The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-14 00:00:00

meet. The *ld honourable baronet (Sir John
"'lslington) MAW= a similar course to 'the present one
when the bill gni beim a select committee ; fur he made a
succession of speeches against its principle instead of dis-
cussing the particular clause which happened to be before
the select committee. That was not a fitting way to deal
with a public measure. The house hod decided that finan-
cial boards in counties should be established, and in reply
to what had been said by his right hon. friend the member
for Northampton that it was a Manchester and a Lancashire
measure, he (Mr. Gibson) would say that the house, by a
succession of divisions, had decided that financial boards
should be established in England and Wales. It was a
reflection on the country population, end one which ought
not to come from the farmers friends and the representa-
tives of the rural population, to say that the small farmers
and small occupiers of land were so little capable of trans-
acting business—(" oh, oh," and cheers)—as not to be fit
to be entrusted with the control of the salary of a turn-
key—(" oh, oh," and cheers)—for that, it they were,
they would appoint so inefficient a turnkey that he would
let the prisoners out of gaol. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.)
Was that the way to speak of those who sent them to that
house ? (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) He himself residing in
a county and having the greatest respect fur the rural po-
pulation, denied that they deserved that character, and he
would say that they were as fit to manage their own affairs
as the inhabitants of towns ; and if the legislature had ,
given municipal councils to towns, which managed their
affairs, there ought to be similar councils in the rural
districts to manage theirs. Ile was not singular in bring-
ing in a bill on this subject, for the hon. member for West
Surrey had his bill, the right hon. gentleman the member
for Droitwich had his bill, and the right hon. gentleman the
member for Northampton seemed to have his bill also. If
this was his (Mr. Gibsou's) own bill, he might perhaps
give precedence to theirs, but as it was a bill which came
from a select committee, whirls had considered it clause by
clause, it was not presumption in him to press the house to
go on with this bill rather than to wait for theirs. The
question on which they were going to vote was, that
!laving agreed that financial boards should be established,
can•istiag of a number of members equal to the number of
unions in a county, it should ha an ►mendment that to
those boards the whole of the magistrates of the counties
should be added, so that in the county of Worcester,
where there were 13 unions and 360 magistrates, you would
first elect a board conitistieg of 13 ratepayers, and add to
it 360 magistrates. That was not a reasonable proposition,
and he hoped the house would not allow the measure to I/0
defeated by a side wind and by an amendment, which was
an attempt to set aside the second reading of the bill.
Mr. It. PALM Elit could not exactly agree with his
right hon. friend (Sir J. Fakington), in adopting his
amendment. Ile hail agreed to the admission of the prin-
ciple of establishing financial boards, if it was desired by
the ratepayers; and he must say that the amendment, al-
though it retained the principle of representation, yet it
did so in a very small degree ; and for that reason he could
not vote for the ►meudmcnt as it stood. Ile agreed with
his right hon. friend, the member for Northampton, in think-
ing the bill was not necessary for some couuties; although
it was shown by evidence that it was necessary for Lanca-
shire. For instance it had appeared in evidence before the
►elect committee, that among the expenditure of that
county was an item on one occasion of seventy or eighty
pounds for luncheons for the magistrates. (Hear, and
laughter.) He did not wonder that the ratepsyers should
object to such items; hut in his county there was never any
such charge. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He thought,
therefore, that those counties which did not acquire the
operation of the bill should be allowed an option with re-
gard to adopting it. The hon. gentleman also objected to
the introduction of the bill in some counties on account of
the expense it would entail.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, in explanation, said, that the im-
putation of the right hon. gentleman the member for Man-
chester, with regard to the opinion of the magistrates as to
the capability for business of the rural population was most
unjust. He had distinctly said that his experience of
guardians showed them to be good men of business.
Lord LOVAINE said it was evidently intended by the
bill to take away all the authority of the magistrates in
matters relating to the county rates. He, however, ad-
mitted that the principle of the bill bad been adopted by
the house. When the right hon. gentleman the member for
Manchester said this bill was no attack on the magistrates
he forgot that it was notoriously brought forward on the
ground at least of the inattention of the magistrates to the
interest' of the ratepayers. lie thought the adoption of
the bill should he optional on the part of counties.
Captain SCOEELL thought the time had come when it
would be wise for the magistrates to accede graciously, and
not in a narrow spirit, to the alterations in the management
of county affairs which it was proposed to make. lie
urged on hon. members not to continue to make long
speeches on the amendment, but to deal with it like men of
business.
Mr. FRESHFIELD denied that the county expenditure
under the control of the magistrates had increased to the
extent which had been asserted. As to the assertion that
county rates were paid by occupiers and not by landlords,
every man who took a farm inquired into the expenditure
required for rates, and made his bargain as regarded rent
accordingly. The question now before the house wan, whe-
ther the magistrah a should be made a comoonent part of
the financial boards, and it was said that the proposed
amendment would have the effect of swamping the elective
part of the boards ; but he thought that which was 'might
by the amendment was a concession which the ratepayers
ought not, and he believed were not inclined to refuse.
At the last quarter sessions in Surrey this bill was dis-
cussed, and it was unanimously agreed that it was un-
necessary, and he was desired to express that opion to the
house.

Lord PALMERSTON wished to say one word with re
ferenee to the suggestion of his right hon. friend behind
him (Mr. V. Smith), and which bad been repeated by other
hon. members, and which he had heard of from many per-
sons since this question wan last discussed. He meant the
notion, for which there were many precedents in laws of
this kind, that the application of the bill should be made
optional in counties. The impression on his mind with re-
gard to that principle had become more and more favoura-
ble to it. He would be willing to give his attention to any
suggestion for applying that principle, and he hoped that if
the house came to a decision on that point, that those who
had proposed amendments on the bill would be satisfied,
and not allow amendments to be brought on like the present
amendment, in order to defeat the measure—(hear, hear)—
but only bring forward such as would improve the bill.
(Hear, bear.) He only wished to say that he should have
no objection to an amendment for the purpose he had stated.
Mr. HENLEY denied that this amendment was intended
to defeat the bill. He adverted to the difficulty of esta-
blishing new corporations of this kind in counties. He
supported this amendment because it had this effect, that
when adding elective members to the old corporations you
kept alive that portion of it which was acquainted with the
business, and thus prevented any deficiency arising from
the inexperience of the new members. He believed the
plan proposed by the amendment would enable the bill to
work, and whereas as it at present stood he doubted whe-
ther it would, and whether it would not cause great con-
fusion in counties; and at the same time you would get rid
of a mass of clauses which were now in the bill, and
which it would be difficult to get to work. Reference had
been made to the second reading of the bill which, in fact,
they were now discussing, and the right hon gentleman the
member foe Manchester must admit that there had been
only one division on the second reading, and that was ad-
verse to the bill. But the right hon. gentleman stated that the
house had divided several times on the principle, and agreed
to it. [Ur. N. Gibson : I said the house bad several times
assented to the bill.] What had been assented to was not
this particular bill, bet the principle of the representative
system ; the only division was against the bill of the right
honourable gentleman last year. lie (Hr. Henley) believed
that if by means of this amendment you added an elective
body to the existing magistrates and then carved a working
body out of the whole, you would secure a proper control
over the financial matters of counties ; but if separate and
new corporations were created, there would be great con-
fusion caused, and there would be great difficulty. in carry-
ing out the plan, while there must be a great Increase of
expense. As to the giving an option to counties to avail
themselves or not as they pleased of the bill, although he
agreed it might be more prudent to da so, he only hoped
that the suggestion on that point which had been thrown
out would not induce the committee to be careless with
regard to the details of the measure which they were about
JOLLIFFE protested against his being thought
to Tote against the principle of representation if he voted
against the clause now before the committee in every stage.
He was convinced that the clause must be amended, in
order to hold out any hope of its working. There was an
appearance of unfairness in the amendment of his right hon.
friend with regard to the proportion of maaistrates be pro-
posed to have in the boards, as compared with the members
elected by ratepayers, and he suggested whether it would
not be better to withdraw it in favour of the amendment of
the hon. member for Sancrsetshire, the object of which was
the same.
Sir J. PARINGTON begged to say that from whatever
, quarter it came, he protested against the offensive im-
putation of unfairness brought against bins by the hon.
baronet.
Sir W. Jouirre and an Hos. MEMBER were under-
, stood to disclaim me .wing to make any such imputation.
The committee divided:
For the amendment ll5
Against it
Majority — 29
It being now within a few minutes of six, the house re-
, mined, the other orders of the day were postponed, and the
house adjourned at sex o'clock.