The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-18 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY -Presented a petition
from Bolton in favour of the County Rates Bill; also a
petition praying for the repeal of the taxes on know-
ledge.
Colonel CHATTERTON presented a petition from
Cork, praying for an amendment of the Irish Poor-law.
Mr. hAsTIE presented a petition from Glasgow
against the Scotch Public-house Bill.
Mr. W. J. FOX presented a large number of petitions
from places in the West Riding and Lancashire in favour
of secular education.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition of immense pro-
portions from 61,500 of the male adult population of
Manchester, praying for a general system of secular
education, to be paid for by local rates and managed by
local boards especially elected by the rate-payers.
Mr. HUME presented petitions from Montrose and
other olives .esinst the Scotch Public-house Bill.
Col. LLOYD WATKINS presented a petition from
the ocen.ed postmasters and funeral coach proprietors
in the borough of Brecknook, for the repeal of the
post-horse duties and assessed tax on carriages, kept to
let or hire.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Mr. LOCKE KING gave notice that, on the secon'
reading of tt,e new Reform Bid, he should muva as an
amendment that no reform in the representation of the
people in the House of Commons e-ould be satisfactory
to the couritu which did not include a more equal pro-
portion of Members to the population than existed at
present.

MR, BENNETT.
Mr. HORSMAN have notice that, on an early
he should call the attention of the House to the esappoint-
ment of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to he living Gil rome.
SAVINGS' BANKS.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved for a return from each
caving,' te.-„nk in England and Walee, Scotland and Ire-
land, containing, in columns, the names of the offic-rs,
their respt4c%ive salaries and other allowances, if an';
the amount of security each gives; the number of acs
counts remaining open; the total amount owing to de-
positors; the total amount invested with the Commis-
sioners for the Redaction of the National Debt; the rate
of intorest paid to depositt rs; and the total amount of
the separate surplus fund the 20th day of November,
1850 and 1851; the rate per centum per annum on ne
capital of the bank; of the ,spenses cif management; the
annual number of receipts ;rom evp,;sitors; the annual
number of payments; the average amount of receipts;
the average amount of payments; the number and
amount of annuities granted; also the annual expen-es
of management, inclusive of all salaries—for the years
ended the 20th day of November, 1850 and 1851.—
Agreed to.

COUNTY RATES BILL.

Mr. FRESHFIELO, in moving the second reading of
this Bill, said it had been introduced for the purpose of
consolidating all Acts relating to county rates, and
amending all their incongruities. Under the Bill not a
shilling more would be raised than was done at present,
'amr would any person be subject to any liability which
was not already imposed upon him. But it was abso-
lutely necessary that the incongruities should be re-
moved, and the law rendered consistent in itself and
made more practicable. The subject had been investi-
gated by several committees appointed by various
ceunties, and the result of the investigation was a Bill
which fixed the rateable value of all counties, which he
now proposed to repeal. That Act was at first defective,
in so far as it did not specify to whom th 3 notice of ap-
peal was to be given in the event of an appeal
being made, and another Act was passed to
remedy this defect, but it did it so elumsily that this
Act was found to be inoperative, and he therefore now
proposed to amend the provisions of that Act. Some
of the existing Acts confounded the leve ing with the
assessment of a rate—the two proceedings, in fact, being
treated as synonymous; and this Bill would remedy that
defect. It would give the sessions of the county power
to establish the basis of a rate, and authority to assess
the rate, each parish having a month given to them for
appeal against any excessive assessment. The assess-
ment would be made annually, and *standing county-
rate committee would be crested in -each county, the
members to be elected annually, and their duties to con-
sist of investigating the appeals. The power, however,
of dismissing or allowing the appeal would reot
with the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the standing
committee would have to prepare reports for the
guidance of the sessions. The mode of assessment
which this Bill contemplated was that which was now in
force for levying the poor-rate, and apologising to the
House for detaining them so long, he had now only to
move the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. BOTJVERIE would not oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill, but at the same time he entertained con-
siderable objection to the Bill. In the first place, the
Bill was intended to consolidate the statutes relating to
the county rate, but it omitted some of the existing
statutes, and therefore it was defective in that respect-
There were oteer defects of detail in the Bill besides its
being objectionable in so far as it related to the mode of
assessment, and the mode of estimating each valuation
for levying the rate.
Mr. B. HOPE thanked the Hon. Member for Boson
for having introduced this Bill. He could not under-
stand why the Government should object to the basis
of the valuation proposed to be established by the Bill,
since that basis was precisely the same as that
upon which the income and property-tax had been
founded. The Bill, however, was detective in one re-
spect, it made no provision for a net valuation, but, per-
haps, the defect could be remedied in Committee.
Mr. HUME was glad this question had been raised,
not that he anticipated that this Bill would be passed
into a law, but it might settle the disputes that now ex-
isted as to the best mode of valuation. At present there
was a variety of valuations is force is different
parishes, and it was impossible, to have a fair
representation of the people in that House, unless a Bill
"as passed to establish a general and uniform rate all
Over the country. He thought Government ought to
bring in a Bill fur the purpose.
Mr- C. LEWIS said the law at present was as strong
as it could be mace; that the valuations for the poor and
county
necessity
yrsabtes should be equal and uniform, and there wee
u
'ity to press such a Bill as that suggested by the
Hon. Member for Montrose. It was true that the poor-
law valuation was occasionally unequal, but neverthe-
less he must object in into to placing the county-rate
upon a different basis to the or-rate or it would in-
volve the expense of t poor-rate ,
wo assessments.
Mr. HENLEY said such formidable difficulties had
arisen to the farther progress of the Bill, that the Hon.
Member must be a very courageous man if he ventured
to encounter the labour and attention which would be
required of him if he went into Committee. It was a
very objectionable measure in principle, and he regretted
that the Government had not recommended its with-
drawal,as to proceed with it was o 1
only to waste the time
of the House.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said he felt no alarm or nervous
affections in consequence of the Hon. Member's caution.
The Bill was one of the moat simple in operation, and
he anticipated no difficulty or serious obstruction to its
Passing through the House.
The Bill was then read a second time.
PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE proposed the second reading
of this Bill.
Mr. HUME said he was very sorry that the Hon.
Member had not withdrawn the Bill, because it
was not called for by any petitions which
had been presented to the House. He objected to the
measure on the
principle that the limitation of public-
houses would not have the desired result of putting a
stop to those drinking habits which he was sorry
to say had become very common in Scotland of
late years. He was as anxious as any one to re-
medy the evil, but that could not be done by
limiting the number of public-houses. A meeting of
Seotch Members was held yesterday,
Bill. Twenty-eight Members attended,taondconnostidoenre the
them entirely approved of its principle, the ROIL Mem-
ber (Mr. F. Mackenzie) himself only giving his
assent to one of the clauses. They, however all
agreed that a committee should be appointed
to inquire into the subject in a full and impartial man-
ner, and with the vies., of devising some more effectual
means of abating the crying evil. He was bound to say,
however, that a division took place, and that 12 voted in
favour of proceeding with the second reading, and 16
for its rejectio se bat the whole of the 12 had individually
objections ti most of the clauses. Steps hail already
been taker, in Edinburgh to diro!nisi2 the nurn-er of
public-houses, and whilst in 1830 there were 872, the
number had been reduced to 516 in 1851; but there had
been no commensurate benefit, for the vice had increased
instead of being diminished. The inference he drew
from the fact was that the same liberal policy which had
been so successfully adopted in London, where drunken-
ness had greatly decreased, should be pursuit' in Scot-
land. It was seldom one saw such large numbers of
drunken persons in the thoroughfares of the metro-
polis as filled the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
aerf.:ll‘
,;r In _ London thed monopole
in the sale of beer
plscYes of amusement bad been
LefnndaAars_c_selr,t.::, aladuibeede
where
hreemreovteh,
!aanbdouring classes could spend their
~,,q . .... time; and
_so great a change had taken
.-'2'se ~;, ~,...i,: lace in the morals of the people, that whilst
see, e ,
with drunkenness_ '' ke° e 4060 persons were charged
.---, "%:: • 1831, only 23,600 A ,!,, }„I„, , ,
:11r oe
i.
• ,;:.--•-:-.5- magistrates on a
charge during 1
h the n uisti
• ~/.4. . liFtast year, thoug pP - on had increased from
eT 500,000 to 2,ooo,ooo.—(Hear, h
-ear.) The working
Bicallae'v' bt f;re th • '
- e asses, instead of resorting to public
'4Z:gl -houses, now eta--
t

THE

S UN,

ployed their leisure time in visiting the British Museum
tied the Nationel Gallery, and in taking a jaunt to Hamp-
ton Court. He should move that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months, but would suggest
that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the
best means of improving the morals of the people both
in Scotland and England.—(Hear.)
The amendment having been put,
Lord DRUMLANRIG said, though not agreeing with
the whole of the Bill, he thought it would be better
to go into Committee, when an opportunity would be
given for discussing the whole of its details. He bore
testimony to the demoralising tendency which the great
consumption of spirits had upon the people of Scotland,
and to the urgent necessity which existed for some legis-
lative enactment upon the subject.
Mr. A. HASTIE supported the amendment, but de-
nied that the drinking habits of thhee c Sco
ontend tch p
ed that
consumption of spirits had largely diminished. He
approved of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, that a Committee should be appointed, and
he would give it his cordial support.
Mr. F. M AIME considered that the propositions
made on each side of the House did not differ very ma-
terially. There were many points on which he differed
from the Hon. Member for Montrose, but he was sure
that the objects of all parties would be attained by send-
ing the Bill to a Committee upstairs. It was, he con-
fessed, with great pain he had arrived at the conclusion
that the sad vice of drunkenness was very prevalent in
Scotland. He was not one to say anything derogatory
of his country; but he could not conceal from himself
the lamentable fact that in a popualation of three
millions there was a consumption of raw spirits
to the amount of about six millions of gallons.—
(Hear, hear.) Taking the whole of the population,
from the man who was tottering on the verge of the
grave down to the infant who an hour ago first saw the
light, that gave an average consumption of spirits
for each individual of two gallons per annum.—(Hear,
hear.). In Glasgow there was a public-house for every
164 of the population, including in that number both
young and old. This was as monstrous a state of
things as could exist in any city or any country. The
Hon. Member for Montrose said if beer licenses were
more generally given in Scotland the evil of drunken-
ness would be considerably diminished; but he doubted
whether that was a correct assumption. What he (Mr.
F. Maule) objected to was the system existing in Scot-
land of allowing bakers' and grocers' shops to have
licences for the sale of ardent spirits. That system
' had a double effect. First, it injured the fair
trader, because, whilst an honest baker for instance
sold good bread at the market price, there was another
baker in the same neighbourhood who offered his bread
at a price which was not profitable, and then made up
the deficiency by selling drams to his customers.—
(Hear, hear.) That it was which demoralised
his countrymen and countrywomen, and which ho
wished to see abolished.—(Hear.) It was at these shops
that the servant girl first learnt the taste of whisky, and
the youths of the country were demoralised; and he
would rather see in Edinburgh and Glasgow London gin
palaces established at the corner of streets, than
that servant girls and youths should obtain
whisky in a surreptitious way.—(Hear, hear.) If they
went into such public places they would die so openly,
and if no shame existed a brand of infamy would itt
many cases be stemp, d upon them, but now they ob-
tained whisky in grocers' shops in a secret and surrep-
titious manner—the habit of drinking grew up
from time to time, vice followed, vice and
at last they became irretrievably ruined. The
increase of beer shops would never make the cen-
sumption of beer supersede that of spirits in Scotland.
The object of a Committee ought to be to bring the con-
sumption of spirits under more control, and if that
could not be done then to make it more public,
so that public opinion could more effectually bear
upon the matter. The Honourable Member for
Montrose had also adverted to the advantages of
having public institutions for the resort and amusement
of the people; and if he would be less niggardly with
regard to the public purse, he would be most happy to
adopt his suggestions with regard to Scotland, but it was
clear they cou d not be carried out except at the ex-
pense of the country. Ho hoped the House would as-
sent to the second reading and then refer the subject to
a Committee, to be appointed for the purpose.
Mr. OSWALD admitted the consumption of spirits
in Scotland was great, and ought to be diminished, but
considering that no legislative measure would diminish
the consumption, he should support the amendment. The
Bill was a piece of the purest humbug he bad ever seen
introduced into the House. He regretted very much the
course which the Government had taken, because he
thought it was of the greatest importance that a
Bill of such a nature should be brought in by
the Government and not by an independent Member.
If they wanted an inquiry on the subject, let them have
a Committee, but he would not have them read this Bill
a second time, which he believed would be most mischie-
vous to the country.
Mr. MACGREGOR was sorry to have seen any mem-
ber of the Government supporting a Bill of this nature.
However they might alter it, he was convinced that this
Bill would not be of the slightest use. Legislation would
not effect anything. The only way to improve the so-
briety of the people of Scotland was by education, be-
ginning at the earliest age. To limit the number of
public-houses would be to offer a premium for the pur-
chase of larger quantities of spirits. The Bill was ob-
noxious to the wiaole people of Scotland, and he should
feel it his du, y to oppose it in every stage.
Mr. CU NINIING BRUCE said it was a pretty well
established fact that drunkenness had been a great cause
in counteracting the benefits of education which were so
widely spread in Scotland. According to the latest re-
turns the proportion of educated to uneducated criminals
in Scotland was as 4 to 1. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Glasgow said that the number of licences
had diminished, but the consumption of ardent spirits
in that city was thirty-six bottles per head of the whole
population, man, woman, and child, and spirits had been
called the mother-milk of Glasgow. Sheriff Alison's
testimony was to the effect that two-thirds of the
cdmes in that city was caused by the use of ardent
spirits. Were they, then, to be told that Scotch
gentlemen must sit down content with this evil with-
out attempting to ameliorate it? If the argument
of the Hon. Member for Glasgow, that legislation never
did any good in these matters was coreect, what was to
become of all the Bills that had been brought into that
House by the Eartof Shaftesbury to improve the condi-
tion of the working classes? He thought the best course
to pursue would be to read this Bill a second time, and
send it upstairs to a Committee with
:power to take
evidence on the subject.
Mr. CO WAN said that he represented a constituency,
among which he was ashamed to confess that there
existed great misery and pauperism, and he would
gladly support any
measure which he thought would
tend to alleviate it. He did not think that the Bill
would have that effect. It did not touch the great evil
—the wretched state of the dwellings of the poor, which
drove the people to despair, and led them to seek relief
and consolation in ardent spirits.
Sir J, HOPE approved of the general principle of the
and would support the second reading of it.
The LORD ADVOCATE said he intended to sup-
port the second reading of the Bill. Whatever might be
maid there oould not be the slightest doubt that intemper-
ance was the crying and scandalous evil in Scotland.—
(Hear.) He did not wonder at all at the returns which
had been quoted from the evidence of Sheriff Alison,
and no man who was at all connected with the criminal
affairs of that country could tail to see that, if they
could diminish the amount of intemperance, they would
also be diminishing the amount of crime.—(Hear,
hear.) It was to obtain some measure which would
have a tendency this way that he meant to vote
for the second reading of this Bill, but as re-
garded the Bill itselt, he could say at once that he
could not support it.—(Hear, hear.) The subject with
which it dealt was very important, and if the Bill were
sent to a Committee some additional light might be
thrown upon the subject and a better Bill devised. By
this means they would be more likely to obviate delay
than if they appointed a general Committee. If they
were to have a measure on the subject it would be better
to have it at once without delay. This Bill dealt only
with the licensing system, and though he did not expect
any very great result from that, still he thought, for the
reasons he had given, that it would be better to give this
Bill a second reading.
Mr. ELLIOTT opposed the Bill, being adverse to its
principle as well as to the details by which it was pro-
posed to carry out that principle.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE, in reply, said his wish was
that the Bill should he read a second time, in order that
it might be referred to a Select Committee, lad he
thought it better to take that course than to refer the
whole subject to a general Committee, the result of
which would only be fruitless resolutions, and the post-
ponement of
Lord MELGUND said that the course which the Hon.
Member_. proposed was certainly a most extraordinary
one; it was asking the House first to affirm the principle
of aBA and
principle
Wthen to inquire afterwards whether that
of legislation a good one. He believed that this system
which did sot as
be vicious, and would produce evils
r tee
yet exist.
Mr. BOUV
House to the fact,
swished to call the attention of the
had spoken in ,ortthat of all the Hon. Members who
supp
had advanced a single of the Bill there was not one who
The House then dedargumentdivi in its favour.
For the second re
The there appeared—
Against it ...
..pg •-• ... 123
Majority... 67.
The Bill was then read 'a
second time:. —56
ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYROLDS BILL.
On the motion for the second reading g of this Bill
Mr. HODGSON suggested that thesecond
until this day wee reading
might be postponed The Bill was
only printed and delivered yesterday.
Mr. AGLIONBY declined to accede to the but was one request.
The Bill was not a new one, which was
d from last session, and which
po.t pone was founded
Committee who had sat up
upen the report of aon the
subject.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER had looked into the provisions
of the Bill, but not being a professional man he con-
fessed he could not entirely understand it. He there-.
fore thought the appeal for a postponement was quite
justifiable.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the principle of the Bill was
in accordance with the Real Property Commission
that sat in 1832. In addition to that a Committee was
subsequently appointed to consider the subject of ccpy-
bold enf a. ehisement, before whom the late Sir Robert
Peel gel) must important evidence, and a Bill was af-
terwards passed authorising voluntary enfranchisement.
Lest year and the year previous the matter was again
ii.k.zo up, and ultimately re•erred to a second Comm:ate,
whr, eeme to C'e neer:more, reen!ution to recemenencl
Bid to the leleu,e. Ii was aceu:diegley
table late last session, and had since been considered
by the country, and it was generally allowed that the
provisions of the Bill were as favourable to the lord as to

LONDON,

the tenant. It was intended that its provisions should I
be carried out under the superintendence of a commis-
sion; and he had little doubt that it would be found to
work well.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND did not think the Bill
dealt out equal justice to both sides. It was a com-
pulsory Bill of a one-sided character, and he was
very much afraid it would do incalculable injury.
He readily admitted that the old antiquated copy-
hold tenare was unsound in principle, but
did the Bill do away with copyholds? Certainly not, it
left behind a remnant of the old system, and, therefore,
until they could legislate in such a way as to secure the
interests of both the landlord and the tenant, they
ought not to advance a step in the matter. The com-
pensation claims of this Bill were highly objectionable,
and he still gave it his humble opposition.
Mr. HUME said the object of the Bill was to abolish
copyholds altogether, and he fully approved of it. With
regard to the compensation clauses they could be got
rid of as amended in Committee.
Mr. FRESHFIELD had heard nothing which should
induce him to oppose the Bill. It was for the public
interest that the pernicious system of copyhold tenure
should be abolished, and the Bill should have his hearty
support.
Mr. MULLINGS supported the Bill, and hoped it
would not be rejected because it contained some defect
in its detail.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time
this day firtnight.
COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said this was another Bill
which had been carried over from last session, but since
then his opinion had undergone no change whatever
upon the subject of the Bill, and he must continue to
give it his decided opposition. It was proposed by the
Bill to transfer the management of the county rates
to a theatre that was entirely unfit for the
task. He had no desire to undervalue the
importance of taxation being accompanied by represen-
tation, but the management of county-rates was an ex- '
ception to the rule, and that argument would not apply
in this instance. The Bill was not the one recommended
by the Committee last session, or he might have felt
himself precluded from offering any opposition to it.
The House should remember that the Committee last
session was composed of some of the most distinguished
Members of the House, including the Right Hon. the Se-
cretary of State fer the Home Department and the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon; and after long and
careful investigation, the Committee came to the resolu.
tion of recommending a particular Bill, which the Right
Hon. Member for Manchester had taken upon himself to
set aside for the sake of introducing this measure; and he
hoped therefore the House would not sanction the second
reading. Neither the House nor the Government could
be prepared to take the management of the polico and
county gaols out of the hands of the magistracy of
England, and as this question was one of too much meg-
nitude and importance to be left in the bands of a private
Member, he called upon the House to join him in pre-
ventiug its adoption until it had been fully sanctioned
and brought in by some responsible Minister.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROBERT PALMER contended that the princi-

pie of this Bill was vastly different to the one which he
was prepared to support last year as well as now. Ile
did not object to the provision which gave the rate-
payers a voice in the management of county affairs,
but they ought to enjoy it with the magistracy, and he
was not prepared to support such an unjust species
of legislation. In his part of the country the ratepayers
took very little interest in this question; he had made
them fully acquainted with its principle and details, but
they had forwarded no petition or communication upon
the subject, and he presumed from that circumstance that
they cared very little about the matter. Oa the other
band, he believed they were guile satisfied with the pre-
sent system, and the House should pause before they at-
tempted to disturb it. Until he saw a stronger expres-
sion of opinion in the country in favour of the Bill, he
should always be prepared to oppose it.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. GrIBON considered the Hon. Member had
no right to assume that because the unions adverted
to were silent they were therefore opposed to
the Bill. The mode adopted fur constituting the

boards was very just and proper, viz., to give
the ratepayers the power of selecting persons, whether
magistrates or not, whom they thought were best quali-
fied to be members of financial boards for the aes,ss-

ment and expenditure of the county rates. In making
the alterations in the Bill he had acted in accordance
with the principles which the Committee of
the House had laid down—(Hear, hear)—that the
boards should be strictly financial, tied not interfere
is the slightest degree with the judicial duties of the
magistracy. The Bill contained a great deal that had
beeu recommended by the Committee. He admitted it
was very desirable that the Government should take up
the matter.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Mem-
ber for Montrose was the first volunteer who brought
the question before the House, and unless there were
volunteers in legislation they would never progress
at all, because the Government could not introduce any
measures that were necessary. And no one showed a
greater example in volunteer legislation than the Hon.
Member for Droitwich.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Mil-
ner Gibson) considered that when the House delibe-
rately sanctioned a principle, as it had done the prin-
ciple of this Bill, it was the duty of the Executive
Government to carry out that principle in practical
legislation. He would, therefore, most gladly abandon
the measure if the Government would premise to take it
in hand. The Earl of Derby had stated that the great
and rapid increase of county rates well deserved atten-
tion, and that in the county with which he was con-
nected they had risen from 77,0001. in 1823 to 175,0001. in
1848, and that it was an:suonialy that such a sum should
be assessed and expended by the magistrates without the
control of the ratepayers.—(Hear.) The prayer of a pe-
tition presented to the House by the farmers of Buck-
inghamshire also made a similar statement, and asked
for some remedy. He had no wish to rouse up
any bad feeling in the country, but only
to obtain the appointment of boards composed of fit,
proper, and business men to control the county rates.
He hoped the House would not throw out the Bill on
the second reading, and allow the magistrates to con-
tinue to exercise an irresponsible control over the money
of the ratepayers, but would, by agreeing to the mea-
sure, show it. considered some legislation was necessary
to allow the ratepayers that control which undoubtedly
and
they were entitled to possess.
GREY said there were very important
s constitutionally oGn sEt iot uht iGo nEa 1y
differences between this Bill and the one formerly in-
troduced.—(Hear, hear.) He stated on a former occa-
sion that he thought there was no groat evil to re-
medy, nor any great abuse existing in the management
of county rates; and he was borne out to a great extent
in those assertions by the gradual diminution of the
rates; but, at the same time, he said he was unable to
deny the admission of the representative system
into the boards which were to be entrusted
with the county expenditure. He added, he
was nevertheless aware of the complicated
nature of the subject, and thought it was not thoroughly
understood by those who had prepared the Bill; and on
that occasion he only assented to the second reading on
condition that it was to be referred to a Select Com-
mittee. But in the present Bill the recommenda-
tions of that Committee had not been attended
to. The magistrates, for instance, were not, as
originally proposed, to form a part of the board unless
elected, and they were thus virtually excluded from al!
participation in the administration of the funds, and
that was an exclusion to which he was not prepared to
assent. If the Bill remained in its present state it
should receive his opposition in every stage of
its progress. He did not see that any practical
result would be arrived at by agreeing to the second
reading, the time of the House would only be wasted
fruitlessly and uselessly, and though adhering to the
principle which it sought to establish, he felt compelled
to refuse his assent to its further progress.
Mr. BRIGHT observed that nothing had been said
which showed that if legislation was desirable on the
subject, a good Bill might not be made out of the
measure of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear.) He accused
the Secretary of the Home Department of being for-
merly a concealed, bat now an open opponent of a mea-
sure for the appointment of county financial boards.
Mr. DEEDES said, having been a member of the
Committee, he could bear testimony to the impartial
part which had been taken by the Secretary of the
Home Department.—(Hear.) The very material altera-
tions made in the Bill were not matters of detail, but of
principle.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member repudiated
.the
assertion, that any party motives actuated the opponents
of the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME was of opinion that one of the greatest
anomalies in the country was the expenditure 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
disposition 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 bad 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 ,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 from that which had twits
received the sanction of the House.
Mr. W. PATTEN agreed with the Hon. Member for
Montrose that, whatever might be thu faults of this
13,11 rt:s great p..y Cu, ratijorizy of tho n:tepeycrs
o. tuis (*awry be di.,appointi.l hy its rej.c.iun.
Though, in deference to the feelings expressed by his own
constituents he meant to support We 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 the 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 . .
Against it ...
Majority
The Bill was consequently lost.
The Commons Enclosure Bill was then read a second
time.

63
... ... 130
...-•--67