The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-19 00:00:00

TH E StIN, .

LO/sTDONv

Mr. HUME was of opinion that one of the greatest
an )tnalies in the, cmntry
was the expaditure of so
much money without any control. He was perfectly
indifferent who introduced the Bill as long as the object
was attained. He was somewhat surprised that the
Secretary for the -Home Department, who twice
supported the principle of the Bill, should now turn
round and give a denial of justice to the ratepayers.
He had no desire to attribute any improper motives, but
he thought the Right Hon. Baronet would show a better
di'position towards the country if he would allow the
Bill to go into Committee, when he could propose any
alterations that he deemed necessary.
Mr. HENLEY was of opinion there would be no
difficulty in deciding who were the real friends of
the parties who desired this important question
settled and who were their opponents.—(Hear.) It was
a question of great difficulty, and little understood by
the Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill. If he
had availed himself of the assistance of the two Com-
mittees who had devoted so much time to the subject,
he would have shown a more sincere desire to devise
a satisfactory measure, perhaps not one that would
meet the views of extreme parties, but would at
at least not bring the financial affairs of counties to a
dead lock. A very unfair attack had been made on a
Minister of the Crown, who had made a great effort
to put the Bill into some practicable shape, but he doubted
whether the measure had not been brought forward with
a view to agitation.—(Hear.)
Mr. BARROW said he supported the establishment
of these county financial boards, and, so far as they
did not interfere with the judicial functions
of the magistrates, nothing E'was more reason-
able than that the ratepayers should have no con-
fidence in the magistrates in regard to financial matters,
because they were not elected by them, and were placed
beyond any responsibility. He should certainly sup-
port the principle that property subject to taxation
ought to have the right of protecting itself. He would
vote for the second reading of the Bill..
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the Bill on the ground
that it was totally different froth that which had twice
received the sanction of the House.
Mr. W. PATTEN agreed wish the Hon. Member for
Montrose that, whatever might be the faults of this
Bill, it was a great pity the majority of the ratepayers
of this country should be disappointed by its rejection.
Though, in deference to the feelings, expressed by his own
constituents he meant to support the second reading
of the Bill, he must confess he was greatly disappointed
by the course which had been taken by his Right Hon.
Friend who had charge of the Bill. He hoped, how-
ever, that in Committee it would be restored somewhat
to the shape which it had formerly borne,
Mr. HEYWOOD' bore testimony to the great
desire which was felt in his part of the country
on the part of ratepayers for a change
in their present position with regard to county rate ex-
penditure. He, however, greatly regretted the omission
of the composition clause, and if they went into Com•
mittee on the Bill he should certainly vote for its re-in-
sertion. The Bill of last year had been the result of
careful investigation on the part of the Committee which
had sat on the subject, and he should certainly have
preferred seeing it brought in in the shape which it then
wore.

The gallery was then, cleared for a division, when
there appeared—
For the second reading . . ... 63
Against it. ... 130
Majority .•• ...
The Bill was consequently lost.
The Commons Enclosnxe Bill Ass then read a second
time.