The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-10 00:00:00

`ON FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1836

Strangers were accordingly ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when the numbers were—
For introducing the Bill
Against it

Majority
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—IRELAND.

Mr. SHEIL, Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, and some
other Hoe. MEMBERS, presented petitions against the Irish
Municipal Bill, as amended by the Lords.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said—Sir, I think that
it will be most convenient, in moving the Order of the
Day for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the
Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, to state the views which
are taken by his Majesty's Ministers of those amendments, and
the motion which will be made by my Right Hon. Friend
the Attorney-General for Ireland to the House, in con-
sidering these amendments. Sir, I wish to do this without
any remarks that may tend to excite any exasperation
upon a subject on which so much interest is felt ; while,
at the same time, I must say that I would be de-
serting my duty, if, for the value of any compliment to the
popularity of the other branch of the Legislature, I were to
propose to
.barter away the privileges of this House, to dimi-
nish the rights of any part of his Majesty's subjects, or impair
the well known principles of the Constitution.—(Cheers.)
Sir, we stand upon this subject at present upon the defen-
sive. It has been the policy of this House to send up to the
other House of Parliament Bills reforming the Municipal
Corporations in Scotland and in England. Upon both these
Bills some discussion took place, and to the latter many
amendments were made by the House of Lords, but it seemed
to be the general agreement of both Houses that Corporations
in themselves tended to promote good government in the towns
in which they were established--that they tended to preserve
order and regularity, and to promote the welfare of the country.
We sent up to the other House of Parliament a Bill for the
Reform of Corporations in Ireland. It has been returned
to us with the title altered—(Cheers)—with the pream-
ble changed. —( Cheers.) Out of a Bill containing 140 clauses
106 were in substance omitted, while 18 new ones have been
introduced.—(Cheers.) The whole purport and inten-
tion of the other House had been to destroy the
Bill ; and if they wanted proof of that, it was to
be found in the fact, that the other House had
adopted an instruction—an alteration which could not have
been carried into effect without that instruction—an instruc-
tion which was deliberately rejected in this House.--( Cheers. )
That is the form in which the Bill is now before us—that is
the form in which it has been sent down to us. If the intention
of that House had been to promote that cordial harmony, which
we were told to-day they were so anxious for, how easy it
would be to carry that intention into effect? It certainly
was not at all the proper manner, to make—to alter
the Bill in such a manner as, in fact, to make it an
entire new Bill. However, with respect to any thing which
it was possible for us to propose as the means by which the
Bill might ultimately become the law of the land,
we were most anxious to find some method, consistently with
precedent and usage, by which the Bill might have been
passed by both Houses of Parliament. In conformity with
the privileges and recognised rights of this House, with
respect to Bills which come before them for discussion,
there are, I believe, but three courses to be taken.—( Hear.)
The first was to reject the Bill altogether, with a view of
substituting and introducing a new Bill • the second was
to restore all the original, parts of the Bill, and to disagree
to all the amendments of the Lords ; and the third
course would be to disagree to the greater part of the
amendments—to restore, in principle, the original intention
and spirit of the Bill, but not to insist on the
original frame-work. There was a fourth course, which
he certainly would not recommend the House to
adopt, and he thought that but few Members would be found
to propose that the amendments should be adopted without
any alteration whatever.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If they did
this they would be surrendering altogether their pri-
vilege of deliberation ; and instead of having Bills
sent up to the House of Lords after they had been
read a first, second, and third time, and carried through a
Committee—when they might be enabled to examine its
provisions—they should be content to say that any Bill
sent up to the Lords might be totally altered in its provi-
sions, in its nature, in its title, and in its intention ; and
that a single reading, and one single vote of the House
should dispose of all these great questions. He would not
be so unmindful of what was due to the character of
that House and its station in the country, as to propose
so new, so dangerous, and so humiliating a course.—( Tremen-
dous cheering from the Ministerial side.) Before going into the
subject of the Amendments made by the House of Lords, he
would refer to a precedent with respect to a Bill which
was sent up by this House at a time when
certainly that House was not over anxious either to dis-
pute with the House of Lords, or to set up any claim that
was inconsistent with our Constitution. —( Hear, hear.)
There was a precedent in the parliament of 1661, which he
conceived analogous to the present, and which was to be found
in Hume. The Noble Lord then read an extract from
Hume's History of England, to the effect that the House
of Commons brought in a Bill for the regulation of
Corporations, and sent it up to the Lords where it underwent
many alterations. He (Lord J. Russell) should first observe
that the original Bill was one for replacing the Presbyterian
or Republican party by persons of known loyalty.—( Hear,
hear.) The Bill so sent up was very materially altered.
One alteration was, that the Mayor should be nominated by the
Crown. The Lords appointed a Committee to assign their
reasons. The Committee reported several reasons, of which
I will quote two or three to the House. The first reason was,
" because the Bill for the well-regulation of the Corporations
placed the government of the towns in the right hands, which
by the Bill sent up from the Lords so far from being effected
by the amendments was not so much as thought of, and that
in the provisions for the appointment of the mayor and re-
corder, no care was taken for any other members of the cor-
porations." The seventh reason is, " Further, the amend-
ments are repugnant to the title of the Biil, which is a Bill
for the regulation of Corporations, whereas the amendments
do either extirpate—(Great cheering from the Ministerial
side of the House)—or, at least, new create them.—( Loud
cheers from the Opposition benches, echoed back from the
Ministerial benches.) The reformation contemplated by the
Bill sent up to the Lords was of a temporary nature, and
such as was reasonably believed would be agreeable to the
times and suitable to our trust; whereas the amendments made
by the Lords were such as would be in no case agreeable to
the people or suitable to or consonant with our trust." Now,_
it is clear from this example of a House of Commons, of which
I have read an extract Irons Hume, proving that no imputa-
tion could be cast on its desire to carry out the constitution
on its well-known foundations—it is manifest from this exam-
ple that the House of Commons were unwilling to agree to the
amendments of the Lords, which completely altered the nature
of the Bill, and which they said were " not consonant with
their trust." Now, Sir, I hope this House will act at least in
the spirit of this Restoration Parliament, and that they will
act in a manner " consonant with their trust"—( Loud cheers)
—and that, if there is anything in this amended Bill which in-
jures the liberty of the subject, or which destroys the nature
of the Corporations themselves, that they will consider whether
we, the Commons of England, shall be justified in giving our
consent to these amendments.—( Cheers.) Sir, the result of
the conference upon those reasons was, that the House of
Lords desired further time to consider the matter. They

said, that owing to the thinness of the House they could not
then proceed ; and the question was, therefore, put off from
July to December. In December the most obnoxious amend-
ments made by the Lords were withheld ' • some of them were
in some parts accepted, and the Bill was finally passed by both
Houses. The purpose for which this precedent serves us is,
that if we are not able to agree to the amendments made by
the Lords, we may yet restore in spirit the Bill which we sent
up to the Lords, and that we are not obliged, on account of
the objections which we may entertain to the extensive na-
ture of the alterations made, to consider that we have but one
course, and that course is to reject the considerations of those
alterations altogether. I will now proceed to state the gene-
ral effect of the greater part of these alterations. In the first
place, and that which is the head and front of the whole mat-
ter, the Bill which we sent up to the Lords was a Bill for re-
gulating and renewing Corporations in Ireland, but allowing
Corporations still to subsist as they now subsist in England
and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) The House of Lords, on the
contrary, have introduced a clause putting an end to Corpo-
rations altogether. But in doing this they have taken care—
a care which I think they could little be aware to what extent
it went, and which must have been suggested by persons la.
menting the fall of these Corporations—they have taken care,
I say, to preserve for their natural lives to many of the
persons who hold offices in these Corporations all the
power, all the trust, and all the property which they now
enjoy.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I thought it was an objection
to the Bill as it has come down to us, that it totally abolished
Corporations. Indeed it is most objectionable in principle,
as I shall by and by argue, to abolish these Corpora-
tions ; but it would not be giving a complete, or anything
like an accurate notion of this amended Bill, as it is called,
to say that it destroys Corporations, and puts other powers in
their place. It is a Bill to continue for the present genera-
tion, under less responsibility—(Cheers)—with less restraint
than they at present enjoy their situations, persons who hold
office in these Corporations, which Corporations you your-
selves declare to be corrupt and indefensible.--( Cheering.) I
will now state the effect of some of the clauses that now stand
in the Lords' Bill. By the sth clause bodies corporate are
dissolved, and the power of electing new officers ceases after
the Ist day of January next. By the 12th clause clerks of a
market, weigh-masters of all goods, weigh-masters of but-
ter, and tasters of butter, are to continue to hold such offices.
Laughter.) In the Bill which was originally printed in
the Lords, it was provided that those persons who should be
named to these places after the passing of the Bill, should
continue in their offices. That certainly must have been an
oversight, for so gross an opening for jobbing never was made
...and that clause therefore has been altered, so as to prevent
persons hereafter coming in to enjoy the same rights as the
present holders of these offices are to enjoy. By the 13th
clause, town-clerks, bailiffs, treasurers, and chamberlains,
with other ministerial and executive officers of bodies
corporate, are to continue to execute their duties until
removed by the Commissioners. By the 14th clause compen.
sation is extended to the members as well as the officers of any
body corporate. By the 15th clause pensions and allowances
are extended beyond what we originally provided, being made
to include annual sums granted in conformity with established
usage, and only limited by this certainly very necessary and
useful proviso at the end, " unless the property of such body
corporate shall not be sufficient for the payment thereof."—
(Laughter.) Undoubtedly the person who framed that pro-
viso must have considered that what he had consented to in-
sert in the former part of the clause would probably entirely
eat up and destroy the whole property of these Corporations ;
and that in order to take care that these persons should not
overrun the country, and make claims upon other funds, he
felt it proper to enact that when the whole corporate property

was consumed, these persons should have no further claim
upon us.—(Laughter.) By the 19th clause charitable trusts
are vested in the persons who shall, on the 31st of December,
have been mayor, aldermen, or members of the governing
body. By the 20th clause trusts, other than charitable trusts,
arc vested in the same persons ; and by the 23d clause, when
any body corporate is part of any other body corporate, their
places are to be filled up by these same fortunate mayor, alder-
men, or members of the governing body on the Ist of January
1837. By the 92d clause, in every town where the town-clerk
is now in right of his office clerk of the peace, registrar of the
court of record for the trial of civil actions, and clerk to the
court of conscience, the person who shall be town-clerk on the
31st of December shall continue to hold these offices. Well,
these are the clauses then which provide, not, as I have said,
for the extinction of Corporations—not for the destruction of
those Corporations against whom every body in this House was
so indignant, and which there was no one willing to defend—
but securing for their lives the possession of these offices unless
they are removed, as some of them may be by a method I shall
hereafter mention to all those persons who may or may not have
been in the active exercise of the abuse of the trusts which
were vested in them.—( Cheers.) There is a difference between
one or two of these official personages and the others, which
I do not well understand ; but by a certain clause, the trea-
surer may be removed by the Commissioners ; but by a former
part of the Bill, it would appear that those fortunate persons
who are the Clerks of markets, Master-weighers of butter,
and Butter-tasters, are taken special care of, are not the least
injured--nothing is to happen to them; but they are to be
preserved until, in the course of nature, they shall fall off.—
( Laughter.) Why, Sir, then the real effect of this Bill is
not what we supposed it to be ; and those who determined
upon the abolition and destruction of Corporations, seem to
have some faultering in their own purpose.—( Cheers.) When
they came actually to execute this destruction—this abolition
—this death to the old and abusive Corporations of Ireland,
some compunctions came over them ; and while they were
content to abolish the name, and leave nothing hereafter of
the same kind, they took care of all those who had been the
special friends of those who were now consenting to their de-
struction. It puts me in mind of that dying miser of whom we
are told by Pope, that the ruling passion, strong in death,
would not suffer him to relinquish that which lag was too old to
retain, or to enjoy
I give and I devise (old Euclio said,
And sigh'd) my lands and tenements to Ned.'
Your money, Sir ?—' My money, Sir ! what all !
Why—if I must—(then wept)—l give it Paul.'
The manor, Sir ?—' The manor ! Hold (he cried),
Not that—l cannot part with that'—and died."

There seems to have been a similar ruling passion operating
on the minds of the persons who framed these amendments.
Those who made the will, by which they " gave and devised"
these Corporations, certainly felt so much reluctance to an-
nihilate and destroy all these precious relics—these corporate
offices—that even with their dying breath they chose to leave
them all by a devise that should preserve them at least during
the natural lives of the objects of their bounty.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Well, after having taken this care, and made
these provisions for the existence and continuance of the pre-
sent corporate officers, we then come to that which I may call
the constructive part of this Bill—very different from our con-
structive Bill—and the clauses of which are to this effect :
By the 26th clause the Lord-Lieutenant is to appoint five or
seven Commissioners to be Commissioners of corporate pro-
perty : in these Commissioners, by clause 23, is vested the
whole property of Corporations. By the 29th clause they
appoint a treasurer. By the 34th clause they are empowered
to bring and defend actions, and compromise and settle
account. By the 41st clause they are to pay the salaries
of the recorder, judge of the court of conscience, to pay to
the Commissioners under 9 Geo. IV., any surplus, and if
there shall be any further surplus, to apply it for the pub-
lic benefit of the inhabitants of such town. By the 43d
clause they may abolish tolls, and by the 45th clause they
may remove any town-clerk, bailiff, treasurer, or chamberlain.
By the Gist clause the Lord-Lieutenant is to appoint to any
office of clerk of the market or taster of butter. Sir, the
effect of these clauses is to place in Commissioners named by
the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, the whole corporate pro-
perty of Ireland, and the nomination of all corporate officers
in that country.--(Hear, hear, hear.) And, Sir, I declare at
once that I never can agree to such a clause.—(Tremendous
cheers.) I consider that the Corporations, even in their
worst state, are a species of local government which does not
belong, which ought not to belong, to the supreme Executive.
—(Cheers.) I consider that in their reformed state they are
instruments where, by means of popular controul, the inha-
bitants of our towns may manage their own affairs in that way
which most concerns them ; and I never will agree, admiring
the principles of these institutions—admiring the ancient prin-
ciples of our Constitution in its rise and growth, and in what
has been done to reform them—to admit this new and despotic
principle—( Loud and long-continued cheers),—connecting
with the Executive and central Government a Power which is
locally so well and so duly placed. Only let us consider the
mischief and injury that must ensue from a Lord-Lieutenant
and his Commissioners in interfering in every transaction, and
in the smallest appointment for regulating the local concerns
of a place. Let us consider the clamouring there would be, the
favours that would be asked, the jobbing that would be cre-
ated, by placing the nomination of all corporate officers
in these Commissioners. And let us consider further the

great violation that there is in the very principle of placing in
these Commissioners the whole property of these Corporations
with power to defend and to undertake suits, to arrange mat.

ters, and to settle contests about the rights of propei:ty, and
to dispose of that property as they shall think fit, with merely
the general terms that it shall be for the public benefit of the
town. Why, Sir, can it be believed that there will not be
continual efforts made by the different parties in every one of
these towns to obtain the favour of these Commissioners with
respect to the manner in which the corporate property shall be
disposed of, and with respect to the favours to be granted to
one person or the other, not in one place only, but in every
town which has corporate property; and not only relating to
the property, but to every action in which that property may
be concerned—if all these powers shall be confided to a set of
Commissioners at the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant ?
But, Sir, is it not most objectionable in principle, that these
matters, which have hitherto all been treated, and which should
be treated, as matters within the cognizance of local bodies,
should be placed in the bands of these Commissioners, named
by the Government ?—( Cheers.) And, let me ask how those
who profess to pay so sacred a regard to property—(Cheers)
—let me ask how they can consent that this property, which is
altogether to be taken away from these towns, is to be left in
the hands and to the uncontrolled direction of persons named
by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as to what manner here-

after that property shall be applied ?—( Cheers.) Therefore,
Sir, taking this view of the clauses I have mentioned, it is
quite impossible for me to consent to the first part of them,
which destroys the Corporations, or to the second part
of them, which places their property and powers in the hands
of the Commissioners ; and I shall venture to state to the
House in what manner I propose that which is necessary, in
order to replace the clauses for effecting the real intention of
this Bill, to be adopted by the House. I will not propose—
for it would be but to lead evidently to the rejection of the
Bill—that the whole of the towns now placed under the
government of a Mayor and Council shall hereafter be placed
under that species of government. I will not propose that
all the clauses which we introduced should be restored ; but
I will propose that the great towns, which stand in the first and
second schedules of the Commons' Bill—schedules A and &
should be placed in a single schedule, and that the whole of the
clauses which have been struck out should be again inserted,
with a view of applying them to those towns.—( Cheers.)
There are eleven of these towns—Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Gal-
way, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Lon-
donderry, and Sligo. There is another town, which, by reason
of being a county of a town, ought to be placed in the same
schedule—l mean the town of Carrickfergus. I have next a
proposal to make with regard to the towns which are in schedule
C. I think it is not advisable to have these towns altogether
either under the Municipal Corporations which you have de-
clared to be defective, or to leave them out of the Bill. I
have already declared that I never will consent to apply to
them, or to any of the Corporate towns in Ireland, those
clauses which have been inserted by the Lords, making the
Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant the sole
Corporators. It is, therefore necessary to frame some provi-
sion which will not be exactly conformable to our former pro-
visions, but which shall provide a means for the purposes of
municipal government in these towns. I say, then, that we
ought to put into schedule B all those towns which are im-
portant and of considerable size, and which possess Corporate
property. For wherever there is Corporate property to any
extent, I think it is the duty of Parliament not to consent to
transfer that property to Commissioners ; but that having
pointed out the abuses in the management of that property,
and those abuses having been generally recognized, that
these Corporations should be as soon as possible removed, I
propose, therefore, that with respect to them, the provisions
of the 9th Geo. IV.—provisions with which Gentlemen
seemed so much pleased when the question was under delibera-
tion before—l propose that these provisions should imme-
diately apply to these towns—they will be twenty towns in
number—and that as soon as the Commissioners are chosen
by the 51. householders, so soon all the Corporate property
and power to appoint to any necessary office, such as clerk
of the market, should belong to these Commissioners.
With respect to the first schedule, it will be a sche-
dule of towns where the 101. householders will have the
power of electing the mayor and town council ; and
with respect to the second schedule, it will be a schedule
of the towns where the Si. householders will elect, but
where, instead of electing a Mayor and Town-council, they
will elect Commissioners under the 9th of George IV.
These Commissioners will have the powers of watching,
paving, and lighting. But the difference between the propo-
sition made in this House, and the proposition introduced in
the Lords, is that to these local Commissioners elected by the
Si. householders, and, therefore, elected by the inhabitants,
and not to Commissioners nominated by the Lord-Lieutenant,
the corporate property will be entrusted.—( Cheers.) I think
I need not dwell upon the very important difference between
these two modes of appointment, or trespass long upon the
House in order to prove which of these two propositions is
most constitutional.—( Cheers.) These Commissioners will
be, at all events, persons having the confidence of theirfellow citizens ; they will be persons anxious to
with
promote
the welfare of the town ; they will bo persons acquainted
its circumstances, and they will be persons responsible
fellow citizens.—( Loud cheers.) From these
toCommissioners,
to theirw
in every one of these respects, the Commissioners be ap-
pointed by the Crown will totally differ. We cannot expect
.
from them the same knowledge of the town, we cannot expect
from them the same regard for the interests of the town,
and, above all, we have not in them the sameresponsi-
bility to popular vigilance and control.—(
of
Cheers.)
should say here that the first sectionschedule C will
contain the towns of Tuam, Belturbet, and Wicklow (the
Noble Lord added the name of one other place, but we

I

il'

II

-
could not hear it.) A third schedule I shall propose "
_ contain all the remaining boroughs from section 2 of schedule.
C. In the boroughs contained in this third schedule Ido not
propose that the provisions of the Act of the 9th Geo. _I IV.
should be immediately adopted, as they are boroughs
here-
possess but little corporate property ; and as it may be
after found that it would be better for them not to incur the
expense either of Corporations or of Commissioners under the
Act of 9 Geo. IV., I propose that, with respect to them, the
adoption of the provisions of 9 Geo. IV. shall be voluntary ;
and if it should subsequently pp
aear to Parliament that they
had not adopted the provisions of that Act, and that Corpora-
tions in those towns (they having no property to administer,
and but few individuals to govern) were not required. I am_
sure I for one should make no objection, either in the case of
Belturbet, or any other town similarly situated, to any propo-
sition for abolishing the Corporation. With respect to any
other part of the Bill, I do not think there are many points
on which I need occupy the attention of the House. There
have been several alterations made by the Lords in those
clauses which concern the Quarter Sessions of the Recorder ;
but although several alterations have been made in those pro-
visions, still the spirit of the Bill is preserved. If there be
any difference of opinion on those clauses, they will be merely
differences of detail. It was an opinion that the administra-
tion of justice by the Recorder should be vested in the ap-
pointment of the Crown. That is likewise the opinion of the
Lords. They have not agreed that quarter sessions should be
held whenever the council think fit to require it ; but they have.
agreed that there should be recorders named by the Crown, and
not not by those Corporations. I know not, then, Sir, that I need
go further in this general statement than I have done, in point-
ing out the differences which exist between the Bill wnich
has been sent down to this House by the House of Lords,
and the Bill which I propose to send up to the House of Lords
for their concurrence. It will be observed that the difference
between these two Bills in point of principle—l do not dis:',
guise it—is very wide indeed. Ido not pretend to say that I
I do not
have adopted the principle of the House of Lords.
pretend to say that I have adopted the principle of abolishing
corporations, destroying local governments, and establishing
a central government in their places.—(Cheers.) I think I
need not long detain the House with the general reasons
which have induced me to prefer the one plan, and not con-
sent to the other. When Bills were introduced for the re-
form of the corporations of England and Scotland, we did
not
think it necessary, and Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite did
not think it necessary, for us to enter into the general reasons
which induced us to think that Corporations were beneficial'
and that if they ought to be reformed, they ought not to be
all the
destroyed. If we look to history, we shall find that
historians who have written of the transactions of Europe
in
earlier times, attribute all the civilization, attribute all the
wealth, attribute all the good order, attribute all the regularitY'
of our corporate cities, entirely to their municipal institutions.
____(Hear, hear.) They attribute to them likewise the having
kept alive and fostered the spirit of civil liberty.—( Cheers'
Dr. Robertson has many pages of eulogium on CorporationS
for this reason. It is said by Gibbon that at the feet of theee
popular ramparts, the pride of the Caesars was humble°,
and the spirit of liberty triumphed over the two greatest
monarchs of their age. By their means, says Hume, the
spirit of liberty was preserved, both in the dark ages when,
monarchy flourished in its splendour, and when liberty
was openly restored by the revolution of the seventeenth cen;
tury.—( Loud cheers.) It was in those times taken for granted
that any infringement of the rights of Corporations, that all
blow to the rights of Corporations, that any destruction
of the
Corporations themselves, was a blow directed at liberty heft
self—( Cheers)—and when, in later times, we have thought
necessary to propose that the defects of these Corporations
should be remedied, and the principle of popular control je:
troduced, we have had the general concurrence of this 11°115"
in the opinion that it was desirable to vest these trusts
in local bodies, that such a proceeding was conformable to the
constitution of this country, and that we were discharging °if
duty to our constituents, by doing every thing in our power te
preserve and maintain them in the chief towns of England.
(Cheers.) But, Sir, it is not in this country alone that
en
later times free Corporations have been introduced. I was
reading over this morning a decree of the Prussian Govern'
ment, bearing date in the year 1808, for the introduction e`
Corporations on a free basis in that country. I regret to have,
to refer the House to Prussia for a precedent of freedom, ha"

I have no alternative.
It has been remarked that the citizens do not take interest
in concerns which are of importance to them in consequenr
of the defective arrangements which have hitherto existed 'u
the Corporations and classes of each town. In order to re'
medy this fault, it has been decided to make new municipal ar'
rangements, of which the principal object is to give an rode;
pendent constitution to the towns, to create in them a centr
of interest to the citizens, and:to grant to them a real influent
over the administration of the public property, and induce
it a community of action."
—(Cheers). In conformity with the preamble so the enact-
ment proceeds on the most liberal basis, with one or two cs:,.
ceptions, which I am informed do not affect the freedom °'
the towns. With the exception of securing to the Croul
the power of refusing its consent to the election of a mayor 0
it shall so think fit, and with some other exceptions of the lilt°
nature, the decree establishes an independent constitution on
the most liberal basis. I said before that I was sorry to refer
to Prussia for a precedent. I repeat it, because I come n° l(
to the question whether it is necessary to deny municipal' 11.:
stitutions' solely for the reason that the country to which it 1,
proposed to apply them is Ireland.—( Loud cheers.)
is a sentiment of Mr. Burke's, the passage in which it wv
delivered I will not pretend to quote, which lam sure every
gentleman who hears me must have in his recollection. .1°
his beautiful speech on the subject of conciliation to America'
Mr. Berke said that " Slavery was a plant which might talc
root anywhere, but that Freedom was a flower which bloomed
alone in England." Shall Ibe reduced to the necessity of re'
versing the proposition ? Shall Ibe told that municipal free'
dom may be allowed under a despotic constitution, that it 11)31
be encouraged by a Prussian Government, but that in t',lB
whole of Ireland, under the free constitution of Great Britain
it shall not exist ?—( Cheers.) Why, Sir, have Gentleelea
seriously reflected upon the proposition which they have con?,
down here to give their votes upcn ? Have they well cOO
dered how deep a wound must be inflicted on Ireland,. °by
merely by the provisions I have detailed to the House, but by
the reasons on which it is notorious that they are founcle`" at
the words in which I heard it, with my own ears, declared t.tif..
three-fourths of the people of Ireland were aliens in blood, clfn,
fering in language, differing in religion, and waiting only at
a favourable opportunity of throwing off the Governmert.eb,
home ?—( Great cheering.) These, Sir, are the words rmibe
fell from the lips of one who is supposed by the public t° 40
the chief organ in introducing these amendments of the fl°11„f,
of Lords—of one who but a few months ago held the bigh )
flee of Lord Chancellor of E ngland. —( Tremendous cheerio far
Can it be conceived, Sir, that these enactments, were they it
less bitter than they are, were they far less hostile to the s,P 0
of our Constitution, were they far less different from the '3
we have adopted in other parts of the united empire, could ny
received, coupled with such motives, and with such a Prcalo
the
ble affixed to them, with any other feelings than those of
ado
deepest indignation ?—(Cheers.) Tell me of speeches 01,..wat
at the Corn Exchange I—tell me of agitation tell you n
these words, and those enactments which are founded °Pot,
them, will tend more to promote agitation—will tend 111° !,?it„,,
keep alive discord—will tend more to prevent tranqu'ira' o'o
than a thousand such speeches—uttered, it may be, hY t, •
who are speaking of impossible and unattainable obje°o
0.
but speaking, nevertheless, in favour of the estensi°, 1
the liberties of their country.—( Prolonged cheering•lsta„
tell you that if you consider this Bill with the view ef iee to
Wishing upon it some new law which shall be applleab der-
Ireland alone, and couple it with such motives, you ill tia the
stand the sound policy of Government in attenipti ands,
infliction.—( Cheers.) I will add upon more general gr°
at-
that having heard what passed in this House, and havi% the
tended to much of what passed, or is said to have passed' I like
other House of Parliament, I have never heard any thing_eo
a plausible reason assigned for making this distinction 1)7(1if..
the two countries. Differences there are—great and wide but
ferences. lam not the man to dispute their existence in
the question here is simply this—are there such different 010
the towns of Ireland as to render them unfit to have P°Pthat
and Municipal Corporations ? It is nothing to tell 111°..ntry
there have been dreadful outrages committed in the c 047 tbe
parts of Ireland, that trials have taken place which sh°.c. that
feelings, and that much crime is committed througlac?u_l'ard it
portion of the empire—l ask—and as I have never %odd
stated yet, I ask for the sake of information—is it I_o of
that in the towns of Ireland there prevails a greater d than
disorder and a greater unfitness for popular Govcrnme_ny'n not
exists in other parts of the empire ? If it be so, I 11;1 con'
heard it ; if it were so, I should very likely say, that of
formity with the examples we have of the early agdesctiu° of
rope, it is but reasonable to suppose that the intro
Municipal Corporations would be the best remedy for 7, the
—(Loud cheers.) Let any man go over, in his Inem° ilesens,„
transactions of the last few years. Which are the „sec of
where are the towns, in which scenes have taken P'Lirae•
Cork, orr !lot
great outrage and calamity ? In Dublin,eee,
rick? I recollect one in 1819, in Manchester. ~,t cl°
a odtetphl
ionrka deplorable t scenether
ethat s obceceunr r e
ind inD Dublin, Cork,
at B s tLe
Lim
To;
°Pr
eke, o
nf
likeany otherth es e
—great( Cheers.)to wn o f
r Ireland,th ere h aanythingbeen,
if rcesoermk bblaialieffearr,..ed
theof
thefate d Bristol,aoufger
o f
extending, should
aeundo
oft
dreadful o f
rt
eh h
iens ops
apprehended from the extension of municipal CorPe
_".thougb!
such a city ? And yet no man contended, no man er A
yweear,hatdhatthiet Municipalough In
ct
to
underßristol on account of the outrages which had takennip.:,_ 4,0
dceorntdeinseduinssgi,unwlha:tn
that city.—( Great cheering.) But I say, on other groan in'
Municipal Corporations to those towns in Ireland.n
habitants will then busy themselves with their ovv.
cerns. They will learn, if they have not already... Tecooo
the habits and practice of self-government ; theY. Well' it those
not
a model to the rest of Ireland; they will acquir
t t
0C ohropeeovxr
e;_odriseede,
provement, and embellishment, which make
nleat toying• means, and pursue all those means of political
pal !oil;
porations a blessing and an advantage to all.
gr
you have no
rt
say, moreover, give it for another reason, f
valid obstacle to bring forward—give
of this elePi!,'
that under the present laws and constitution
niin _
Relief Ow!.
and after the passing of the Roman
between sixl(e:diesi:
you have no right to make a distinction
oft
Roman he
millions of Protestants and six millions
People under o
ts
tholics, but are bound to unite the wholetrePat the inhabitana
Government of the same kind, and to
of Lancashire.
the inhabitants n
of Ireland as you would treat
) And is it onlY. °to be
Berkshire.—(Tremendous cheering. for the reasee
affixed ? Is it because you wish
ottestants of Londonderrtte;:
Catholics that you deprive the pr
istrates ? Are
• municipal mag
must
their power of electing
nfit for, that tiiey
Roman Catholics that this slight
oaninderdtiefgyraadadatidonagrlasde the,
too, to be told that they are
prived and suffer the loss of, uall the advantages of ;llu

government, because you wish not to have the appearance,
while you have the fact, of making religious distinctions ?
Are they to be told that they too must suffer these penalties
because they are Irishmen, and because, being Irishmen, they
have the misfortune to be fellow-citizens and fellow-country-
men with Roman Catholics ?—( Loud cheers.) Such, Sir,
are the reasons and such are the grounds on which I shall ask
this House to restore the clauses that have been omitted by
the Lords. If I want an authority in favour of the general
policy of this measure—if Ibe told, as I was told by my
Right Hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Cumberland
(Sir James Graham), on a former occasion, that this was con-
cession, and that you ought not to make concessions, I will
examine the question as it was propounded in the year 1829 by
a great authority in the other House of Parliament. That
authority said—
" A Most Reverend Prelate had said last night, that the
project of his Majesty's Ministers would not be accomplished;
that the Legislature might make large and ample concessions,
but that they would fail in the object which they had in view.
Now, he saw no ground for indulging in an anticipation of
that nature. He would ask why the Legislature had not been
able, long before this, to frame efficient laws on this subject ?
It was because there had been a divided Cabinet ; it was be-
cause there had been a divided Parliament ; it was because
there was an unwillingness on the part of Government to
exert its power, for the purpose of effectually tranquillising
Ireland. But now there was a united Cabinet. Let them,
then, do that which justice requires. Let the legislative body
of the country—let the Government of the country—let all
those who had influence in the country—join in one happy
union, to accomplish that great object, the tranquillisation of
Ireland, which he thought concession alone would produce—
( Cheers) ; and if they could not effect it by that means, they
could have recourse to the exercise of legitimate authority."
These are the opinions expressed in 1829 by LordLyndhurst,
in the House of Lords !—( Loud and protracted cheering.)
And, Sir, when reproach is cast upon the constant repetition '
of the words "justice for Ireland"—a phrase which the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kilkenny is certainly very often in
the habit of using--( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell)—l
think he has very high authority for it in this single sentence
of Lord Lyndhurst's—" Let them do that which justice
reouires."—( Loud cheers.) That, Sir, is in fact the justice.—.
( Cheers from the Opposition.) You passed an Act to place
the Roman Catholics of this country, with respect to office and
power, on a footing with the other subjects of his Majesty.
Will you now contend that three-fourths of the population of
the United Kingdom are entitled to the peculiar privileges,
and to the franchise, because they are Protestants, and
that the remaining fourth are not entitled to them, because
they are Catholics ? If this be your reasoning—if this be
your argument, you do not do that which justice requires ;
you do not act fairly and equally by all parts of the empire,
and you cannot expect that this will be in reality an United
Kingdom.—( Great cheering.) My Right Hon. Friend op-
posite, and others, have said that the difference, after all, is
not so very great ; that they agree with us in the destructive
parts of the Bill, and that it is only on the constructive that they
differ. Why this is, indeed, the whole difference.—( Cheers.)
I had the honour of being associated with my Right Hon.
Friend in the consideration of the reform in the representa-
tion of the people in this House, and we agreed, without much
ado, that a great number of the corrupt boroughs of this coun-
try—amounting, I think, to fifty at first—should be destroyed.
Suppose if, after agreeing upon this point, and when we came
to consider the propriety of the admission of Manchester,
Leeds, and other places, to a share in the representation, my
Right Hon. Friend had said, " Here is a very small point
upon which I differ from you. We have agreed thus far : I
have cordially agreed in the destruction of these boroughs.
But I do not like agitation ; I am not a friend to popular
elections ; I think you have done well in destroying these bo-
roughs, but as to conferring the power of holding popular
elections upon Manchester, Bath, or any other large town,
there I totally differ from you." Supposing my Right Hon.
Friend had made this declaration, I should have thought that
his difference was not one of degree merely, but one which
went to the whole principle of the measure.—( Hear.) Why,
Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet opposite ( Sir Robert Peel), at a
very splendid dinner given to him last year, in a very splendid
building, by the Goldsmiths' Company, said, " I think you
have done wisely ; you have built upon the old foundation."
The Goldsmiths' Company were highly gratified with the
Right Hon. Baronet's compliment. But what if the Right
Hon. Baronet had said, " I quite agree with you in the pro-
priety of pulling down your old hall. It was a very unsightly
and inconvenient edifice, and you did quite right in pulling it
to pieces. I cannot think you have done well, however, in
erecting this handsome building. I quite differ from you in
that.—( Cheers, and a laugh.) I think it was a very useless
waste of your local revenue, and I cannot help thinking that
you would have done much better if you had asked the King's
Ministers to take care of your funds, by vesting them in the
hands of Commissioners."—( Loud cheers.) Undoubtedly, so
far from considering this as any great compliment from the
Right Hon. Gentleman, they would have been somewhat asto-
nished at his selecting the very point on which they felt the
most pride as the theme of his disapprobation. I therefore,
Sir, differ entirely from the assertion, if it be intended to be
Made again, that there is any small difference, or any difference
which ought not to be felt and insisted on, between the con-
struction and reformation which we propose, and the entire
destruction of these Corporations advocated by the Lords.—
(Great cheering.) In the one I see a wide plan similar to
that which Parliament has already adopted in the other parts
of the empire, suited to the enlightened principles of the age,
fitted to lead to harmony, fitted to produce good local govern-
ment in Ireland, and to awaken feelings of concord and harmony
between that and other parts of the empire. I see in the other
a mark of degradation, a wish to create an invidious and cruel
distinction—a determination that the more you seem to place
all the King's subjects on an equality in future, the more Ire-
land shall be viewed with a sort of suspicion, and placed beyond
the pale of remedy or redress.—( Loud cheers.) I ask you to
adopt a more generous, to adopt a more conciliatory, to adopt
"'hat I think the wiser of these two alternatives. Depend upon
it that your decision will spread wide abroad, and have a great
and a lasting effect.—( Loud cheers.) If you mean fairly,
really, and justly to consider the people of this United
Kingdom as one people, as one people will they stand against
their enemies.

" Sic fortis Etruria crevit,
Scilicet et rerum, facta est pulcherrima Roma."
Cheers.) If you adopt the other course you embark upon
one fraught with difficulty and danger. Look around you upon
the state of the world, and see how firmly the British empire
and the British constitution stand. Foreign powers in relations
'of amity. and no fear of an interruption of the general peace and
iranquillity established in England and Scotland—devoid
of the least alarm ; destitute of the slightest apprehension.
Manufactures flourishing ; agriculture, I hope, recovering
from its late depression. An empire strong in arms, strong in
wealth, strong in character, strong, above all, in the reputation
of being a free country.--4 Cheering.) To an empire thus
blessed and thus favoured there remains but one point from
which danger may aria. Truly was it said, as I see it reported
to have been, by an Hon. Friend of mine, who for fifty
'years has sat in this House, and who never acted contrary to
Lis professions or swerved from his avowed principles—truly
'was it said by him, that you may make Ireland your weakness
or your strength ; if you choose to make her your strength,
the whole of the affairs of this mighty empire will stand indis-
soluble and compact. If you choose to make her your weak-
aess, you will have to carry on a struggle in which you can
never finally succeed, and to bear the consequences. I speak
ltot now of posterity, but of the present time—of plunging
three-fourths of the people of Ireland into discontent and exas-
peration. Be assured of this, that the first cannon-ball which
is fired. in Europe will be the signal of your retracting all these
denirds, and of your making that concession, and doing that
Justice in the hour of your need which you refused in the hey-
day of your glory and of your strength; and then—then—l
shall say with pain and sorrow, that England is no longer the
great country for which I took her, but that she refuses to con-
cede plain, obvious, and undeniable justice, until at last she
suffers to be wrung from her interest and her fears what could
not be obtained from her internal prejudices, and her determi-
nation to promote disunion and perpetuate discord.—(Loud
and protracted cheering.)
The original question having been put and carried, and the
Order of the Day having been read,
Lord J. RUSSELL again rose and said—ln moving that
these amendments be now read a second time, I had perhaps
better state to the House what I think will be the formal course
'of proceeding. The mode in which I shall proceed will be to
postpone the two or three first clauses, in which there are no
amendments of vital importance, and to move at the fourth page
to restore, in the first place, clause 4, which has been struck
out by the Lords.—( Hear, hear.)
The motion having been put from the chair,
Sir W. FOLLETT said, that it was their privilege to con-
sider and assent to, or dissent from, those amendments, he ad-
mitted ; but he did not see why it was necessary for the Noble
Lord to have quoted the precedent of 1661, to show that the
House of Commons had a right to dissent from the amend-
inents of the Lords, nor did he quite sec the application of
that precedent on the present occasion. The Noble Lord
seemed to say that the parties then representing the Corpora-
tions in that House declared that it was not consistent with
their duties as trustees and representatives of those Corpora-
tions to permit either that the ancient Corporations should be
destroyed, or that new ones should be created in their stead.
But would the Noble Lord remember that at that time the
Members who put that declaration upon record were represen-
tatives of those Corporations, and in that character they said
it was not consistent with their trust to allow the old Corpora-
tions to be expunged or new ones to be created. He didi,not see,
therefore, that the precedent was by any means an apposite
Hear.) The Noble Lord opposite had said that if the
amendments of the Lords were carried into effect, the result
Would be that a resolution moved iu that House by his Noble
Friend the Member for South Lancashire, and in favour
o,f which, though lost, a very large number of Members had
eivided, would in effect be carried. He agreed that the
alterations made by the House of Lords did embody the in-
structions moved on that occasion. But he called upon the
louse to remember that a considerable minority voted in
favour of those instructions ; and the question now before
them was, whether they would agree to or reject the amend-
Merits of the House of Lords, sanctioning an instruction
already approved by so large a proportion of the Members
of that House. The Noble Lord opposite had, indeed, pro-
Posed certain amendments, which he put forward as a com-
promise. But before he entered more particularly into the
examination of this proposed compromise, he thought it right
that the House should fully understand the effect of the amend-
n'eats made by the other House, for he could not think that
fis
Noble Lord had, in the statement which he had made,
;0"y and clearly explained them. The first and the main ob-
'eat of the Bill originally introduced was the abolition of the
existing Corporations of Ireland. It was a Bill for the pur-
poseV of abolishing them totally, of extirpating the existing
Corporations, of declaring their property to be public property,
..
then for the purpose of creating new municipal bodies in

their place. The large minority of that House who supported
his Noble Friend when he moved the instruction that had
been alluded to agreed to carry out that part of the Bill which
went to the abolition of the existing Corporations. When he
(Sir W. Follett) was told that he was not a friend to Catho-
lic justice and equality of civil rights, he would take the
opportunity of saying that no man was more anxious than he
was to see the principles of the Roman Catholic Emancipation
Act carried into full and complete effect.—(" Oh, oh I" and
cheers.) No man was more anxious that every civil disability
should be removed, every grievance remedied, and perfect
civil equality between our Roman Catholic and Protestant
brethren in Ireland fully established.—(" Oh, oh 1" and loud
cheers.) He might be mistaken in his opinion, but it was
his belief that the portion of the Bill which went to create
new corporate bodies in place of the old would have the
effect of again creating exclusive bodies in Ireland, and that
was one of the many reasons which induced him, and he be-
lieved those who had taken the same view of the question with
himself, to dissent from it.—( Hear.) But he was going to
call the attention of the House to the effect of the amendment.
First, then, with respect to the abolition of the existing
Corporations. To that part of the measure the House of
Lords had agreed. The Noble Lord had seemed to complain
that the other House had in some measure preserved the
members of the existing Corporations. There were no such
provisions, however, in the Bill. The existence of the mem-
bers of the existing Corporations, as such members ceased at
once, and all their rights and powers were by the Bill at once
determined. The abolition of the existing Corporations the
Lords had agreed to, they had agreed to remove what on the
other side of the House had so often been denounced as one
of the main evils under which Ireland laboured, viz., the
existence of exclusive Protestant Corporations in Catholic
communities. These the House of Lords had agreed to abo-
lish, and to treat their property as public property.—( Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, he was not going
to shrink from the question.—( Cheers.) The House of Lords
had met the Noble Lord to this extent, that they consented to
the property of these Corporations being treated as public pro-
perty, and that it should be applied for the benefit of the in-
habitants of the various existing municipalities in Ireland.
The Lords had also adopted a clause which went up from that
House to preserve inviolate the rights of existing freemen.
These were the points to which the House of Lords had
agreed. Now, then, he came to the question, what were the
functions of the existing Corporations which it was deemed so
desirable on the opposite side of the House to preserve ? He
had stated it on a former discussion, and he now asked the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to deny it if be could, that
the only functions which would cease to be exercised in conse-
quence of this Bill, and the only powers and authority pos-
sessed by the existing Corporations, were those which re-
lated to the administration of justice. All control over
municipal government—all control of watching, lighting,
paving, cleansing, &c.-.all which constituted municipal
authority, had been already taken from theni ; but they did
exercise the functions of .Justices of the Peace—they did
appoint Magistrates, Sheriffs, and police. But was it a part
and parcel of the policy of the Bill, as sent from that House,
to continue those privileges to the proposed new Corpora.
tions ? No, said the Noble Lord, " As to the administration
of justice, there is little or no difference between us," and the
Bill therefore proposed to invest the Lord Lieutenant of the
Crown with the appointment of the magistrates and sheriffs
in all the cities and towns, and counties of cities and towns, in
Ireland. It also, he believed, invested in the Lord Lieute-
nant for the time being the appointment of the most important
office of coroner. The Lords had adopted the same principle.
In principle both the original Bill and the present amended
Bill agreed in this point, and both Bills proceeded on a dif-
ferent principle to the English Bill—both proceeded on the
assumption that, at least as regarded the administration of jus-
tice, there was something in the present state of society in
Ireland which called for a different mode of legislation than
that adopted towards England.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") Both Bills had proceeded on the principle of taking
the administration of justice out of the hands of the Munici-
pal Corporations, and vesting it in the Government. The
Noble Lord had declaimed with great eloquence on the ad-
vantages which had flowed from Corporations, and which
might be expected to follow the establishment of the amended
Corporation system in Ireland. He ( Sir W. Follett) could
well understand that, in a half-savage state of society, in a
state of society just emerging into civilization—(" Hear,
hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) He understood that cheer.
He was not speaking of the present state of Ireland ; he was
speaking of the time when those Corporations were of service.
—( Hear, bear.) What, he should like to ask the Noble Lord,
was the difference between the local government and the pros-
perity of those towns which had Corporations and those which
had not?—( Hear, hear.) He should like to ask whether Man-
chester—( Hear, hear)—whether Birmingham—were at all
inferior in point of prosperity or the excellence of their
local government to those towns which possessed the advan-
tage of corporate government ?—( Hear.) Could the Noble
Lord discover any difference between Westminster, without a
Corporation, bordering us it did upon the City of London, and
that city, with a large and popular Corporation at its head?
Was Westminster less prosperous, and was its bueiness
worse managed, or did the boroughs of Finsbury or Mary-
lebone suffer by comparison with their corporate neighbour?
—( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not agree in the dogma
that the prosperity of the Irish towns, or indeed that the
prosperity of any town in the present day, depended on its
Corporations. Both sides of that House, and of the House
of Lords, had, with relation to the property of the old
Corporations, therefore proceeded on one principle, namely,
that the property was to be dealt with as public property.
It was so dealt with by the Bill sent up to the
other House ; that Bill placed it under various species of
control, it ordered advowsons to be sold, it directed its
alienation, it dealt with it in every possible way, but in-
vested it in the new bodies, which were to be chosen by 51.,
and in some instances by the 101., householders of the towns of
Ireland. Now in what way had the House of Lords dealt
with this property ? The Noble Lord the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, in arguing against the amendments
of the House of Peers, had contended, as a matter of objection,
that the Commissioners who would be appointed in pursuance
of the Lords' amendments would have the complete controul
over the Corporation funds, unchecked by the parties for
whose benefit those funds were intended. But this was not
the fact. By this Bill the Commissioners would have no such
power. There were other checks than that which the Noble
Lord pointed out. The property, it was true, would be in-
vested in Commissioners appointed by the Crown, but the Bill
expressly directed that the whole of the income of the pro-
perty should be applied in the first place to pay the salary
of the Recorder, next the salary of the Judges of the local
Courts, and next it went to the trustees under local Acts of
Parliament, and next to trustees under the 9th George IV.,
wherever that Act had been adopted, to be applied by them
in aid of the rates. This, therefore, was not a board like
those which had been alluded to—a board at which jobbing
of all kinds could be carried on. The Commissioners would
not have power to order a road to be mended here, or a job
to be done there ; but the controul of the expenditure would
still be vested in the representatives of the inhabitants
and rate-payers, either as trustees under some local Act,
or as trustees chosen under the statute of the 9th of
George IV. It so happened that all the eleven towns
mentioned by the Noble Lord had every one of them lo-
cal boards, and the others had adopted the statute of the 9th
George IV. Indeed, he believed that there was no town in
Ireland possessed of any Corporate property, with, he be-
lieved, one only exception, where a local board did not already
exist. The Commissioners, therefore, could not have the discre-
tion which the Noble Lord had supposed. As the law now stood,
every town in Ireland might adopt the provisions of the 9th
George IV., and the Si. householders might, under that Act,
elect their own Commissioners, and then the Commissioners
appointed by this Bill would be bound to give up the dis-
posal of all the Corporate property to those Commissioners.
There was another matter of some importance ; he alluded to
the tolls. In several cases the collection of tolls was vested
in the inhabitants of different towns; and of this he was
was fully convinced, that there was not a town in Ireland
which would not be benefitted by the abolition of all the
tolls on goods brought into those towns. It was so stated
in the report which had been made to the House upon the
subject, and upon that report the Lords had acted, and had
given to the Commissioners the power of abolishing the
tolls in such cases as they should deem expedient. What
was the next point in the amendments of the Lords which it
became necessary to inquire into ? The Noble Lord the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department complaimed that
the Bill had been altogether changed ; that the preamble had
been altered ; and that of a Bill containing 118 clauses 104
had been rejected. Now this was not the fair way to put it.
The Lords had made no alteration in the Bill except for the
purpose of vesting the property of the Corporations in these
Commissioners, and of carrying out the details of that prin-
ciple.—(Hear.) It was not because the preamble of the Bill
had been altered—it was not because 104 clauses had been
dispensed with—that it was fair to hand the Bill as it had been
handed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury at a public meeting
dineaolrdwerittho put the
itlhiewandiehcaphatad been so
ndumquestiotrneaotfed by thehowthey othersliould
House ?—(Hear, hear.) The principle upon which they split
s be ofut
it Lords
would agreednot
rt
eoe t ht
toe
tahbeo li tion
o r p9ro he
ac t i nosu, owfasexoinsetin°g only.
crea-
tion of new ones in their room. This was the point of dif-
ference, and on this point all the much-talked-of alterations
depended. He was not going to fatigue the House by re-argu-
ing this question. One thing was clear, and he begged to
ask the Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-Gentleman for land
to point out to him any instance, so far as regarded the regu-
lation of municipal affairs or local government, in which there
existed or was likely to exist any necessity for deviating from
the Bill now before the House ? No deviation was wanted for
the purpose of local government.—(Hear, hear.) If, there-
fore, it was sought at all, it must be sought for some other
purposes.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had told the
House that he would not insist on the full and original Bill,
because he had no hope that it would be adopted ; but the
Noble Lord proposed something which he called on the House
to adopt as a fair compromise between the two parties. Now,
if the proposition of the Noble Lord were one which it was
probable the other House would assent to, there could be
little doubt that it would be most cordially adopted by the
House of Commons ; but if, on investigation, it should be
found quite impossible that any proposition like that pro-
posed by the Noble Lord could be assented to by Hon. Mem-
bers on that side of the House without involving themselves in
a perfect compromise of principles, and without abandoning
altogether the ground which they took in voting for the in-
struction, then it would be quite impossible to expect that what
the Noble Lord treated as a compromise could be assented by
the Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House.—
(Cheers.) Let him remind the House that the Noble Lord
said the House of Lords had taken a course which called on
them to assert their privileges, because their Lordships had
sanctioned an amendment which had been previously rejected
by a majority of that House. Now, instead of giving new Cor.

porations to all the disfranchised towns, the Noble Lord pro-
posed to give Corporations to 11 of the largest towns only. A
proposition less extensive than this had been already made in
the other House, and rejected by a large majority, and yet the
Noble Lord, who in great alarm called on them to assert their
privileges, because the Peers had affirmed a proposition which
they had rejected, deliberately proposed to them to return to
the other House, and say, " You negatived by a large majo-
rity a proposal made to you to confine the Municipal Corpora-
tions to seven of the largest towns ; but now, in the hope of
making a compromise with you, we ask you to pass a Bill
extending the same principle to twelve towns."—( Hear, hear. )
This certainly was a most extraordinary mode of effecting a
compromise.—( Hear, hear.) But he would meet the dim-
culty in the face. He objected absolutely to the creation of
these new bodies. For municipal objects, as he had before
said, they were quite useless. They might be made, and he
believed they would be, schools of agitation, communicating
with similar institutions in the capital. They might be made,
and probably would be made, instruments for disturbing the
peace and tranquillity of Ireland ; and although it might be
said that it 'was intended to exclude the smaller towns in Ire-

land, yet it would be impossible to prevent the flame from
spreading, if Corporations were given to Dublin, London-
derry, and other great towns of the north.—(Cheers and
counter-cheers.) Yes, he would not conceal his object, for
lie would not conceal from himself, it was impossible for Hon.
Members opposite to conceal, that the object of their new
proposal was to create these normal schools of agitation in
the large towns ; and was be to be asked to accede to this
as a compromise, when the main danger which was anti-
cipated was from the larger towns—a danger which it would
be impossible to confine within its original limits?—(Loud
cheers.) Such was the first step in the compromises which
they were enabled to make. They were to give Corporations
to twelve of the larger towns. What was the next step ?
That in reference to twenty-two more it was to be made
imperative on the inhabitants to accept the provisions of the
9th Geo. IV. Was the House aware of the provisions of

this Act, and of the way in which such an Act could be in-
troduced into the towns in Ireland ? Twenty-one inhabitant
householders, rated at 201. a year, at least, were requisite to
put the Act in motion, and, on their application to the Lord
Lieutenant, he might direct a meeting to be called of the
inhabitants rated at 51. and upwards, and the majority at such
meeting decided whether the Act should be put in force there
or not. There was a check, it would be perceived, on the
imposition of this Act, by requiring, as a preliminary step, the
assent of twenty-one housekeepers of 201. a year each ; and
the reason for that check was this—the Commissioners ap-
pointed at such meeting had a power of imposing rates in a
different mode to that usually practised, namely, on a gra-
duated scale, by which, for instance, persons possessed
of one class of houses would pay Is. in the pound, whilst
the next class might pay only 9d., and the next 6d. Well,
then, it was proposed, as to these other towns, to make this
Act imperative, and the Commissioners to be elected by
the 5/. householders were to have the whole property and
management of the Corporation funds invested in them.
Now, what he should like to know would be the effect
of forcing this statute upon these towns after the discussion ?
—( Hear, hear.) In what respect would such Commissioners,
appointed as such Commissioners would be, differ from a new
Corporation ?—( Hear, hear.) They would be elected by the
b/. householders; they would have the property of the town
transferred to them ; they would have the power of levying
rates ; they would form a body, different, it was true, but hav-
ing precisely the same evil effect and influence as the new
Corporations sought to be created.--( Hear, hear.) Was this,
he would again ask, to be called a compromise ?—(Loud
cheers.) Even if this Bill, as altered, had not received the
sanction of the other House, he would have taken the same
course as he had now adopted; but he did not deny that
when they had sent up a Bill to the other House, and their
Lordships had made certain alterations in conformity with
the expressed views of a very large number of the Members
of that House, it was with him an additional reason for ad-
hering to his opinions.—(Hear, hear.) But there were
parts of this Bill which the Noble Lord complained had
been omitted. Some fifty or sixty clauses had been omitted ;
but why ? Because they related to the election of corporate
officers—the registration of the voters—the erection of the
polling booths—the duties of the revising barrister—and the
whole machinery of elections. After the principle which
their Lordships had adopted, it became of course necessary
to expunge the whole of these clauses, and let him ask
if they were now discussing that question for the first time,
whether in the present state of society in Ireland--whether,
when the great bulk of the population of that country was ar-
rayed against its property—it would at all tend to promote
peace and tranquillity to introduce into the midst of such con-
flicting elements the annual excitement of annual municipal
elections, accompanied by all the paraphernalia of revising
barristers, returning officers, and all the other election con-
comitants ?—( Loud cheers.) Would this tend to tranquillise
Ireland? Why, even if the creation of those new Corpora-
tions were in itself unobjectionable, the means by which their
existence was to be annually continued, would alone tend to
destroy the peace, prospir:ty, and happiness of every town on
which a boon so pernicious should be conferred.—(Hear,
bear.) The Noble Lord complained that the preamble of his
Bill had been altered. The Bill was introduced for the pro-
fessed purpose of securing the peace and the tranquillity of
Ireland. Would it do so ?—(Loud cries of " Hear," from
both sides of the House.) They had heard the discussion
which had taken place in that House ; they had heard the
lion. Gentleman opposite say that the Bill now before them
was an insult to Ireland.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.)
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman abused that remark. He
could assure that Hon. and Learned Member, that he would
be the last person to offer an insult to Ireland.—(Cheers.)
He might have taken a mistaken view of the subject,
but he was not satisfied that the mode in which those who
called themselves the friends of Ireland acted was most likely
to tend either to the prosperity of that country, or to the peace
and happiness of its people.--(Loud cheers.) He did think
those were not friends of Ireland who could speak as they had
done of the miseries of its starving population, who could
stand up in that House and declare that 2,000,000 of their
fellow-countrymen were actually in a state of starvation, and
yet never attempt anything to raise them from a state so de-
plorable—( Hear, hear)—but who, on the contrary, pursued
a course which, in his humble judgment, must necessarily
operate to the prejudice of the commercial and agricultural
prosperity of Ireland ; and consequently render their condi-
tion worse even than at present.--(Loud cheers.) This re-
minded him of a contrast which bad been drawn between Ire-
land and Scotland. The Noble Lord had asked what made
the difference between those two countries. Was it, he would
ask, to schools of agitation that Scotland was indebted for her
prosperity ?—(" Yes, yes.") Yes ! What ! was it agitation
that had fertilized her soil, filled her ports with ships, beau-
tified and enriched her towns, and placed her commerce and
manufactures on an eqnality with the commerce and manu-
facturers of Great Britain ?—( Hear, hear, hear)—or was it,
as the Hon. Gentleman had said, the abolition of Bishops and
the destruction of the Episcopal Church ? Tho prosperity
of Scotland did not date so far back ; but it might be
traced to the time when she began to share the same insti-
tutions and the same laws as England—institutions which the
Scotch were wise enough to cherish, laws which they were
prudent enough to obey.—( Loud cheers.) No; they had no
schools of agitation ; they had not even a popular represen-
tation.—( Hear.) How, then, became they so prosperous ?--
(" They had no tithes," and cries of " Order.") What, then,
had we not paid tithes in England ?—( Hear.) Did the pros-
perity of a country depend on the payment or non-payment
of tithes ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) No, Scotland owed her
prosperity to her people, who bent all their energies to
make the most of the advantages which the connection with
England had opened to them. And, since the first burst of
national discontent disappeared, obedience to the laws, free-
dom from revolution, safety of life, of property, and of
capital, had been their characteristics, and had, conse-
quently, secured the prosperity of Scotland.—( Hear, hear.)
How different the state of things which prevailed in Ireland.
Ireland had for many years been on the same footing as Eng-
land and Scotland. The vast dominions and extensive
colonies of England had been opened to her enterprise.
How was it that capital had not flowed in upon her? Ask
those gentlemen who called themselves the friends of Ire-
land—(Hear)—ask those who taunted him with being an
enemy of Ireland.--(Hear, hear.) His notion of friendship
did indeed differ from theirs, for he could tell the people of
Ireland that it was disobedience to the laws—it was the or-
ganised and disorganised system of agitation which prevailed
there, that, even should it succeed in its destructive objects,
even should it abolish tithes, abolish municipal institutions, or
, even accomplish the supremacy of the Catholic Church itself
it was this which was the ruin of Ireland—it was this which
would continue to prove the curse of that unhappy country,
and make them ultimately the victims of a tyranny of which
they permitted themselves to be made the instruments.—
(Great cheering.) The object of the proposed amendment
to this Bill appeared to him to be to strengthen the hands
of agitation, and to provide new tools and instruments for its
work. He should, therefore, decidedly oppose it. To minor
alterations he should not object, but to the great principles of
the Bill he religiously adhered. He believed that the propo-
sition of his Majesty's Government with respect to Ireland was
not likely to carry into effect the objects which it professed,
and that it would not tend to the promotion of peace nor to the
removal of civil and religious discord. He conceived that if
such a measure were to pass it would only fret and
irritate existing sources of discontent, and increase the
misfortunes and unhappiness of the country. He therefore
gave to the amendments of the Lords his cordial support.
He should have supported those amendments even if they bad
not been sanctioned by the other branch of the Legislature ;
but, having been so sanctioned, the respect which he felt
bound to pay to the opinions of their Lordships operated as an
additional reason in their favour: He did not agree with those
who called on the House to stand on their privileges, because
the Lords had dissented from a measure sent up to them. It
was true they had privileges ; but so had the House of Lords
also. The Lords had a right to make amendments as well as
the Commons ; they had made amendments in this measure ;
these amendments had been confirmed by the previously ex-
pressed opinion of a very large minority of the Members of
that House; the amendments thus made were at the least en-
titled to respectful consideration, and to him they became an
additional reason for again taking the same course which he
adopted when this Bill was first proposed.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said it was not now a question whether
municipal institutions would be advantageous to Ireland or
not ; the question now to be decided was, whether England
would permit Ireland to share in so great a blessing, or whe-
ther Ireland was to be insulted by a declaration that she was
unfit to enjoy equal rights and privileges with the sister country.
The Irish people were not now inferior either in point of
power, position, or patriotism, to the condition in which they
were at the time of the Union, and therefore if the Legisla-
ture were to remove the reciprocal interest by which the two
countries are bound it would be impossible to deny that Ire-
land was treated most unjustly. He considered that the pro-