The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-13 00:00:00

the two "periods of 1792 and 1833, he found that the
county expenses had increased in the following pro-
portiont—Ceustruction of bridges, from 42,0001. to
74,000 L; houses of correction, from 92,0001. to 177,000/. ;
maintenance of prisoners, from 45,0001. to 127,0001;
prosecutions, from 34,000/. to 155,0001.; constables, from
6591. to 2,6801.; salaries of officers, from 16,000/.
to 51,0001.; vagrants, from 315,000/. to 708,00 e/.
Now what was the total increase which had taken place?
In 1835 the total amount of the county expenditure in
England and Wales was 693,000/., and in 1847 the
county rates were 1,100,0001., being an increase of 74
per cent. To show the importance of the question it was
necessary he should show what had been done to relieve
the county rates of the heavy charge that
had been thrown upon them. In 1835 the expenses of
prosecutions at assizes were 80,0001., the expenses of
conveying prisoners 30,0001., and of the Poor-law Com-
mission 42.0001., making a total of 153 000/. paid in
18:35 from the Consolidated Fund. In 1836 the amount
paid was 94,0001. Parliament had paid. in 1837,
154,000/ ; in 1833, 173,000/. ; in 1839, 179,000/. ; in
1840, 205,0001.; in 1841, 236.000/ ; in 1842, 105
.0001.;
in 1843, 220,0001; in 1844, 235,000/; in 1845, 219.000!.;
in 1846. 379.0001.; in 1847, 530 0001.; in 1848, 542 000/ ;
rendering an aggregate of 3,532,000/ which Parliament
had relieved the counties of against ihe county rates, as
between the 74 per cent., according to the statement he had
given. He asked whether this was not the time to
establish some control over those matters? He cculd
not understand why there should be any objection to
this all, for it must be the interest of every lauded
proprietor to have the rates and payments paid to the
country as light as possible.—(Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion then arose, whether the existing mode was the best
that could be adopted, and whether it was fit that, under
such a great increase that system should be continte d,
or whether the House should adopt some plain principle
of taxation and representation, although not to the
full extent it was desirable to do.—(Hear, hear.)
That was the object of the Bill which he now
brought forward. Ho thought there was a general de-
sire among the county Members to see a better system.
Some counties had adopted finance committees to attend
to the expenditure.—(Hear, bear.) Now that might be
very well for county Members, but it did not give satis-
faction to the ratepayers generally. He therefore hoped
the House would support him in the second reading of
the Bill, which merely affirmed the principle, and lett the
details to be dealt with subsequently.
Mr. H. DISUM.MOND said the Hon. Member for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) contended that a board should be
appointed to revise and audit the the county taxation of
the country. Now he decidedly objected to the
introduction of such a pri ciple, as he believed
I the counties of England perfectly capable of
managing their own expenditure. He wished it to be
understood that great misapprehension existed as to the
powers of the magistrates with rest), et to the expendi-
ture of the committees with which they were connected.
The object of the Bill, the Honourable Mein-H
ber said, was to reduce the expenditure to
the utmost. Now, with respect to the county with which
he was connected (Surrey), he must be permitted to soy
that he had carefully looked over the accounts of the
treasurer, and he was convinced that there was not an
item charged in it that could be saved. The Poor-
law Commissioners, had, it was true, reduced the
expenditure in many cases where it appeared
to him they should not have done so
—he meant the fees of medical men,
and the expenses incidental to their attendance, the con-
sequence of which was the poor were not properly
attend. d. He quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that the county expenditure had increased, and in the
county in which he had so long resided gaols had been
erected in opposition to the wishes of the magistrates
by those whom the Honourable Gentleman supported in
that House. Three gaols had been erected within his
memory, and they were about to be put to the expense
of erecting a new one. They could not help it, tor the
magistrates had no option in the matter. Then, not lung
ago, a!ter the gaols had been fitted up in accordance with
a certain plan, an order come down from theinome-office
directing that they should give the prisoners chocolate
for breaktast—(Laughter)—and great expense was
entailed upon teem in the erection of new kitchens.
(Hear, hear.) This was not the fault of the magistrates;
they had nothing to do teith it. He held two petitions
in his hand, which had been presented from intelligent
persons, setting forth that the magistrates in their re-
spective localities had put them to great expense by the
erection of new goals. Now, it happened that the ma
gistrates had nothing to do with the matter. He thought
the present system wrong altogether.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he gathered from the
speeches of the two Hon. Gentlemen who bad spoken
last, that in their opinion those who contributed to the
county rates should have the lull control of
the expenditure. Now he took no excep-
tion to that principle, and was willing to
adopt it ; but he was prepared to show that though
the Bill might be in accordance with the theories of the
lion. Gentleman's supporters, that it would be altoge-
ther impracticable and most objectionable, and he trusted
that neither her Majesty's Government, nor any consi-
siderable portion of the Members of that House, would
support it. Indeed, there never was a time when the
county expenditure was watched with mute care and
rigid economy than at the present moment.
Mr. BUME—By whom?
Sir J. PAKINGTON—By the magistrates appointed
to superintend it. No mercantile establishment was
conducted with greater care than the expen-
diture of the county with which ho was con-
nected.—(Hear.) Indeed, he had no objection to the
appointment of a Committee to investigate the whole
matter, and he begged to intimate that he intended to
move th at puilit.eeet of such a Committee. He believed
the Bill to be an affront to the gentry of the count( s,
against whom no malpractices had been a:leged;
indeed, no charge whatever had been preferred against
them. The lion. Gentleman rested his case on, and
indeed the Bill its• if orignated solely out of the expen-
diture of, Lancashire. lie held the balance-sheet trom
1 1834 to le4B in his hands. and he was prepared on the
serength ut it to contend that this Bill ought riot to pass.
He thought he could prove to the House that a more
unfair case was never put forward in support of any
measure than this Lancashire statement. The Hun.
Memoer for Montrose had stated that the expenditure
of the county of Lancaster in 1824 was 80,000/.,
and that in the year 1848 that expenditure
had swollen up to 179,000/, so that in the course of
24 years the expenditure had increased by 100,0001. Now
he thought he could show the House that this was a
most unfair view of the case, though he admitted the
figures to be correct. But how was this accomplished?
He submitted to the Hon. Gentleman that in order to
make a fair comparison he must take the
same items in 1848 that were taken in 1824. Well,
then, he found that in the year 1848 the expenditure
was increased in this way. The county had to make
additions to two gaols, and it had to build or make addi-
tions to three lunatic as; lums, which had cost
92.000/. Nuw if they deducted that sum from the
179,0001., it would leave 87,000/. for 1848, for those
items which cost 80,0001. in 1824, showing an increase of
only 7,0001. during a period when the population had
increased from 1,052,000 to 1,667,000. But that was not
all; in 1848 the solitary eystem had been in operation
which was not the case in 1824, and if they deducted the
cost of that system from it, it would leave 60,0001.
as
tlhBe2
expenditure fuerxpleBn4aBiturfeor
ofthBeo,oio4o7..L(wthoiucdh
in
cries of " Hear.") He hoped, therefore, that he had
convinced the House that su far as this Lancashire case
was concerned it really formed no justification for this
most objectionable Bill, or any ground fur bringing a
charge against the magistrates.—(Hear, hear.) But ad-
mitting that there were some defects in Lancashire,
that was no reason why the whole of England
should be dosed by a Bill which he would pre-
sently ~how would be unjust and impracticable.
As an example of the manner in which this Bill was
likely to act, he might state that he had ascertained that
in the county of Lancashire alone there were no less
than 450 magistrates, gentlemen all of them of property,
and some of them in the possession of large estates, and
a portion men of enormous property, all of whom con-
tributed very largely to the amount of the county rates.
—(hear, hear.) It seemed to him that it was the most
enormous absurdity in the world to say that these
gentlemen were not to have the regulation of the
expenditure of those rates.—(Cheers and counter
cheers.) For his own part, he must reiterate
his opinion, that it was the landlord who paid the rates.
—(Cries of " No, no.") He thought that his Honour-
able Friend was not in the House at the time this sub-
ject was discussed. All these local burdens on land
were borne by the landlord, and not by the holder, of
the farm.—(Hear, hear.) What, did not the Gentlemen
who heard him, remember that when a tenant took a
farm he took it with a full knowledge of all the local
burdens to which it was liable, and that all these cir-
cumstances were considered in arrangement of the rent?
—(Cheers and counter cheers.) It was then the land-
lord who, in fact, paid the rates. He would, indeed, allow
that there were some circumstances in which the burden
fell upon the tenant; and that was the case whenever
from unforeseen circumstances it was necessary to levy
an unusual rate. But did any one believe that these
sorttereferu a
eo
ttfo
wthhhi
ennogws
httwe
cetoroueonknt t:l3
that
invariablyhsaftfarm?—(Cheers)
w? considered by every
s —or(e?shteeresrheile,Hfoer an apt
illustration of the evil which this Bill would work by
transferring the government of the expenditure from the
magistracy to the board of guardians of the county,
for it would be transferring the direction of
the rates from those who were, in fact, the greatest
rate payers, to those who contributed comparatively
little to the aggregate of the county receipts, He did
hope that Hon. Members would look at this view of the
case. But they must allow him to show how the Bill
would work in the county with which he himself was
connected. That county was Worcestershire. In Wor-
wstertne twothe hundredmmpargi
siisntgr a ttehse, who
taryl I
eer e
had
t ear al iarrgee tihnct
and clergy. Now they all knew how . heavily the clergy
were taxed. In the county he found there were twelve
poor-law unior.e,
comprising eighteen guardians
and nine magistrates,
so that the whole of
in the country have had their
the greatest rate-payers
for the k t
t taken away sa e o
these two hundred gentlemen, who were themselves
power and their interest
of
awhich,
collectively,
placing them in the hands body
portionchairman of the county, and he
contributed but a
himself for many years
attention
was
always
could say that the most scrupulous e
small to the rates. He was
d of large expenditure he
,
as for instance the building of a
in their hands. In every case in indeed of large expenditure,
as t'or instance the building of a lun
Elsie asylum (and o
paid to the laying out of the money y which was deposited
was glad
a Bill to throw the expenditure for such
purposes
ro-
county rates) not a tarthing was expended,
ear,
sition considered without a most siftuag --(H
hear.) The Honourable Member for
Montrose had
or any
p po
upon the
stated that it was desirable to transfer those powers
from a fluctuating to a more stable body, but what body,
he should like to know, could be more fluctuating than
that of men who were re-elected to their sever?l
offices every year. Whereas, on the_contraryl a 1