The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-16 00:00:00

fourtt Vbition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'llock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(THIS EVENING.)
COUNTY RATES AND ExPENDIT uRE BILL.

(Continued from our First Edition.)

After a few words from Mr. B. Denison, Mr. Pabeke,
Mr. Barrow, Mr. Freshfield, and other hon. members,

Mr. FITZROY denied that clauses had been intro-
duced into this bill by the Government. The only dif-
ference between this bill and that of 1851 was in the
manner of electing the board of guardians.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the house went
into committee.

On the motion of Mr. FRESHFIELD, the preamble
was postponed.
On the consideration of clause 1,
Mr. HENLEY moved as an amendment on page 1,
line 19, after the words " county of Lincoln," to insert
" and the Western division and Eastern division of the
county of Sussex."...
Mr. BAINES was afraid that the amendment could
not be agreed to without involving the necessity of in-
troducing many other amendments.
Lord PALMERSTON was of opinion that the intro-
-auction of this amendment would be productive of con-
siderable difficulty. He hoped that the right hon. gen-
tleman would not press it.
After some further discussion the committee divided,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment 7O
Against it

Majority 72
The original clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. SPOONER wished to know how this bill would
act with reference to Birmingham and other boroughs
which enjoyed the representative principle under the
IVrunicipal Corporation Act.
Mr. M. T. BAINES replied that the bill would in no
way interfere with the rights of such boroughs, because
all that the bill proposed to do was to extend the same
representative principle that applied to borough rates to
county rates.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause
three.

On clause 4 being proposed,
Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to move the following
amendment in line 17, after the words " consist
of " to insert these words, "the justices duly quali-
fied to act in such county, together with." The object
of this amendment was to enable the justices to act in
conjunction with the county financial boards to be esta-
blished under this bill. Many county members were
absent attending to their duties elsewhere, and it would
not be unfair if he were to ask that the further progress
of this bill should be postponed until after Easter, when
the Assizes and Quarter Sessions would be over. In
the absence of these honourable members it was hopeless
to think of gong on with his amendment, and under those
circumstances, he slikild withdraw his amendment for
the present, and move that the chairman do report pro-
gress.
After a brief discussion, this latter amendment was
withdrawn, and
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the first amendment.
The magistracy of this country consisted of a very large
body of gentlemen, and represented a very large amount
of prosperity, while no other body could have a deeper
interest in seeing that the county rates of England were
properly managed and legitimately economised. It
was only flair, therefore, that they should have a
voice on these county financial boards, and hence
the motive for his moving this amendment. Un-
less this amendment was agreed to, the small hol-
ders and occupiers of land in centres, would have
a great preponderating control and ascendancy over
that large body whose interest he wished to protect.
This bill went upon the principle that those who paid
the rate ought to have a voice in the making of them,
and he was at a loss to understand how this
amendment could be objected to seeing that the magis-
tracy, whom the bill as it now stood, would practically
disfranchise, were generally speaking the largest rate-
payers in every county. For instance, the effect of this
bill in Lancashire would be to displace all the acting
• magistrates, something like twenty-nine, and in other
countries, unless this amendment was accepted, its
operations would be the same, though perhaps in dif-
ferent proportions. Well, then, he must object to com-
mit the interest of a county .to the narrow board which
this bill would establish. Such a step would be fraught
with injustice, and he should resist it through its stages
if this amendment was rejected.
Mr. M. GIBSON could not consent to the amend-
ment because it would be fatal to the bill and en-
tirely adverse to the principle of the measure. What
the right hon. baronet proposed was nothing
,more
than this. The right hon. baronet proposed that there
should be a county financial board, as the bill proposed,
and then that the whole of the magistracy should be
added to that board. Now, what would be the effect of
such a plan ? Why, simply this. In the right hon. baro-
net's own county of Worcester there were 583 magis-
trates and 13 unions; and if the amendment were agreed
to, there would be a board of 13 elected by the rate-
payers, and to this board the 583 magistrates were to be
admitted to vote. Such a proposal was preposterous.
and for a man to talk of its justice was really absurd.
(Hear.) As well might they propose to add ten mem-
bers of the Commons to the House of Lords to equa-
lise the representation of the people, instead of
having two separate and distinct houses. If the amend-
ment was carried the rate-payers upon each county,
financial board would always be in a ridiculous mi-
nority, and he had, therefore, no hesitation whatever in
calling upon the committee to reject it. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, which he
saw proposed nothing more than the magistrates had a
right to expect at the hands of the Legislature. He
thought if they were to throw a little of the representa.
tive system into the existing bodies, the county financial
boards of this bill would work more harmoniously, and
be found more acceptable to all parties.
Mr. HUME said the clause as it stood ought to be
adopted. Half of each County Financial Board would
consist of magistrates, and the other half of ratepayers,
and seeing that the magistracy would still have the
power of election in this latter half, he could not under-
stand the opposition that has been raised to the bill. .
Mr. BUCK had no objection to the ratepayers being
represented in County Financial Boards, but he must
object to that part of the bill which proposed to disfran-
chise the magistracy. The representative principle had
for a long time prevailed in boroughs, but he had never
understood that financial affairs were managed better in
boroughs than in counties. Indeed, so far as his
own experience went, just the contrary was the
case, ' for in his county, while the county, rate was
only 24d. in the pound, in a neighbouring borough,
where the representative principle was in force, the
rates were 9d. in the pound. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND contended that the effect of
this bill, if it passed as it now stood, would be to abo-
lish many of the useful functions of county magistrates ;
and although he approved of the general principle of the
bill, he must resist it, unless that defect was remedied in
the manner proposed by the amendment. The bill as
it stood might be all very well, and exceedingly practi-
cable in Lancashire, but without the amendment it
would be found inoperative in agricultural counties.
21r • FELLOWES was of opinion that the bill with-
out the amendment would be found impracticable, be-
cause it would establish two boards in every county,
e
between whom there would be constant dissensions, as
the magistrates would
be wanting
financial board to do one thi▪
ng and
said
another.
the
the county
ALMERSTON s
the whole principle of the bill Repeatedly
amendment went to
of the house had reported ill. Repeatedly committees
in favour of its principle, and
it was mere clap-trap to talk of it as a democratic mea-
e. (Hear.) The bill
was
basedowith
ittiupon the principle
that representation ought to go
taxation ; but if
they were to agree to this amendment, and make each
thoseof who were
board consist of 500 members, plus
elected what chance would there be patnti▪
ng theH
principle of the bill into effective opera
could only understand this amendment as eem• e
from a man who was afraid that these new finan-
cial boards were going to launch into extravagance
but the object of, the bill was to check extravagance
the expenditure of counties, and he really could see no
reason whatever for introducing the amendment.
After some further discussion,
Mr. SPOONER moved that the Chairman report
progress, which was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN reported accordingly.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. H. HERBERT brought up the report of the
Southampton Election Committee, declaring the
lActed.
ney-General and Mr. Wilcox to have been duly e e
The honourable gentleman also reported that he.
was instructed to move that the Attorney-General
be instructed to prosecute two of the witnesses
called in support of the petition named Warren
and Mastern, as the committee believed that in giving
their evidence they were guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury.
The report was then ordered to lie upon the table.
Mr. HERBERT then moved that the Attorney-Ge-
neral be instructed to prosecute the two witnesses named
for
perjury, which was agreed to.
Lor.it ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE DUTY.
RthOegVENOR obtained
bill to repealG
tornies, solicitors leave to bring in a
annual certificate duty payable by at-
notaries, and to a'nPr"tors, writer
e 5
and
the law relating to the registra-
tion of attora"
d solicitors ; and the bill having been