The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 11.436

ed to the House, or those petitions would have borne a very
different purport—( Hear, hear)—for the schedule afforded
evidence sufficient of the fact so often stated elsewhere, that
there were many towns in which there were no means avail-
able for the adoption of the provisions of the Act of George
IV., unless by the levying of a borough rate. It had
been stated that there had been throughout Ireland an univer-
sal demand for the adoption of the provisions of this Bill ; but
he thought there had been evidence sufficient to show that al-
though the demand for a change in the Corporations had been
universal the preponderance had been in favour of the total
abolition of the rotten Corporations, and not in favour of those
parts of this Bill which proposed to "reconstruct " them.
There were to be found the most glaring inequalities in the
Bill. For instance, it gave to the county of Wexford four
corporate boroughs, but to eight other counties it gave only
the same number, while the population of Wexford was 182,000
only, and the population of the eight others was 2,100,000.—
(Hear.) Then there was the subject of tolls--a subject of the
more importance when it was remembered than more than one-
half of the Corporate property of Ireland arose from this source.
He did not hesitate to say, taking the question of the goodness
or badness of the system apart from any other considerations,
that the sooner tolls were done away with the better. He
hoped, therefore, which ever of the two propositions was ulti-
mately adopted, that this important subject would not be lost
sight of. He had now endeavoured to state fairly to their
Lordships the nature and tendency of the proposition submit-
ted to them from that side of the House, and he thought that
it was sufficiently palpable that it did not deserve the censure
which had on a former evening been passed on it by the Noble
Viscount opposite. The resolution to adopt it, and to press
it on the attention of the House, had not been resolved
on until after due deliberation and inquiry, after full
consideration of the state of Ireland, and communi-
, cation with those best qualified from extensive infor-
mation to give an opinion on the subject. The Resolu-
tion, in fact, embodied the sentiments of the great majority of
the directors of existing Corporations. The Noble Earl
(Mansfield, we believe) who answered the Noble Viscount on
the former occasion bad shown how little deserved was the im-
putation cast by the Noble Viscount on one lately one of his
most distinguished colleagues, whom he fixed on as being the
most likely author of the proposition now submitted to their
Lordships, because that proposition discovered signs of a pre-
cipitancy and violence not usually attributed to those on his
(Lord Fitzgerald's) side of the House who opposed the Go-
vernment measure. Why, the Noble Lord's ( Stanley's) motive
for leaving that Administration was no other than that he
could not conscientiously give his assent to measures of preci-
pitancy and violence, the nature of which prevented him, in
consistency with the opinions -he hal ever held and avowed,
from continuing to act with the Noble Lord and his colleagues.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Fitzgerald) had not the honour
of personal intimacy with the Noble Lord, but he hoped that
the day would come when he would vindicate himself from
the charge, and when the Noble Viscount would regret
having cast a shaft which be would better have kept in
his quiver.—(Hear, hear, hear.) To his astonishment he
had heard it made a matter of surprise that a Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), and the Noble Duke ( Welling-
ton), who bad passed the Catholic Emancipation Bill on
the principle of affording relief to the professors of that
religion, should now oppose a measure which, •as the sup-
porters of the arguments alleged, had the self-same object.
On what ground did the Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble
Duke defend the measure of Emancipation? Why, on the
same ground on which he now opposed the measure of the
Noble Viscount's Administration. The principle in both cases
was the same. The Noble Duke, on that occasion, contended
that there ought to be a perfect equality between Catholic and
Protestant—that they should be equal in the eye of the law—
that one should not be in the enjoyment of a privilege from
which the other was debarred; and it mattered not now that
on that occasion the power was withheld from the Catholics,
if now, by the operation of this Bill, it would be withheld from
the Protestants by the admission of the principle of popular
election, and the consequent possession of it by the prepon-
derating party.— ( Hear, hear.) It was better to make a
sacrifice for the attainment of equality than to create a new
medium for the exercise of the popular voice, in a manner which
must subject the property and intelligence of Ireland to the
dominion of an adverse majority. The mode of election pro-
posed by the Bill would so agitate the towns in which they
would take place that they would become the seats of political
discontent, never ending, but still inflaming the minds of the
disputants, and tending to destroy or impair that peace and
quiet government which the Bill professed to aim at providing
for the country, and to retard the spread of that good feeling
among the popu'lation which it was the duty, as it ought to be
the object, of the Government to promote.—( Hear.) The
subject had a more intimate connexion than might at first be
supposed with a measure about to be introduced in the other
House of Parliament, the object of which was to reduce the
stamp on newspapers to one penny. That resolution on the
part of the Government had arisen out of a desire for the sup-
pression of the illicit trade in unstamped newspapers, the
arrests resulting from which, although the tax was the result
of a fiscal regulation, would have excited the sympathy of the
public generally in a much greater degree, bad it not been for
the character of the publications in question. The proposition
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the stamp to
one penny had raised an appeal (one, too, very likely to be
successful) from Ireland for a further reduction in that country
to one halfpenny, in accordance with the usual proportion be-
tween the two countries as regarded stamps. Now he
(Lord Fitzgerald) was not looking at the question in
a fiscal point of view; but he could not help feeling
alarm at the nature of the publications which, under the
circaimstances anticipated from this reduction, were likely to
be disseminated in Ireland, in aid of the system of agitation,
and as assistants to the corporate debating societies, the
offspring of The present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) Another mis-
fortune arising out of the manner in which the question bad
been met was, that those who called for the remission of the
stamp were much dissatisfied with the proposition made to
them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contending, as
they did, that if the, stamp were to be touched at all it ought
to be wholly removed. And he (Lord Fitzgerald) must con-
fess that, looking tit the principle only, these persons were
right) fen lie tvasat a loss to conceive on what principle short of
flieel necessity (and that was not in this instance alleged)
any part of a tax could he continued a single raoment after
the impropriety', of continuing the imposition of a tax of its
own nattlite had been admitted. The relation of this part of
the aubject to the new Corporations in Ireland would at once
be seen, when the importance such A NedpOrt as the reduction
of the stamp wouVlAdd hi the hands of those Corporations
was eotisirlaiasiL ' his would still more be seen when he had
!tail to their Lordships a few words from a letter written by
one who had been for years, an dpodtltitt of thO members of
the present Govstament; t iid *ll6 Lad novel', on, some ques-
tions,Fivoo concealed his opposition to them. He al-
laatia 'S.' the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—( A laugh, and
tries of " Read, read.") The lettei la negaida;lailgrilent
of a petition from a pia.ta the loath of Ireland, very nume-
rously and itt'Ocittbly signed, and recommending that the
eartip duty should be reduced to a halfpenny in Irtaland if it•
duced to a penny in England.--(The Noble herd thee read
the following passage freak the letter Spell •Oncitiet
luding to tine mititatea tax in lieu of a total abolition—from
avelard Iteformers, shows one of two things—either that they
nie deficient in a proper estimationsof what is beat for ;lib
many, or that there is a want of tinnaiity in their aViis'siecl cm-
sire for reform.. &mit Mtn are Our present rulers, whom Cir-
cumstaneass etnrge us to support, and who must cbanze their
ptaiiey i 1 they persist in shackling the press al ahodi
to do."] (The reading of the last& part kif. this eitraCt was
received with laughter and loud owti.s..) 2 The ,Noble :fiordwent on :—Arta thee coniestenienae hi tlia leiter di the
Hon. Gentleman Wliiett i rettliiinend specially to the atten-
'on of the iloaat, as showing with what probable results this
it:vein:lute is connected in the minds of those who re the prim
cipal supporters of the promoters of It: tie tient. lieritlea
man goes on to say, " I khan, iaell the pal* and praCtice of
the United fitate4 akact, rime Ood, when we get the Irish
Menitipat Iteroim Dill passed, and other reforms made; we
shall be able to talk in the House of Commons, hi a very
different strain." Upon this letter lie ( Lord Fitzgerald)
should make no continent: He need hardly say that he
did not adopt the opinions of the *Ater, but theta: *Ss
sufficient in the letter to thOw the Noble Viscount that
there were persons who still thought his policy too narrow;
and he (Lord Fitzgerald) hoped the Noble iscount would
forgive him if he recommended hint *hen lie neat should rise
in defence of the coarse of policy pursued by his Government,
first to ascertain whether he had the means to satisfy those who
now gave him their support,—(Cheers.) " I hope," con-
chided the Noble Lordl " that I have abstained from saying
more than was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of my
propositions ; but before I sit down, let me he permitted to
say while you are asked in the name of justice to Ireland to
adopt the proposition of the Noble Viscount, and to give Ire-
land the blessings of these Corporations, that I conjure you in
mercy to Ireland rather to adopt the proposition which I have
the honour of submitting, and to give to Ireland repose."—
(Much Cheering followed the concluding sentence of the Noble
L^'. u, who then read the motion, to the effect that it be an in-
struction to the Committee on the Bill to make provisions for
the abolition of such Corporations, and for such arrangements
as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient
and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good
government of towns and cities in Ireland.)
The resolution having been put from the chair,
nnitouth?inwahich they
The LORD CHANCELLOR addressed the House.were
Disguised as the present propositionb hwas, yet sufficient ex-
' planation of it had been afforded ydt e Noble Lord who had
just sat down, and by the Noble an Learned Lord who on a
former night brought the subjectforward,.
dto render it palpable
se thatseldom
thisout
calledproposition—one
o n t 0
rficro nor less
existing c--- •
than a proposal to__orations and
'appropriate bind gto others that property which
to
both WO. was Intended to be applied to certain public iuin
abolish
ooliosthe
rotaafiiina_ magnitude
Poses. He knew that the property was to be applied to the
same purposes to which it was now devoted ; but was it Co in-
terference with property to take it from those hands in which
it was vested, and to place it in the hands of others ? The
Noble Lord had thought it necessary to enter into a history of
the Corporations ; and no doubt his proposition was founded
on the cases of Londonderry and Coleraine. It wag, in-
deed, matter of history and admitted fact that those two
Corporations arose out of the necessity which
existed for
having some political support for the Protestant settlement in
the north of Ireland. The same observation, however, did
not apply to the rest of the Irish Corporations ; but he appre-
hnaedeebsseaerny,thiet
lmma
foundationteri al thetoof th epereosrepnotrdatisiocnuss,sioana
from
mat
boreiignginai
hended that, after all, the disquisition on the subject was un-
necessary,
at least, all the inhabitants, of whatever tenets, had an
equal legal right to participate in the benefit of the Cor
rations. Practically, however, the Roman Catholics hadexcludedFlora-
been
from the enjoyment of those equal rights, and it was
therefore no more than a
thatmockery to tvll. the Catholics in 1793

could claim to be elected to municipal offices—in point of fact
they had, since that year, had serious reason to complain of
the manner in which the Corporation property had been dis-
posed of. It certainly had never been intended that they
should be excluded from the enjoyment of equal corporate
rights, but practically excluded they had been ; and it seemed
to him (the Lord Chancellor) therefore to be unnecessary to
go further back in the history of Irish Corporations .than to
1793, in order to show that this measure did, in point of fact,
do no more than carry out the principle then laid down, that
both parties were entitled to equal civil rights in the Corporations.
From that year, indeed, the corporap officers had virtually
been trustees for the inhabitants at Marge ; and the Roman
Catholics had certainly had reason to complain of the man-
ner in which the trust had been exercised. All were agreed
upon this point, that the Corporations could not be allowed
any longer to remain as they were at present. In the
Bill before their Lordships, a remedy was proposed to
remove the existing disease and to effect a cure. On the pro •
position of the Noble Lord who last addressed them there
was no cure, no remedy suggested. The proposition of the
Noble Lord amounted to this—it was as if he said, "If you
cure the patient, if you apply an effectual remedy to the
disease, if you restore the patient to health, he will become
troublesome and boisterous, and, therefore, the best course of
treatment is to put an end to him at once." The Noble Lords
who supported this proposition ought to consider whether
there was no middle course—no milder treatment of the
disease for which they had to prescribe. Unless there were
insuperable objections to the more lenient course, it was an ex-
periment that at least was worth trying. The Noble Lord
who had just addressed the House had endeavoured to show
that his proposition would not be in its results, and was not in
point of fact, very different from the proposition upon which
this Bill proceeded. It appeared to him that no two things
in the world could be more different in every point of view.
They proposed a remedy, but the proposition of theNobleLord
was death. By the remedy, they proposed the existence,
the right, and the property of the Corporations were to
be preserved. The rights and the property of these Cor-
porations was in the population. It was for their bene-
fit, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the towns ge-
nerally; and not of any particular class, that the trust was
held. Ever since 1793 all classes of inhabitants, without dis-
tinction of religion, were eligible to fill corporate offices.
This, however, was not the case in practice. In consequence
of the abuse of self-election the law was not allowed to take
its course, and Roman Catholics were excluded. This Bill
proposed what was necessary to cure the disease, by placing the
trust in the hands of those who were most likely to carry the
objects of it into effect. It left the management to persons
whose interest it must be to see the trust carried into execu-
tion. This would be restoring the corporations to the principle
of their original institution. In place of this remedy, howe-
ver, the Noble Lord said let the Corporations cease to exist.
Before their Lordships had recourse to so strong a measure as
this,very urgent motives should be shown —something amount-
ing to an insuperable necessity ought to be made out. It
was not safe to speculate, a priori, how far the power of the
Legislature might be, carried. The property of a Corporation
was as sacred as any other property. Their rights were as much
under the protection of the laws as any other class of rights, and
should not be trespassed upon without any overruling necessity.
They had as good a right to their property as any of their
Lordships had to their's. " It would be very hard, then, to de-
prive them of that property against their will. It had teen
said that the present Corporations were willing to yield up
their rights and their property upon the conditions men-
tioned by the Noble Lord. That, however, was not the ques-
tion here. The question was, whether those for whom the
present Corporations held the trust were willing to resign their
rights—were they willing to make such a sacrifice ? The
conclusion to be drawn from the willingness expressed by
some of the Corporations to resign their trust was that they
would give it up to any one, rather than it should fall into the
hands of those who they supposed must get exclusive posses-
sion of it, if this Bill should be carried into operation. The
Noble Lord who spoke last had certainly the merit of giving
some little additional weight to an argument used the other
night by. his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst).
The main argument of his Noble and Learned Friend the
other night against this measure rested on an observation said
to have been made by Mr. O'Connell, that these Corpora-
tions would become schools of agitation. ,To this argument
the Noble Lord who spoke_ last endeavoured to give addi-
tional weight by some words which he quoted from a letter
written by the Member for Middlesex. Their Lordships,
in legislating upon matters of such high• importance, should
not allow themselves to be influenced by considerations
of what this or that man might say or think. They must
go to the real facts of the case. Not, only in that House,
but in the other House of Parliament also, the observation said
to have been made by Mr. O'Connell had been made the prin-
cipal ground of argument against this Bill; and the proposition
now was to abolish the Irish Corporations altogether, to take
their property from them, and to place the management of it in
the hands of persons to be appointed by the Crown. How
would the Noble Lord who spoke last, or any other Noble
Lord, feel, if such a course should be acted upon in his own
case? Would he consider it as the most eligible mode of enjoy-
ing his property—of managing and disposing of what was his
own ? It was said by this Bill a class of persons would be ad-
mitted into Corporations who, from their numbers, must gain
an ascendancy—a class of persons whom it would not be right
or proper to admit into corporate offices. If it was right and
proper in 1793 that the Roman Catholics should be rendered
admissible into Corporations it was right and proper
now. Nothing appeared in their conduct since 1793 which
rendered them worthy of such a trust. It was fully admitted
by his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lvndhurst)—in-
deed it was admitted upon all hands—that the principle of
exclusion could no longer be maintained. ExClusion was the
grievance complained of. It was to that they proposed
in this Bill to apply a remedy. . What had been the cause of
this grievance? The principle of self-election, which always
was and always must be an unjust one, because it took away
from the great bulk of the inhabitants of a Corporation all
controul over the management of corporate property. What
was the obvious remedy ? Why, to remove, as was done by
this Bill, the practice of self-election, and to give those who
had an interest in the due administration of Corporate property
some controul over those who were to manage it. That, and
nothing more, was the object of the measure now proposed.
Ever since 1793, Roman Catholics were admissible into Cor-
porations. Now from that time to the present had the Legis-
lature shown any jealousy of them ? Did not their whole
course evince feelings of a totally opposite nature ?—(Hear,
from Ministers.) Did not the Legislature ever since that period
legislate upon the principle of admitting them to equal rights
and privileges with all other classes of his Majesty's subjects "?
Was it not upon this principle, and in this spVit, that the Le-
gislative Union between the two countries w`as established ?
Was it not upon the save principle that the Emancipation
Bill was passed ? Roman Catholics were rendered eligible to
tfia;gthaoslica
teats lit the other House of Parliament—they were admitted
to sit in that, House—they were eligible to all offices, with
very few exceptions.—Mere Lord Fitzgerald made an obscr-
*Mimi across the table, which was not audible.] He (the Lord
Chancellor) referred to these matters, for the purpose of show-
leg that the principle upon which the Legislature had pro-
sl 1
were,iother
beceetcsireeciattlt 4anid"Wtivie
df His Majetty's subjCe!ccst.lic
atrse,atthe
jat, Roman Catholics had a right to
thereiore, iIOW entitled tea wend Members to the other l-tot:2l.!'
of Parliancerit. TheY. enjoyed seats thefessaahey were sitting
s.ll7mvanfoo
iii the IloiiSe di:, Litag--:ititid it was tichi pfo'Pogeti !o refuse
them the right of voting ter a €oinfirofiseonireilman,,- fie alder-
man; or a Lord Mayor.—( Hear, Bear. 110 tidds sfri6,6
i7J3, t 4 right to vote for corporate officers ; but the prin6pte
of selfseiectien pie6ented theta from exercising it. It was
proposed now to annihilate eticti the right. Was that the
way to legislate for Ireland ?--s(dheers from Ministersd They
were told, in Opposition tb this Bill, that Uothafi atholie
majorities, in all these corporate towns, would return Roman
Catholics; and none but Itoman Catholics, as corporate officers.
Now; to determine thug question; their Lordships ought to look
to facts—to what had actually taken plate, and What was tak-
ing place. Let their Lordships look at the lionse Of dsom=,
mons. Though the great majority of those who exefeised
the elective franchise in Ireland were Roman Catholics, still
the majority of Irish representatives in Parliament were Pro-
teStants.--4Hear, hear.) This was one test by which to try
the justice of the apprehensions entertained by those who
thought that by this Bill the exclusion of Protestants front
corporate office must be inevitable. The whole argument
amounted to this—Protestants have kept out Roman Catho-
lics from Corporations hitherto, and therefore Catholics will
in future keep out Protestants.—(Hear, hear.) To try this
question, they had the test be before-mentioned—the test that
a large majority of the Irish representatives in Parliament
were Protestants. There was another test to which he would
call their Lordships' attention, and one perhaps snore appli-
cable to this Bill than the other test ; it was drawn from the
9th Geo. 111., which enabled the towns in Ireland to elect
commissioners for the management of the cleansing, lighting,
and watching of the streets. Now a majority of th Commis-
sioners so elected were Protestants. The right of voting, un-
der the 9th Geo. 111., was in those who paid a rent of 51., the
same class who would enjoy corporate rights under this Bill.
Now, with such a class of voters, were Protestants excluded?
No, they formed a large majority of those who were elected.—
( Hear,,,hear.) Now this apprehended exclusion of Protes-
tants, together with the observations of Mr. O'Connell, and of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex, were the only arguments be
had yet heard against the Bill—the only grounds of opposi-
tion to it. Hitherto there were no Roman Catholics, with
few, or hardly any exceptions, admitted into Corporations
. stsav would be open to all classes, and Roman Catho-
but note offices in the same way
lies would be eligible to corporal., ..._
they were to seats' in the °thin House of Partiau.s_nt. Vague
h iddeemed sufficient ffic i eunpot tno sa: I
of this kind. A few nights back, when
feat a salutary measure
ao
the qt,testicirt before their
rs anu appreneiisaaris ott sleet be
Lordships was the disfranchisement
of a single bdrau
gh,he folly concurred with what fell
occasion from, his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lynd-
hurit; )
He admitted that in such a cage it was the,duty of their
Lordships to have it ihatie out upon clear evidence that there
wag clear
yd urgent ground fdr disfranchising the borough
(Stafford). t was a ease of alleged misapplication of the right
Their Lordships refused to
f voting for Members of Parliament.
ciaffitiii the proposition of disfranchisement without inquiry. But
here was a far Mote Sweeping proposition, one which went to
Ir eland wout furth r
annihilate all all the Corporations
in
(Hear, hear.) He begged to call their Lordships'
qu•
attendon for a moment to the policy of the proposition made
by the Noble Lord for the total overthrow
fra of
able dem municipal insti-
tutions in Ireland. It required strong, irregonstra-
tion of evil before they ought to assent to such a motion. Where
was the evidence, where were the arguments, to support it?—
( Hear, bear.) The great ground of objection taken to 'the
Bill, was the exclusion of Protestants from corporate offices.
It was clear. that where the, majority lay, there, as a matter of
course, must be the greater influence. But it was assumed'that
this snijo!ity must entiFely
conducted,e.xclnudennttheProtestanasts.
'hitherto,