the subject.
§ The Earl of Clarethought the safest course would be to restore to the present bill the clauses of the omission of which the petitioners complained.
§ Lord Redesdalesupported the prayer of the petitions, and concurred in the opinion of the noble Earl. It was somewhat singular that the bill now before the House of Commons had not been introduced until the matter had been stirred up by these petitioners, and that that bill should con- 1145 tain clauses similar to those which had been thrown out by the House of Commons, because they had been introduced in the House of Lords. The petitioners had a right to complain of the manner in which the bill was framed in every respect. Every point that had been mutually agreed upon in a measure should be inserted; but in the present bill no one knew what had been assented to, and what had not.
§ The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) was mistaken if he thought that Ministers intended to abandon the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. If he consulted the ordinary channels of information he would find, that when the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, introduced into the House of Commons this Session the bill now on the table of the House, the bill introduced last year was opened, and his (Lord Lansdowne's) noble Friend stated, that it was his intention that the one should follow the other. The separation of the agricultural districts from the town portions of the boroughs, in respect to taxation, was in accordance with the enactments of the English Municipal Reform Bill.
§ Lord Redesdalecomplained that the Municipal Bill had been brought up to their Lordships on the 10th of March, and that the other bill had not been introduced in the other House until the 11th of April; whereas the two bills were (he was told) to be treated as a joint measure. Their Lordships might have gone into committee upon the Municipal Bill, and even passed it, before they could have any knowledge of the other.
§ Petitions laid on the table.