The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
THE COUNTY RATES BILL.
(Continued from First Edition of yesterday. )
Sir J. PAItINGTON had listened with great satisfac-
tion to what had fallen from the noble lord. In offering
a few observations on the subject, he would implore the
house and the noble lord to bear in mind what was really
the animus of this bill. He could not conceal from him-
self that the animus of this bill was to strike a blow at
the magistracy of England. The noble lord might not
be aware of the vote come to last year in a discussion on
the same subject. The hon. member for Manchester
brought in a bill last year differing from the present only
inasmuch as it dispensed with the services of the magis-
tracy altogether, and after some discussion the house re-
jected that bill. In consequence of that rejection, the
right hon. gentlemen has brought in the present mea-
sure, and he had stated that his object was to proceed by
instalments to supersede the magistracy, and he had re-
sorted to two fallacies, which he had repeated year after
year until perhaps he believed them himself. He was
glad that the noble lord had detected those fallacies.
The first was, that the great principle that taxation
should only be imposed by one's own representatives
was revoked by this bill. The second fallacy was an
invidious one—it placed the magistracy on one side
and the ratepayers on the other. (Hear, hear.)
He was not disposed to oppose the second reading, but
he reserved to himself the power to take the gravest ob*-
jection to all the most important provisions of the bill.
He thought that a bill of such a, magnitude ought to be
taken tip by the Government, and not be carried forward
by a private member. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion
it would be most impolitic and unwise to deprive
magistrates of their existing powers, seeing that they
without the slightest emolument, discharged many
heavy and onerous duties with great honour to them-
selves and credit to the country. Though he was always
an advocate for the Boards of Guardians, he viewed with
great dread their being converted into local councils for
the transaction of matters entirely foreign to the duties
prescribed for them by the Poor Law Act.
Sir G. GREY entirely concurred in the course taken
by the noble viscount the Secretary of State for the
Home Department. He declared now, as he had done
before, that it was, in his opinion, desirable for the satis-
faction of ratepayers, that the representative principle
should be applied to the election of the boards charged
with the administration of the .financial affairs of coun-
ties ; he had stated so much in reference to a former bill
of the hon. member for Manchester when he was in
office in 1851. He had no doubt that if the amend-
ment proposed by the noble viscount were introduced
into the bill it would be greatly improved, and would
stand a great chance of passing the house.
Mr. HENLEY urged' the necessity on the part of the
executive of not allowing any interference with the ma-
gistrates in the management of prisons and lunatic asy-
lums. He objected to turning boards of guardians into
electoral-councils, that being a principle which was quite
new and foreign to our constitution. If the financial
boards were to be elected, it would be much better to
place their elected in the hands of the rate-payers than
to intrust it to the guardians. He hoped the Govern-
ment would take charge of the bill, and put it in a shape
more likely to meet the approval of the house.
Mr. BAINES explained that the proceedings '
of the
new financial boards would be entirely public, a clause
having been introduced into the bill expressly for that
purpose.
Mr. BARROW said he,approved of the bill, though
he had no wish to interfere with the executive power of
the magistrates. It had been said that the bill would
deprive them of their ancient rights, but not one of the
powers proposed to be conferred on the financial boards
vas given to them by the commission of the peace ; they
were conferred upon them by driblets, because there
was no machinery in existence by which the rate-payers
could elect financial boards. That machinery was, how-
ever, now supplied by the boards of guardians. He was
not indisposed to consent to some amendments being
made in the bill, but he trusted the principle' would not
be so fitted away in committee as to render the bill
almost inoperative when it passed into law.
M-:. T. B. SMITH supported the bill.
Mr. PACKE went at some length into the details of
tire bill, and pointed out the ill effects it would have
upon many parts of county administration, particularly
the management of lunatic asylums.
Mr. WHALLEY thought the present bill would
benefit the county magistracy in the opinion of the
ratepayers, by removing from them all those imputa-
tions which most undeservedly now rested on them.
Mr. HITME thought that the bill ought to be in the
hands of the Government. Its effect would be to place
the ratepayers in the counties in the same condition as
the ratepayers in boroughs were placed by the Reform
Bill.

Mr. PACKE thought that to place the ratepayers in
Rome of the western counties in the same condition as
`the ratepayers in small towns would be the greatest in-
jury which could be inflicted upon them.
After a few words from Mr. M. GIBSON, who est-
pressed his acquiescence in the proposition of the Go-
vernment, the bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed fro forma on Friday.
COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill went through committee pro forma.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—ADJOURNED
DEBATE.
Mr. FAGAN opened the adjourned debate. Ho con-
tidered that the principal object in renewing this discus-
sion was to keep alive the violent religious spirit which
had been awakened in this country by the hon. gentleman
the member fur North Warwickshire, assisted by the
late Government, with a view to influencing the deci-
sion of Irish election petitions, which would shortly be
before the house, and in which accusations were made
against Roman Catholic priests of interfering with the
elections by means of intimidation.' The honourable
gentleman then proceeded to animadvert at some length
upon the penal laws of former times, and "the corruption
of late times, which he contended had' beet unable to
destroy the Roman Catholic faith, which was still the
national religion of Ireland. Although he would prefer
to'see the &man Catholic religion:independent of the
Government, yet still he thought it was the duty of
every Government to see that the clergy of its
Erdbjects were maintained, and the means of
education provided. On this ground he had
always supported the Queen's College, and still
more the grant to Maynooth. The college of Maynooth
was founded in the year 1795, in the midst of the French
revolution, and though so many reasons had been given
for it, he believed that the real reason was political, to
prevent the Irish youth destined for the priesthood from
being sent to France and imbibing French doctrines.
The final settlement had been made by Sir R. Peel, and.
with that settlement Ireland remained contented until it
it was disturbed by the hon. member for North War-
wickshire. The arguments which the hon. member had
used to urge for the abolition of this grant, if carried out,
. must lead to the discontinuance of all Protestant mis-
sions and establishments in our colonies and in foreign
countries. The hon. member evidently had not read the
report of the committee of 1827, because in every line of
it. was contained a refutation of his arguments.' °The
'non. gentleman bad relied greatly upon his quotations
from Bellarmine and Thomas Aquinas ; but the hon.
gentleman ought to know that the doctrines laid down
by those writers, with regard to the point for which the
hon. gentleman quoted them, were repudiated and dis-
avowed by all the Catholic universities, and all thinking
Catholics. The lion. gentleman said that the Roman
Catholic religion was subversive of liberty; but he would
ask on what side had Irish Roman Catholic members
always been found if not on the aide of civil and religi-
glens liberty ? The hon. gentleman then found fault
with the dispensing power of the Roman Catholic reli-
gion to relieve from oaths. Why, he had taken the
trouble to collate the opinions of Roman Catholic and
Protestant divines on this point, and he found that they
were exactly the same, namely, that the dispensing
power was limited always by the law of nature. With
regard to the order of Jesuits, he believed that no body
of men had done more than that order for the civil and
religious liberties of the world, and it was for that rea-
son that the Sovereigns of Europe had persecuted that
order. He hoped that the hon. gentleman's motion
would be rejected by a large majority—that it might be
caushed for ever.
Mr. A. MILLS said he should support the motion,
because he believed that the Roman Catholic system was
calculated to ruin and destroy the social resources of
every country which adopted it. This was the real rea-
aoi.i why the English constituencies had so strong a feel-
upon this matter, and not from any religious motives.
Mr. J. BALL wished to direct the attention of the
house to the answer to this motion which their own
archives contained. There were reports in the library
which refuted all the statements which the hon. member
for North Warwickshire had made, and he could not but
regret that this motion had been proposed. The lan-
guage which accompanied its introduction was most un-
called for. It was justly offensive to the Roman Catho-
lics o the
f house, and he could not help feeling that the
hon. member for North Warwickshire ought to have
been called to order when he used it. He warned the
house that these discussions could have no good object,
indeed they were calculated strongly to create disaffec-
tion in Ireland. The parties who were now spending
their days in a penal settlement for treason committed
in Ireland, never used half so many invectives to sedi-
tion as they heard from the hon. member for North
Warwickshire last night. The authorities of Maynooth
did not object to an inquiry being instituted into their
system, but what they complained of was the manner in
which this motion, and others similar to it, were made.
The late Government profited very largely• by the anti-
Maynooth cry, and before this debate closed, he hoped
soKne of the members of that Government would favour
tie house with their opinions upon this
motion. The establishment of the grant was
received by Ireland as a disposition on the
part of the British Legislature to deal graciously
with her ; and when the late Sir Robert Peel suc-
ceeded in carrying the measure, Ireland was not want-
ing in srpplin manifestations of her gratitude. But,
in queFciiins of this sort a perpetual display of gratitude
Was quite uncalled for, because when this grant was
pass...A it was conceded not as a mark of favour but an 1
act of justice:
Lord LOVAINE said, the honour and good faith of
-the country was, pledged to the continuance of this grant,
unless it could be shown that it had been grossly mis-
applied, or willfully abused. No proof, however, of
such misapplication or abuse had,yet come before them,
and he, therefore, felt himself bound in honour to resist
this motion.
Mr. PORTESCIJE was glad that this was not a mo-
ti°4 for inquirY, but a directproposal to withdraw the
grant, as it would enable the house• to come to a direct
vote upon the subject, at once put a stop to this
Anti-Maynooth
granting of a committee
would only.have increased the excitement, and the eries