The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-13 00:00:00

rbtrti
SUN OFFICE, Seven o Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLLUIENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.
COMMISSIONERS OF RAILWAYS.
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN it was ordered
that the Commissioners of Railwa3 s be directed to re-
port their opinion to this House, in accordance with the
provisions of the Act 9 and 10 Vic. c. 105, on any Rail-
way Bills which have been introduced during the present
session, in which it is proposed to raise or alter the rates
and tolls or charges authorised to be taken under existing
Acts of Parliament relating to canal undertakings be-
longing to railway companies, or to impose any addi•
tional rates or charges in respect of stn:h canal under-
takings.
ATHY, CASTLECOMER, AND KILKENNY
ROAD BILL.
Mr. VESEY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Lord NAAS moved that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months, on the
ground that it was inexpedient and uncalled fJr,
that it passed chiefly through an aricultural district,
and that the greater portion of the agriculturists were
opposed to it, on the ground that it would inflict a heavy
and vexations toll upon
them; added to which, it would
divert the traffic of the county from its regular channels.
Mr. SULLIVAN seconded the amendment.
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the second reading of the
Bill.
Mr. VESEY spoke a few words in favour of the Bill.
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE supported the se-
cond reading, in order that the parties who had charge
of the Bill should have an opportunity of proving its
details in Committee.
Mr. GRACE opposed the Bill from r.o motives of a
piAvate nature, but because he believed its provisions
would press too heavily on the inhabitants of the district
through which the road passed.
Mr. W. PATTEN observed, that if this Bill were not
referred to a Committee, great injury would be inflicted
on parties who had lent their money on this read, and he
should certainly vote for the second reading.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. SUL-
LIVAN,
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 68
Against it ... ... 37
Majority —3l
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.
COUNTY RATES EXPENDITURE.

Petitions in EtvGur cf this measure were presented by
Mr. Stanford, Mr. Spooner, Mr. W. Patten, Sir
John Pakington, Mr. Heywo::d, Mr. Cobden, and Mr.
Cowan.
Petitions were presented against the Bill by Sir
HENRY WILLOUG II BY.
Numerous petitions were also presented against the
employment of Sunday labour in the Post office.
Mr. PIGOTT presented a petition, most numerously
signed, from the inhabitants of Reaiing f.:r the total
and immediate repeal of the window tax.
MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S
SISTER.

Mr. HARRIS presented a petition, praying the
House to legalise the marriage with a deceased wifa's
sister.

Similar petitions were present:d by Mr. Cockburn,
Mr. Denison, and Mr. Cowan.
Mr. CAREW presented a petition signed by 500 Cor-
nish women against the BE?.
Mr. COWAN presented petitions from various places
in Scotland in fLvour of the Arbitration Bill, one from
Edinburgh, praying fir the repeal of the game-laws,
and also for the repeal of the duty on paper.
CERTIFICATES TO ATTORNEYS.

Several Memb?rs eiented petitions for th© abolition
of attorney's certificates.
SUNDAY LABOUR.

Mr. HENLEY presented several petitions praying
for the prevention of Sunday labour.
DUTY ON PAPER.

On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, a rt tarn of
the amount of duty paid upon paper in the several Ex-
cise Collections in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ire-
land, for the last ten Sears, stating also the totals for
Each year, was ordered.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented petitions from the mas •
ters and manufacturers of six paper-mills in the county
of Dublin, praying for a repeal of the duty on paper.
NE WSPAPER STAMPS.
Oa the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, returns of
the aggregate number ( f stamp:; issued for newspapers
in the year 1849, in Eeglend and Wales, Scotland and
Ireland, respecciveiy, distinguishing the number at one
penny and at one helypenny, were ordered. The returns
were to show also the nu:o,•er of London newspapers,
the number of alvertisements in them, the rats and
amount of advertisement duty paid by them, in 1849.
A similar return was also ordered as regards the Eng-
lish provincial, the Scotch, and the Irish newspapers.
COUNTY COURTS.
In reply to a question from Mr. DRUMMOND,
Sir G..GREY said that the reason why the salaries of
the clerks of the County Courts were not made unit irm,
was because the duties of several clerks were very diffe-
rent, some having simply to attend to a single district,
while others had to manage the business of large districts.
COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE BILL.
On the motion being read for the resumption of the
adjourned debate
Sir G. B. PECIIELL begged to prcseat a petition
from Brighton, against the heavy rates which had been
imposed upon them, and praying for the enactnient cf
the Bill.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON also presented petitions from
soma agricultural districts in Buckinghamshire, praying
that the Bill might pass.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON then said that in resum-
ing the debate he was anxious to state that he had very
serious objections to this Bill a 3 it now stood before the
House, and that so important a measure ought not to
pass without some previous full inquiry.—(Hear, hear.)
It was evident tbat this Bill bad not originated in any
theoretical love fir government, but from a squabble in
the county of Lancaster.—(Boar, hear.) When the
Right Hon. Member for Blanchester had formerly
brought forward this Bill he had adduced the returns of

the -Rochdale board of guardians in support of his
theory—a fact which sufficiently indicated whence the
Bill had its origin.—(Hear, hear.) Another fact was,
that while in 1824 the county rates for Lancashire
were 80,0001, in 1848 they had risen to 180,000 L
The increase of expenditure in the county of Lan-
caster, between 1825 and 1848 had only been 2,600 L,
and in this was included the cost of maintaining a con-
stabulary force amounting to 31,000 L There could not
Le a better proof than this that the ma-
gistrates bad properly discharged their duties,
and had eonduct-2d the financial affairs of the
county with due economy and circumspection, especially
when it was considered that during those twenty-fire
years there had been a great increase in the population,
as well as in the value of rateable property.—(Hear,
hear.) It vt as to be recollected, also, that a large
amount of expenditure was thrown upon counties by
Acts of Parliament, and if they spent a great deal cf
money in carrying out improved systems of prison
discipline, in compliacce with those Acts, was it not
unfair to accuse the magistrates with being extrava-
gant?—(Bear.) He was of opinion that, under the ex-
isting stfite of things, due economy was exercised by the
magistrates; but if any grievance did exist, ho thought
the present Bill would not afford any effectual remedy.
Thera could be no doubt that the Bill was drawn for
Lancashire alone, and was only fired for that county.
They had cases in which three Worcestershire pa-
rishes belonged to other counties, two in which three
unions belonged to other counties, and one case in
which one union was so constituted. How could the
Bill be carried out in these casts? He knew of four ma-

gistra'es in the county of Worcester who ought by no
means to be off any county board, and yet by this Bill
but ono only of them could be elected. In
Worcest,-rt.hire they had 192 magistratep, and hero he
must prot-?it against tha fallacy which had lurked in
this movement at every step, the distinction betwe2n
magistrates and rat payers. Ho contended that the
magistrates were the greatest ratepayers in the country.
'The Right ion. Gentleman opposite had been obliged
to admit that the rotas were in tine paid by the owners
and not occupiers of the land. Would it be fair then to
exclude so large a body of ratepayers from these
boards? contended that the present system
worked well, that the strictest economy was
exercised in every cour:ty to as great an extent as it
possibly could be. He doubter] that any great k flicient
alteration could be intriduced into the superintendence
of county expenditure, and he objec•ed to the second
reading of this Bill, but he was pet fectly willing to go
into Committee up stairs. The lion. Gebt!einart con-
cluded by moving that a Committee be appointed to ex-
amine into the method of county rates.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN commenced by denying
that this question was a Lancashire question, it was
an English question. He regri tted that he should not be
able to vuta with his Hon. Friend the Member for Wor-_

ce.tershisto, as he gad hoped to de, for there were many
things in the Bill of which he disapproved. But he must
remind the House that it was already committed to the
principle of the Bill, recognising the principle that rate-
payers should have some control over the expenditure
of the t atea, and that IA at the sole reason why he should
vote for the Bill, reserving to himself the right ( f
expressing his disapproval of many parts of the Bill.
ll° thought that there would be great diffieu'ties thrown
by this Bill in the way of raising funds for a propel&
county expenditure, which cold(' be got over only by
establishing a sinkeg fund, nhich would be a greater
abuse than any at present exi6ting. Some parts of this
Bill also it fanged upon the judicial functions cf the ma-
gistrates. He had a complaint to make against his Right
Hon. Friend for Manchester, whom ho had met a; a
meeting in Lancashire, where he (Mr. W. Fatten) was
given to understand that the course about to he pursued
was very different to what he now found. It was
on this understanding that he and others bad pledged
themselves to support the Right Hon. Gcntleme.v. Hs
should, however, vote for the Bill }amuse he Leartily
concurred in its principles.
Mr. HUME was anxious to disabuse the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had sat down that the Bill was stall different
b the one he brought in last year, or that the object
of the meeting alluded to by him was at all changed.
meNotigiuk-ma., ro,pyisre that full inquiry bad been
o t,- -,and that reports were on the
ta' e eliia,that he (Mr. Hume) had in
1 ,*44l,file.g. ill. Tha Bill of 1837 was
' ' *Ottie. • ith the opinion of the Com-
#44, . .4='l4 public opinion abroad, he
t ,e • - • 0 acting wisely to pass it.
a , ." Cotnmissiou state? Why
8