The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-26 00:00:00

COUNTY RATES BILL.

Sir HENRY HALEORD moved the second read-
ing of the County Rates Bill. Tao Bill was out
of a formal or nominal character. Its object was
to give to the holders and occupiers of lands a share
in the administration of the county funds. The
Bill was sanctioned by precedent, several ails being in
existence in which the owner was rated instead of the
occupier. It was true that the landlords and tenants
Were embarked in the same boat, but the difference was,
that the landlords were on deck while the tenants were
below the hatchways, and thus, in the event of a storm,
more liable t) destruction. Considering, therefore, that
the remission proposed in the present Bill would have
a beneficial effect, he would conclude by moving the
second reading.

Mr. U. LEWIS opposed the Bill, which he thought
was not in accorckince with the general principle on
which local rates 'mere made, and moved as an amend-
ment that it should be read a second time that day six
months.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said there were very grave ob-
jections to the Bill, and suggested to his Hon. Friend
the propriety of withdrawing it.
GIBSON' thought the measure was an ex-
tremely injudicious one, and would, if carried out in the
form proposed, do a► great injustice to the owners of
property. In his opinion, the only way in which jus-
tice could be done both to owners and occupiers, was to
allow the ratepayers at large to have control by repre-
sentation over the :assessing and expenditure of county
rates.

Mr. R. PALMER wished the Bill to be withdrawn.

Mr. AGLIONI3Y wished to ask the Hon. Member
whether, in accordance with the great number of recom-
mendatiuns he had received from both sides of the House,
he would not determine to withdraw the Bill. He
thought be ought vit least to intimate his intention with
all possible speed.
Mr. 60111.E110 Nl approved of the principle of the
Bill, and was averse to seeing it withdrawn, because he
thought the Hon. .B aronet who had brought it in would
have to begin de :novo . He thought the best course
would be to ruter it, to a Select Committee.

Mr. PACKE ins autted his readiness to adopt the
suggestion.

'aptain HARRII3 decidedly objected to the principle
of the Bill.

Mr. T. EGERTON also wished the Bill to be re-
ferred to a Select Committee, and hoped that course
would be adopted. He objected to rates being levied
upon owners instead of occupiers.
Mr. RICE hoped there would be some more direct
control given to the ratepayers over the expenditure.
Mr. BUCK thought it better to throw this Bill aside
for another session, and leave it to be revived next year.
Sir J. DUCKW ORTH said it was to be regretted
that the whole question of the county rates hid not been
referred to a Seleut Committee long ago, as was proposed
by his Hon. Friend the Member for Droitwicb.

Mr. LIILDYARD opposed the principle of the Bill,
and called upon tae House to throw it out at once. It
could produce no :good result, but might give rise to
many difficulties that would further oppress the landed
interest.

Sir 11. HALIVELD said as the House seemed un-
willing to eatertai,a the Bill he would not press the
second reading to Ls division; he nevertheless was con-
vinced of the soon dness of the principle involved in it.
The Bill was thmi withdrawn.
LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the third reading of this
Bill.

Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the Bill. He con-
tended that the Juvenile Offenders' Bill had not operated
in a satisfactory mssnner, and, therefore, that ought
not to be extended further. The Hon. Baronet quoted
from a pamphlet of ]Mr. Sergeant Adams, to show that that
Act had not decre aced the number of juvenile offenders,
and that it was one\ of the must mischievous mistakes of
modern benevoletex.. He (Sir George Strickland) de-
precated the princiTle of corporal punishment as applied
to children, and cixed the case of a boy in the city of
London who ha I been twelve times imprisoned and
twelve times Hogg ad, and who was now undergoing im-
prisonment for the thirteenth time. That, he sub-
mitted, was a convincing proof that corporal
punishments teraei to. harden and brutalize, in-
stead of reforming juvenile offenders. He opposed
the Bill also, on the ground that it tended to do away
with trial by jury, the fairest part of the British con-
stitution. The Hoe. Baronet then proceeded to quote
a writer in the Staffordshire Conservative, reflecting on
the too great pow( rs of officials, and the many übusss
which it led to. rt was with great satisfaction that he
had heard the :Recorder of London and the
Right Honourable. Baronet the Member for Ri-
pon oppose this Bill, and he thought that
their authority ou b t to have great weight with the
House. If more thzties were pressed upon the unpaid
magistracy than they were able to perform it would be
taking the most divert course to bring that important
body into discredit.
Mr. M. MILNES was surprised to find himself support-
ing the lion. Baron( it in his present motion, but his motives
were entirely different, and he did not at all share with
him in his unworthy suspicions of the magistracy of the
country. Ho preformed that the object of the Hon.
Baronet was to pr went these unfortunate children from
assuming, as little as possible, a criminal status; but
then it must be re7nembered that the system which the
Honourable Baroi ict sought to introduce, connected as
it was with prisons and gaols, would have but little effect
in preventing those evils.
Sir J. PAKINWTON hoped, as the Bill would tend
to diminish the evils; which arose from the contamina-
tion of young persons by old offenders, that the House
would disregard 'the arguments of the two Hon.
Members, and alloev the Bill to ba read a third time.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD opposed the Bill, thinking, if
they once departed from trial by jury in the case of
young persons und.er 16, they could urge no reason
against extending that privilege to adults of all ages.
Mr. BANKES said there were powers in the Bill to
allow juvenile off enders to have the option of a trial
either by a jury or a magistrate. He should support
the Bill.

Pair. M'CULLA GU said it was dangerous to increase
the summary juris i-tctibn of ma.istrates. It was estab-
lishing coo law fur the poor
and unother for the rich,
tind it it were only on that ground he should feel it to be
his duty to oppose the Bill.
Mr. AGLIUNB Y protested against the assertion that
tnia was u law a grainst classes; it was a law against
crime, and the rich would be as much amenabl,l to it as
the pour.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third :x.ading 119
Against it
Llajtaity —94
The Biil was tarn read a third time.
Mr. BOUVERII3 then moved the insertion of the
following clause:—.And he it enacted, that one of the
justices before whom any person shall be charged, and
proceeded against under this Act, or the hereinbelore
mentioned Acts, before such person shall be asked
whether he or Lite has any cause to show why
he or sho should not; be canyictAl, shall say to the per-
sm so aharged these words, or wofds to the like effect: