The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-14 00:00:00

-
Ile. H. DRUMMOND was decidedly favourable to the
principle of county boards, but thought there wes great
mgeoppreheasion as to the powers and dui. sof magistrates
in reference to the county rate. In general, he helieved
.key wire sincerely desirous to reduce the expenditure ; but
their functions von extremely narrow, being confined to
esuirtainiog the amount necessary to be expended, and
ordering that amount to be levied. He concluded by
a conding the motion for the second reading of the bid.
Sir J. PAKINOTON was net opposed to the principle of
Bounty boards, but he believed it would fail to secure the
oljects anticipated. The bill was impracticable, and must
prove a failure ; he theta," hoped it weuld not feet ive the
support of the government. At present, the county exp•ndi-
tare was mat closely looked atter, in most counties, by the
finance committees and the magistrate, and i. any counties
could be named as an exception to this remuk, he would
appoint a select committee to inquire into the mode of
levying and expending county rate. in England and Wales,
and to ascertain whether any more satisfacto.y mode of
tranncting this business could be adopted. He would move
the as en amendment on the motion for the second reading
of the bill, which he r. girded as an affront to the county
magistncy, and as condemning them without being heard,
almost without being accused. The Lancashire statiment,
in favour of this bill, was the most extraordinary that had
ever been put be:ore the house. It was there stated that the
expenditure for the county of Lancashire, in 1824, amounted
to 80,0001., and that in 1848 it amounted to 179,0001 ; being
an increase of nearly 100,0001. Now be thought he
would be able to show that this was an unfair view of the

ease. The figures be admitted to be correct; but if the
hen. gentleman took the same items in 1848 that he took in
1824 as he ought to do, the result would be very different.
In 1848 the expenditure fur the county of Lancaster was
d to its present amount in consequence of bevel( to
make additions to two gaols and three lunatic asylums,
which cost 63,0001. (Hear, hear.) They had also to pay, in
1848, fur a large county police establishment, which did
not exist in 1924. The coat of maintaining which
was 39.0001. (Hear, hear.) These two sums amounted
together to 92,0001., which, deductcd from 179,0001., left
87,0001. as the expenditure of 1848 as compared with
80,0001. in 1824 ; that was to say, 7,0001. had been added to the
county expenditure, whilst the population had increased one-
third, and the value of the rateable property also one-third
in the interval. (Hear, hear.) But that was not the whole
else ; for he had a right to deduct 27,0001. from that 87,0001
for the maintenance of prisoners and other expenses con-
nected with the gaols. I, then, he merely took the same
items in 1845 which he took in 1824 the matter would stand
thus, that in the former year the expenditure was
60,0001. as compseed with. 80,0001. in the latter.
( Hear, bear.) As he was informeel, this most ote ectioe able and
absurd bill originated in local squabbles respectie g the bailee
log of the lunatic asylums. (No, no.) At all events, the Lan-
cashire case was no justification for this most objectionable
bill, and formed no ground for bringing a charge against the
magistracy of that county. (Hear, hear.) But, eves admit-
ting that Lancashire was sick, that was no reason why the)
she add give physic to the whole of England. (" Hear, be: r,"
and laughter.) His proposition was that this but would not
effect the object that the hon. gentleman sought to obtain by
it. (Hear, hear.) How would the bill work? Every
board of guardians was to send one represeutative to the
cunty board, and the magistrates of the county were to
elect out of their own body a number not ex-
ceeding one half of the guardians so elected. There were
27 boards of guardians in Lancashire, consequently there
would be 27 elected guardians and 14 elected magistrates to
administer the financial affairs of the county. The board
so constituted would consist of 41 persons, whilst the pre-
sent magistrates in Lancashire amounted to no less than 450.
Hear.) He did not think that the bill would work, for
though he knew members of the board of guardians to
whom the interests of the county expenditure might be
safely entrusted, yet that was by no means the case gene-
rally. When the county rite comrni goners in 183 G recom-
mended the adopt:on of • joint board, contesting of elect, d
guardians and magistrates, they could have little or no know-
ledge of the class ,epertone who would be electel on the board
of guardians under the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.
The honourable gentleman, adopting the language of the re-
port said, that it was not fit that the administration of there
funds should be entrusted to • " fluctuating body."
(Hear, hear.) Him • more fluctuating body than this
could be devised be was at a lose to imagine. lie
cancel on the right hon. gentleman opposite not to sanction
this affront to toe gentlemen of England without any charge
being proved against the m. The bill was founded in cam-
plete ignorance of the subject to which it related. (Hear,
hear.) He defied any person to divide the financier' from the
other duties which the magistrates had to perform. He
begged to move as an' amendment that a select committee
t e appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the county
rates with • view ot ascertaining whether a more effecier
and economical syste in than the present could not be adopted.
Mr. R. PALMER seconded the metien. He did not
know that he should have ohjected to a concurrent jurisdic-
tion on the part of the board of guardians, althoueh he did
not believe it to be necessary ; but the bill of the boo. gen-
tleman the member for Montrose went melt farther than
treat. Although he did not believe that the hon. gentleman
so intended it, his bill looked very like an insult to the
magistracy of England, for it assumed that they were either
too incapable. or too dishonest, to perform properly the du-
ties entrusted to them.
Mr. HEYWOOD said that the great body of the rate
payers telt it to be a grievance that they were celled upon to
pay county rates without being In any wey represented. As
the same time, he could not support the bill as it stood, and
was in favour of entering it to a select committee.
Sir 0. GREY said that if the hon. member for Deniterieh
(Sir J. Pakingron) bad persevered with the amendment of
which he had given notice, and moved thnt the bill should
be read a second time that day six months, he should have
voted for the second readier, being in favour of the principle
of representation in regard to county financial boards.
(Hoer, hear.) In crying this he disclaimed the intention of
making any imputation against county magistrates. He
was quite sure, too, that nothing could have been further
from his hon. friend's object than to make such imputations,
and whin they looked at the names appended to the report
of the commissioe era, hon. members must feel anti fled that
there could have been no ietention cn the part of the enin-
missienere of offering an affront to the magistracy. He had
no hesitation in saying that the magistrates generally had
manifested, in di-charging their functions, a due regard to
economy and to ell the other considerations which ought to
guide those who occupied such a position. (Hear.) With
reference to the details of the bill he entirely agreed with
his hon, friend opposite. They appeared to him extremely
objectionable ; end if passed, instead of producing the result
anticipated by his hon. friend he believed the bill would
be found to euhstitute for the present system one
sill more objectionable. The proportion which the elective
body was to bear to the magistracy en med to him alto; ether
wrung : if there was not to be equality, the preponderance
ought to be just in the opposite direction. With regard to
the attendauce at quarter versions, it was impossible for any
one who was conversant with county business net to know
that, while there were some magistrates who were very con-
suet in their attendance, there were also cases iu which there
were the greatest fluctuations, and that it sometimes hap-
pened that when a special question arose for decision the
opinions of those who seldom attended overruled those of
magistrates whose attendance was regular. In he own
aouute, Northumberland, there were four quarter f(11,1l0111 in
the year, which were held at different places, and
that necessarily ltd to fluctuations in the attend-
este. Ile quite concurred in the observation that if this
evil were incurred at pr, sent, it would exist to a still greater
eaten, under the bill. (Hear, hear.) In fact, had the hon.
gentleman elc sired to @absentee a flactuating for a perm*.
oe it body, he could not h ive devised a better mode of effect-
ing his object. It appeared to him that there was but link'
practical difference betwe en the mover of the motion and the
mover of the am ndmcnt. Probebly the best course would
be to agree that a committee should be appointed to inquire
into the whole subject. That was the fairest mode of dealing
with the question. On the subject of the al'eged increase of
the canny rates, sorry as he might be to have to qualify his
praise of county magistrates, he must express his belief that
their vigilance and regard to economy had been much
greeter in respect to those items which were permanently
borne by counties, and those the payment of which
came out of the public treasury. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) In a return lately presented to the
house he found an abstract of accounts furnished by
the several treasurers of counties in England and Wales in
the years 1847 and 1815, and he was sorry to have perceived
that the amount thrown upon the public treasury in 1848
was 133,0001. more than in 1847, the charge having been
doubled.
Sir J. ?ARINGTON interrupted the right hon. baronet
by observing that the new regulation only came into opera-
tion in 1846, and therefore the first half year of 1847 was not
included.
Sir G. GREY continued—Independently of this return,
his attention had h en recently celled to growing expendi
Lure, and it was important that some means of checking the
increase should be devised. With regard to the allowance
for the expenses of prosecutions, the Chief Harm had writ-
ten to him to asy that the power of the judges at present
with respect to a large portion of the expenditure was abso-
lutely nugatory. In conclusion, he hoped the amendment
for the appointment of a committee would be agreed to.
Mr. HENLEY thought it would have been more fair if
the right hon. gentleman had considered the subject better
before making the comments which he had done on the
expeneiture for prosecutioes. He hoped the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Hume) would consent to take a select committee as a
substitute for hie bill.
Mr. V. SMITH said that of the two plans before the
house, the one proposed by his hon, friend the member for
Montrose was the most practicable, and for that reason he
should support it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that it was necessary to proceed to
the sec ad reading of the bill, in order to affirm the prin-
ciple which it contained, that, namely, of representation in
county expenditure. He was as much opposed to many of
the details of the tell es hon. members opposite; but those
details could be am- ndcd in committee.
Sir 0. GREY said that in order to prevent meappre-
hension he would even state what be hod said earlier in the
day with respect to the course of the government ss to the
present measure, which was that rather than negative the
principle of the hill, he would have voted 'eldest the amend-
ment, notwithstanding his objection. to the details of the
measure, but as the amendment admitted the principle ot
repraentation in county expenditure, and only proposed to
examine further into the whole subject, he was disposed to
refer the question to a committee as proposed by the hon.
baronet.
Sir J. ?ARINGTON explained
Mr. C. LEWIS painted out that it was not indispensable
for county magistrates to be contributors to the county rates,
for their qualification to be magistrates did not rest upon the
puma= of land within the county for which they acted.
Mr. W. MILES was opposed to the bill, because it cast a
slur and inflicted an Wel*a upon the county magistracy,