The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the Census Bill,
so far as related to the profession of religious doctrines;
against the Highways Bill; against the Sunday Trading
Bill ; against the alleged aggression of the Lords in respect
to the Duty on Paper Bill, and praying the house to yin:.
dicate its privileges.

THE REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that to-morrow, when
the Prime Minister brought forward the resolutions rclet-
ing to the Paper Duty Bill, he would move, as an addition
to such resolutions, that an humble address be presented to
her most gracious Majesty humbly praying that she will not
prorogue Parliament until a bill for the repeal of the excise
duty on paper has been submitted to her for her assent.
(Hear, bear, and laughter.) The hon. member also inquired
of the Home Secretary whether it was intended by the Prime
Minister to move the resolutions seriatim, or whether he
would submit the three resolutions to the house together
for the consideration of hon. members.

Sir G. LEWIS said that he believed the practice was to
propose resolutions of this character seriatim, and he sup-
posed his noble colleague would adopt that course.

CHURCH RATES LAW AMENDMENT.
' On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,

Mr. HUBBARD explained at some length the provi-
sions of the measure, which was not calculated to interfere
with the conscientious convictions of Dissenters, though it
does not go the same length that some hon. members advo-
cateJ, or the views entertained by those who were desirous
of a severance between Church and State. The bill affixed
no stigma on Dissenters, but he considered that some pro-
visions were necessary in order to render the object of the
act more clear. He was convinced that the bill would
work satisfactorily, but at this advanced stage of the ses-
sion it could not be expected to pass through both houses.
Under these circumstances he would move that the order
of the day for the second reading should be discharged, but
he pledged himself that if Government, or some influential
member of the house did not like the subject he would in-
troduce a bill on the question next session. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. GRIFFITH objected to postponing legislating
on this subject.
Ultimately the motion was agreed to, and the order of
the day for the second reading of the bill was discharged.

HIGHWAYS BILL.
Sir G. LEWIS moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. HODKINSON moved as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time that day three months. He
drew attention .to the unpopularity of the measure, as
indicated by the number of petitions presented
against it since its introduction. One of the
reasons, no doubt, why the Government proposed this bill
was, that several roads in the country were in'bad repair ;
but he did not consider that a large board would be better
calculated to carry out the process of road-making than sur-
veyors, who were chosen every year by the rate-payers.
They were generally the parties most using the roads, and
most interested in keeping them in repair ; while they were
usually selected from the longest rate-payers. By the plan
proposed in this bill for the present system, to establish
paid surveyors, paid treasurers' and paid clerks, all of
which situations were to be held by different
individuals these boards would require a place
for meeting like the Metropolitan Board, and then they
would place themselves in communication with the Secre-
tary of State. In all probability they would ultimately
have a Highway Board sitting in London. and analogous
to the Poor Law Board, and the result wouldbe to increase
the expenditure of rate-payers. In adverting again to the
unpopularity of the bill, he said that no less than 360 peti-
tions had been presented against the bill, which were
signed by 26,000 rate-payers, which, however, did not
represent the aggregate of those opposed to the bill,
because in many cases the petitions were merely
signed by the chairman of different boards through-
out the country: He also strongly objected to
the principle of the bill, as it was calculated to affect the
impartiality of magistrates, who would be one day prosecu-
tors, and the next judges trying offenders whom they had
prosecuted. The hon. member referred to South Wales,
where the principle of this bill was in operation, and which
gave considerable dissatisfaction. The tolls on turnpike
roads amounted to more than the conveyance by railways,
and in some instances as much as £6O a mile had been ex-
pended in keeping the roads in repair ; and in 1856 no less
than £2,149,733 had been laid out on these roads through-
out the country.
Mr. KER SEYMER supported the bill, and referred to
an opinion expressed by the late Sir Robert Peel in 1846,
who proposed to introduce a measure on the subject con-
taining the same principle as this bill relative to district
boards and paid surveyors. That sagacious statesman said
there were no less than' 16,000 different local authorities
connected with the management of highways, which, he
contended, was injurious to the interests of the agricultural
classes, with whom good roads was a matter of the greatest
importance.
Mr. FREELAND opposed the bill, which, he eontended,
would increase the burthens of the rate-payers. Besides,
the measure would place magistrates in situations in which
they might be suspected, as their interests might be different
to those of the rate payers.
Mr. KNIGHT did not expect that the bill would have
been persevered with, and though he entertained many ob-
jections to the measure he did not recollect them at that
moment, and therefore he would not detain the•house at
any length. He believed that the reads in England were
not in a bad condition, and they were far superior to any
other in Europe. He concluded by urging on the Home
Secretary not to press the bill, which was unpopular, at so
advanced a period of the session.
Mr. DEEDES said that the present system with regard
to the repairs of roads was the worst that could exist, and
an alteration was imperatively required. He approved of
the bill, though he thought it might be improved in com-
mittee.
After a few words from Colonel Trrostrsost in favour of
the bill,
Mr. BARROW supported the amendment, and said 'hat
almost every clause in the bill was open to objection. It
had been said in the course of the debate that under the
present system the employment of a certain class of la-
bourers who were not able to perform a day's work, tended
to demoralise them—a statement which he denied, and con-
tended that giving employment to such a class prevented
them becoming paupers.
Mr. WALTER supported the bill, and denounced the
existing system. He said that the opponents to the mea-
sure contended that it would disparochialize different
parishes, but he contended that the question of highway
management was one that could be more properly confided
to a central board instead of to local authorities. Roads
were part of a great national system and constituted the
great arteries through which the wealth and commerce of
the country flowed. He believed the manage-
ment of highways was most imperfect, and re-
ferred to his own neighbourhood, where these
roads had deteriorated considerably within the last 20 years.
The management of these roads in many cases were en-
trusted to parties who were quite ignorant of such matters,
and the very worst economy that could be adopted would
be that of not securing good roads.
Col. W. FATTEN supported the amendment.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE supported the bill, and denied that
the arguments used against it were sound, being based on
narrow grounds, and resulting from prejudices. It was of
the greatest importance that there should be an efficient
system of management of high roads.
Mr. DILLWYN contended that the operation of the
principle in South Wales, which it was intended to intro-
duce into this bill, was most encouraging.
Mr. CAYLEY briefly opposed the bill.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the house had been engaged
during the greater portion of the present session in political
and constitutional questions of great importance, and he
hoped hon. members would not consider that a measure of
- such social interest as the present should be postponed
merely in consequence of the lateness of the session.
- There was nothing of greater importance than the
improvement of these arterial communications. Hav-
ing paid several years' attention] to this; subject, he
was quite prepared to recommend the adoption of this mea-
sure. (Hear, hear.) The bill was formed with a view
merely of enabling magistrates in quarter sessions to in-
troduce this bill into towns, and it departed from the for-
mer bill in not being compulsory. He denied that at pre-
sent there was any representative system in regard to high-
ways, because vestries merely elected a surveyor, but he
was not a representative, and the subject of the present bill
was to introduce a representative system. He believed
that magistrates would not act in opposition to the wishes
of their tenants, and to the feelings of their neighbour-
hood in reference to the question of expending money,
on highways. The right hon. baronet referred to South
Wales, with reference to which there appeared to be some
misunderstanding on the part of the opponents of the bill.
The principle of the measure was in operation in six coun-
ties in South Wales, and the objection was that it did not
go far enough. In fact, the people of South Wales de-
sired the same bill as that now before the house. He
considered that as there was a difference in various parts of
the country, it would not be advisable to have an inflexible
system applied throughout the kingdom.
Mr. HENLEY said that in his opinion the bill would
not secure the services of skilful officers, and that it would
increase the expenditure of the ratepayers. He objected to
the bill also on the ground of its centralising tendency,
notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. baronet
(Sir G. Lewis) to the contrary, and he considered that the
representative system was at present in operation. It had
been said that this bill was advocated by the public at
large, but what proof was there of this ? There were only
5 petitions signed by 92 persons presented in favour of the
measure, whilst there were several petitions signed by over
20,000 persons against it.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading 203
Against
Majority —B3
The bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
DEALERS IN MARINE STORES BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HENLEY said that the hon. member (Mr. Spooner)
who brought in the bill had made no explanation as to the
bill. As he understood the provision of the measure, it in-
cluded goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, and all who
dealt in metal, and required them to keep books in a certain
way, and subjected them to the inspection of the police.
Mr. SPOONER said that the bill had reference to per-
sons carrying on business illegaly, and the amount of such
business was very considerable ; and in Birmingham no less
than £40,000 was disposed off annually through the medium
of these dealers. It was very desirable that there should
be some alteration in the law, and he explained that there
should be an application made to a magistrate to justify the
inspection by the police.
Mr. NORRIS also considered that legislation on this
subject was necessary, and asse, ted these marine stores
were extensive receptacles of stolen goods,
Sir G. LEWIS considered that the bill was very arbi-
trary, and he regretted that he had not had an opportunity
of communicating with the police authorities in reference
to the subject.
After some further discussion the house went into com-
mittee, and clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3,
Sir G. LEWIS suggestethat the clause was irat suffi-
ciently explicit in the definition of marine dealers, and
would comprehend a class that could not be considered in
that light.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the clause on the same ground.
Some conversation ensued, in the course of which
Mr. HANKEY appealed
to the hon. member (Mr.
Spooner) to withdraw the bill, as it was not probau a it
would be carried.
Mr. SPOONER said he would accede to what appeared
to be the wish of the house,
. provided the right hon. baronet
(Sir G. Lewis) would admit the present inefficient state of