presented a petition, signed by forty medical practitioners, complaining of the contracts entered into for attending the poor-houses in the neighbourhood of Gloucester. The petitioners alleged, that instead of the practice being beneficial, it was attended with the most ruinous and cruel consequences to the poor, who were farmed out to the lowest bidder. The hon. Member stated, that when the subject was brought before the House, he would take the opportunity to express his sentiments on the abominable system, and he trusted that hon. Members would express themselves in such terms as would tend to its total abolition.

hoped his hon. Friend would abstain from further observations at present, and that when the Poor-law Amendment Bill was brought before the House to have some defects in it corrected, that the hon. Member would not lose sight of the subject of which the petitioners complained. The system of farming, every one must admit, was highly objectionable, and required to be done away with; but the time to animadvert on it was, when it came in a substantial form before them.

was desirous of stating one fact of a particular nature.

I call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact, that he has already declared that this matter will be brought under the consideration of the House in a substantive form. Now, if the hon. Gentleman is about to enter into a statement of facts, it is to he presumed that other hon. Members may wish to address the House upon those facts; and that the House will thus be involved in a protracted discussion, which can only tend to delay the progress of business.

was desirous of knowing by what rule the presentation of petitions to that House was regulated. It was only a few evenings ago that a petition was presented by an hon. Member from three officers of the East-India Company, praying for compensation, which led to a debate of an hour's duration, and he (Mr. Wakley) was prevented from mentioning a particular fact that would scarcely occupy a minute.

The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that the petition to which he has alluded, which was presented by the hon. Member for Tynemouth, had immediate relation to a case of personal feelings and supposed injury. The hon. Member for Finsbury will find, moreover, that in that instance, the hon. Gentleman who presented the petition gave a previous notice of his intention to do so; and thus the matter was brought before the House. The hon. Member for Finsbury has stated, that this subject will be brought before the House; and I again say, if he is about to state a variety of facts, then all other Members who may wish to take part in this discussion, will be at liberty to do so, to the great inconvenience of others who are waiting to present petitions.

presented a petition from the Radical Association of Hull, signed by 1,400 persons, complaining of the Poor-law Bill and the Corn-laws, and of the burthens thrown on the industrious and poorer classes, who were taxed for the little luxuries they could consume, twenty times more than the rich. On the last point he should be glad to accede to an arithmetical correction; for after having paid considerable attention to the subject, he was unable to state any instance in which the disproportion between the poor and rich was more than twelve to one. They prayed also for the repeal of those clauses in the Poor-law Act that pressed harshly on the poor—that one-third of the tithes should be appropriated to their support, and that those charitable bequests which had been hitherto roguishly absorbed by the clerical and lay aristocracy, should be appropriated to their proper uses. The hon. Member said, that the petition was certainly expressed in strong language, and the warmth which animated the petitioners had induced them to use one word, for which, if he had been consulted as a critic, he should certainly have recommended the substitution of one less cacophonous.

The hon. Member, in presenting this petition, did state, and he stated it most correctly, that there were expressions in it which were exceptionable. The House, I am sure, is, and ever has been, at all times most ready to receive petitions from any quarter; but it is, I contend, a very grave question for the House to consider, whether they will receive a petition which contains a charge of so gross a nature against any class in the country. I am sure, however, that on reflection the hon. Member will himself see that the House cannot, consistently with a sense of its own dignity, allow language to be addressed to any body of persons, which it would not allow to be addressed to itself.

said, there were two points which he conceived to be of duty. One was, that he should submit the petition of his constituents; the other that he should not disguise from the House the strength of any of its expressions. He submitted that the word objected to was used in a general sense, and that it would be better to allow the people to express their complaints as they felt them.

rose to order. He agreed that it was desirable that the people should have the fullest opportunity to state their complaints to that House, but then they should do so in decent and becoming language. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the petition, and have the obnoxious terms modified; and he was confident that the petitions, on the recommendation of the hon. and gallant Member, would have no objection to do so. Such offensive terms had better be avoided in petitions, and the absence of them would enforce more respect for the prayers of the petitioners.

remarked that the allusion of the petitioners to charitable bequests had no reference to, but was totally distinct from tithes. The Corporation of Dublin, according to the Commissioners' Report, had a charitable bequest made to them, which he could aver was "roguishly" applied.

was able to prove to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), from reports on the Table, that charitable bequests had been "roguishly misapplied." A case was proved in Court this Session where in- dividuals had roguishly misapplied charitable bequests, and it was therefore very questionable whether the terms used in the petition were misapplied.

said, that petitions had been frequently presented by hon. Members opposite, containing the terms "tyrannical and oppressive," as applied to hon. Friends at his side of the House, and he (Mr. Swart) could not perceive any great distinction between them. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman would rise and say that charitable funds had not been roguishly misapplied. He had no doubt that the allegations made by the petitioners could be fully sustained; and impressed with that feeling, he thought it more desirable to induce them to speak out rather than to take exception to the phrases in which they conveyed their just and well-founded complaints to the House.

was of opinion that it would be extremely desirous for all parties coming before the House with their prayers to have their language couched in a decent and proper manner. He maintained it was not correct of the petitioners to impute roguishness to a particular class of individuals because certain individuals belonging to it might have done wrong. The hon. Member who had just sat down no doubt would consider it unjust if a crime having been committed by certain parties in Liverpool, the entire community in that town were to be stigmatised and disgraced.

said, that they would be unworthy to be considered as the Representatives of a free people, if they objected to receive the petition. What did the Commissioners of corporate inquiry say, on the subject of charitable bequests throughout the country? They were not over-choice of the phraseology which they used on the occasion, the phraseology used by the petitioners was somewhat strong, but it was only what they deemed necessary to convey a proper notion of their detestation of those enactments of which they complained. He for one would declare that charitable trusts had been grossly misapplied.

said, that very strong language might he used in a petition without its being objectionable: but he was sure the House would see the necessity and propriety for putting some term, for fixing some limit, as well to the language used within the walls of that House as to that contained in the petitions addressed to it. He had been at an early period acquainted with the constituents of the gallant Member, and he was sure if the petition was withdrawn, and if they were given to understand that the highest authority in that House objected to one expression in it, they would at once expunge it. He hoped the gallant Colonel would take that course, as if he took the sense of the House on the petition in its present shape, he must vote against its reception.

concurred in offering the same suggestion to the gallant Member for Hull. He thought "dishonestly" was a term that might have been employed.

suggested that the Speaker should state his opinion as to whether the language was unparliamentary or not.

Then I can have no hesitation in declaring that the hon. Member would exercise a sound discretion in withdrawing the petition for the present. The House will only act wisely and consistently with that character which it should maintain, by always enforcing a proper spirit of decorum, not merely on all occasions within its own walls, but in all documents and petitions that are addressed to it.

said, that he had waited for nothing but a suggestion from the Chair. He would therefore, withdraw the Petition.

presented a petition from the architects who had competed for the prizes offered by the Legislature for designs for the two Houses of Parliament, complaining of the conduct of the Commissioners in making their decision, and praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House on the subject. His own private opinion was, that such a power was not likely to be given to the petitioners. He certainly agreed with them in opinion, that the Commissioners should have laid down a certain rule as to the extent of the buildings. As soon as the Report of the Committee was laid on the table of the House, he should feel it his duty to call the attention of the House specially to the subject, and to recommend a plan very different from that of the Commissioners for erecting as soon as possible convenient and suitable buildings for both Houses of Parliament.

said, that having been a member of the Commission, he wished to make a few observations in reference to this petition. He did not think that the petitioners pursued a wise or judicious course in presenting such a petition, and certainly, if they wished to prevent all future chance of general competition on subjects like this, they had done that which was best calculated to carry such a wish into effect. It was true, that the petitioners did not attack the moral character of the Commissioners, they only impeached their want of judgment in the selection they had made. Reports, however, had been put into circulation of the most unfair nature towards the Commissioners. They were represented as having been guided in their selection of Mr. Barry's plan, not by the honourable motives that should influence honourable men in the situation they were placed, but by some particular bias for that individual. Now, the fact was, that he never had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Barry until he had the pleasure of mentioning to him that he was the successful candidate. No Commission had ever more zealously endeavoured to do its duty as far as its judgment would allow it. Every means had been used to prevent favouritism, or the remotest chance of favouritism. He had himself proposed measures for that purpose in the Committee, before the Commission was named; and with regard to his fellow-Commissioners, there was only one of them with whom he was acquainted, until they had entered on their duties. The question of selection did not rest alone with the Commissioners. Their award had to be sanctioned by the King, and then by both Houses of Parliament. Not only had the two Houses of Parliament unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Commissioners, but he would challenge the hon. Gentleman and the petitioners to show that it had not met with the unanimous approval of the public. He was wrong in saying, that that House had been unanimous on the subject; undoubtedly, one Gentleman in the Committee had dissented from the award of the Commissioners, on the ground that the areas in the plan were neither squares nor parallelograms, and that the tower of 200 feet was calculated to throw a shade over the building. He might have expected that the hon. Member for Middlesex should have given him notice of this petition, but that courtesy was not observed towards him. He would, however, pass over that topic, go through the charges in the petition in detail, and reply to them.

rose to order. He begged to remind the Speaker that he (Mr. Wakley) had been interrupted, and prevented from making a statement regarding the poor in certain districts in the country, because the subject was afterwards to come before the House in the shape of a motion, and he submitted, that as the hon. Member for Middlesex had already given notice of a motion on this matter, the hon. Member should reserve his observations for that occasion.

said, he was not aware that any notice had been given on the subject.

said, he had given notice that he would bring the subject forward as soon as the papers on the table of the House were printed.

suggested, that under such circumstances the hon. Member had better reserve his statement for that occasion.

said, he should bow to the decision of the Chair.

said, he was aware that a copy of the petition had been transmitted to the hon. Member, and as his (Mr. Hume's) notice for presenting it was on the printed votes, he had not supposed it necessary to give the hon. Member a particular notice on the subject.

said, that great anxiety existed in all parts of the kingdom on the subject of a Bill introduced by the Under Secretary for the Home Department, for the consolidation of turnpike trusts. Members were in the daily habit of receiving communications, all of which deprecated the measure. He wished to know what course the hon. Member intended to take upon the subject.

replied, that in consequence of the great anxiety said to prevail respecting the Bill, he had felt it his duty to consider whether he could persevere in it during the present Session. Looking at the position of the measure, and the state of public business, he thought it better at once to state, that it was not his intention to proceed further with it this year. Deeply impressed as he had been, and still was, with the great advantages that would result from passing the Bill, it was not without great regret that he parted with it, and he only did so with the full intention of renewing the motion next Session. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the op- position which had lately made its appearance, and he (Mr. Fox Maule) begged it might be distinctly understood, that he withdrew the Bill on no account in consequence of that opposition. He believed, that the opposition originated in self-interested motives, and proceeded very much from individuals who had long been enjoying the fruits of jobbing, and deriving profit from a bad system of management with respect to turnpike trusts. He hoped that they would continue to enjoy those fruits only one Session longer. He was convinced that the moment the House came to examine the provisions of the Bill it would unanimously adopt it, and pass it into a law,

observed, that he had received many communications on the subject from persons incapable of what the hon. Member termed jobbing.

wished merely to add, that he too had received numerous communications, stating that many petitions had been got up by the influence of clerks and treasurers of various trusts; and that gentlemen, who, he was sure, were incapable of anything like jobbing, had been induced to sign representations against particular clauses of the Bill.

begged to enter his protest against the uncalled-for and unfounded imputation thrown out by the hon. Member. He had uniformly told petitioners from the part of the country he represented, to wait until the Bill came out of the Committee before they remonstrated against it; but he did not expect to have to tell them also that they had been made the objects of so sweeping and so unmerited an attack.

also warmly repelled the accusation as regarded parties from whom he had presented petitions, and who were incapable of the practices imputed by the hon. Member for Perthshire. Some of the petitioners were most respectable country gentlemen and yeomen.

said, that he bad a question to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Tea Duties. The House was aware, that on the 1st of July next, the duty on tea was to be raised from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 1d. a pound. Now, the stock of bohea tea unsold was at present very large, and it would be a great inconvenience to the holders to have to provide for the immediate payment of so large a sum. In consequence of the representations which he had made to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents, the right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to grant time for the payment of this duty. He was therefore induced to call upon the right hon. Gentleman, who, though he had not granted all that was asked, had, at any rate, granted some part of it, to state distinctly to the House what indulgence he intended to grant to the holders of the stock in hand.

Those hon. Members who were acquainted with this subject, and who had heard the reply which he had given to this question on a former occasion, would anticipate the reply which he intended to give it now. His reply was, that however distressing it might be, that the parties holding large stocks of bohea tea should suffer —and no man could regret that they would suffer, more than he did—the departure from the provisions of an Act of Parliament, which the parties themselves had called for, would be a precedent full of inconvenience to the large mercantile community of which those individuals formed a part. If such a precedent were established, no man would know on what he had to depend. If a law made at one time could be altered at another, because the parties on whom it operated found it difficult to meet the payment of the duties which it imposed, there would be no end to the applications which would be made to him for such alterations in our fiscal statutes. He was therefore prepared now, as he was formerly, to give an unqualified negative to the proposition for affording to the holders of the stock of bohea now unsold an indefinite time for the payment of the duties on it. The House would recollect that their application was one of a very peculiar kind. It was to give them the full benefit of the late Act, so far as regarded the remission of duty, and to free them from the obligations of it, so far as regarded the duties that were raised. He would, however, inform the House of the determination to which the Treasury had come upon one part of this subject. It so happened that the alteration of the law had been made with the cognizance and at the suggestion of the parties now applying for relief. That alteration would make the payment of a considerable sum necessary to all who were not prepared to pay the new duty of 2s. 1d. per pound. He was aware that it would afford great facilities to the parties to postpone the payment of the new duties to a period after the 1st of July; and to afford those facilities a special Treasury minute had been issued, authorising all persons entering tea for home consumption previous to the 1st of July to take a time not exceeding thirty-one days for the payment of the duties to which they then became liable. There was no doubt that there were a great many precedents for granting them such a privilege. There were, however, some other points connected with this subject, which could not be settled without coming before the House; and the Treasury minute therefore contained a direction that a copy of it should be forthwith laid on the table of the House of Commons. The advantage which would be derived from the extension of this period to individuals residing in the city of London, would be extended to individuals in all parts of the united kingdom; for it would be open to great objection, if this indulgence had been limited to the city of London, and not extended to such places as Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dublin. He hoped that he had given a distinct answer to the question of the hon. Member for the city of London; and he had now only to observe, that the Treasury minute to which he had alluded, would be laid that evening On the table of the House.

said, that so far as the Government had conceded the postponement of the payment of this money for a month, it had acted wisely; and so far as it had refused to remit the lower duties, it had performed its duty to the public.

was understood to say, that the tea trade were not satisfied with the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could not thank him for the been which he professed that he conferred upon it.

did not wish to create a discussion, when, strictly speaking, there was no question before the House. He only rose to protest, on the part of his constituents, against being exposed to other more serious losses by any further changes in the duties on tea.

said, he had no power to prevent agitation of this question more than of any other; but he had no intention whatever of introducing any further changes in the duties on tea.

was very anxious to know when the Treasury minute would be laid on the table. Undoubtedly, even in the present state of information which they possessed on the subject, there seemed some peculiarity in this case. The law fixed the 1st of July for the payment of the high duty; and the Treasury minute extended the period, obviously admitting the existence of some peculiarity in the circumstances of the parties. He did not wish to provoke a debate on the present occasion, hut he must say, the question had not been very fairly stated in the conversation which had already taken place. The parties, said the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Rice), had full notice of the law. It ought to be recollected that orders for tea had been given before the law passed. The Bill was brought in late last Session; it did not become law till August, and then provided that on the 1st of July following a high rate of duty should be paid on certain teas. The orders having been given before the passing of the Act, and there being no power since the 1st of July last to order tea from China, the large stock at present on hand must have arisen under the impression that the old duty would be continued. Some of the parties, no doubt, had acceded to the passing of this Act, but others could not be bound by their acquiescence. On the whole, however, he was not prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had not done well in acting as he had. The special circumstances of the case deserved favourable attention, at least, to the extent granted by Government.

said, the Treasury minute would be laid on the table in the course of the evening, when he should be most willing and happy to give any explanation which might be required of the principles by which he had been guided in this particular case. He trusted he should be enabled to justify the course he had adopted, and to show, however desirous Government might have been, and they were really most desirous to give any relief to the parties, which might be consistent with the maintenance of the general principles that should regulate the financial and commercial transactions of the country, they could not have gone further than they had already done. Before the question had been asked, he felt the matter to he one which it was fitting should he taken into favourable consideration, and he had therefore given directions as to the Treasury minute to the effect he had stated.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rice) relative to the duty on paper. The House was aware, that in consequence of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not allow any draw-hack on paper in stock after the 10th of October, the trade had been almost entirely suspended. He trusted, however, the result of the notice given by the hon. Member for Middlesex would relieve the paper manufacturers from the embarrassment under which they at present suffered. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to propose, by way of palliation, that after a time to be fixed paper should be allowed to be taken from the mills, and remain in bond under certain regulations, without payment of the duty. He wished to know at what time the right hon. Gentleman meant to permit paper, under any and what regulations, to be carried out of the mills without payment of duty; because the premises of manufacturers being in many instances extremely limited, they would be unable to keep a large stock, or be exposed to very great inconvenience, if the trade were not brought to a complete stand-still.

did not mean to take the course which had just been suggested—the plan he meant to adopt was of another description, but intended to effect the same object, namely, the relief of the trade from that stagnation to which they had incidently become liable in consequence of the reduction of the duty. The course he meant to take was this: with respect to stained paper, he proposed the duty should cease on the 5th of July, and with respect to first class paper and milled boards, the reduction of duty should not take place till the 10th of October; but in the mean time, in order to relieve owners of paper mills from the necessity of having their premises burdened with too large a stock, it was proposed to allow them to pass paper into the stocks of the stationers, their customers, under the direction of the Board of Excise, the duty having been paid before it was issued from the mills; and any stock of that paper remaining unconsumed on the 10th of October, in the hands of the stationers, would entitle them to a return equal to the excess of duty on that denomination of paper. This would enable the owners of mills to continue their works, and the stationers to keep up their stocks and purchases, and on the 10th of October entitle them to the difference between the high and low duty on the amount of their stocks. He had adopted this plan at the suggestion of some of the parties; and finding he could without prejudice to the revenue, he was extremely glad to be enabled to relieve the paper-makers.

:* I rise, Sir, for the two-fold purpose—first, of calling the attention of the House to the petitions I lately presented from the parish of Mary-le-bone, and from the counties of Stafford and Chester, praying for an alteration in the present mode of assessing, levying and controlling the expenditure of the county-rates; and secondly, to move for leave to bring in a Bill in conformity with the prayers of those petitions, and in pursuance of the notice which I have already given. The object of the Bill is to separate the judicial from the financial affairs of the counties of England and Wales, and to authorize the rate-payers of counties to elect a certain number of representatives to form a County Board for the assessment, levying, and administration of the county-rates, and to perform those duties having reference to the financial expenditure of the counties, now executed by the Magistrates in Quarter-Sessions. At present there is not that sufficient check on the management of the county-rates which there ought to be, and which the ratepayers have a right to demand. This is owing to the inherent defects of the present system—the principle of which is, that those Magistrates who levy and direct the expenditure of the rates are independent of those who pay them. A Commission has been employed in investigating the expenditure of the county-rates, but their inquiries have been confined principally to prosecutions and the expense attendant on them, which have hitherto been defrayed from the county-rates. What I complain of is, that there is no responsibility, attached to any of the Magistrates who have the power of assessing and expending the rates—that there is not that wholesome check and control over the taxes in counties which has been lately extended to the Municipal Institutions of the country. A majority of this House

^✶ From a corrected Report.

and of the country has approved of the Bill for allowing the inhabitants of corporate towns and cities to elect persons to control the municipal taxation, and also to recommend Magistrates for their respective cities and towns, and I ask the same privilege for counties. The House is aware that the present mode of managing the county-rates has been investigated before a Committee up-stairs; and the Report of that Committee shows to what extent abuses prevail in the present system. With a view of illustrating the extent of the want of control by the county ratepayers as compared with the municipal rate-payers, I shall read the following statement:

Statement of the Population in the Cities and Boroughs of Great Britain, which send Members to Parliament, the greater number of which recommend their own Magistrates through their Councillors.
	No. of Cities and Boroughs.	Population at the Census of 1831.	No. of Electors enrolled 1832.
England	185	4,754,742	274,649
Wales	14	196,311	11,319
Scotland	76	865,007	31,322
Great Britain	275	5,816,060	317,290

Also a Statement of the Population of the Counties where the Magistrates are appointed by the Lord-Lieutenants, the people having no choice or control.
	No. of Counties.	Population at the Census of 1831.	No. of Electors enrolled 1832.
England	40	8,336,263	344,564
Wales	12	609,871	25,815
Scotland	30	1,500,107	33,115
Great Britain	82	10,446,241	403,494

Total population of Great Britain,16,262,301; number of electors, 720,784; number of county magistrates, 18,984. If the population of the five metropolitan boroughs in which there, are no councils or magistrates elected by them 1,118,725, be deducted from the aggregate of represented cities and boroughs amounting to 5,816,060, there will be only 4,697,335 actually with magistrates of their own recommendation. And if the population of the five boroughs be added to the county population of 10,446,241, the total will be 11,564,966 —namey, the proportion in cities and boroughs, 28,88-100; [proportion in counties, 71,12-100. It appears, then, that, in round numbers, there are 11,500,000 inhabitants of counties who have no share in the management of, or control over, the expenditure of county-rates, nor the right to appoint the county officers, or to recommend their magistrates. The chief object I have in. view in bringing forward the present measure is, instead of the irresponsibility which now exists, to give to the ratepayers of counties the same power and control over their local or municipal taxes as is possessed by the inhabitants of corporate towns and cities. I wish to show how unjust it is to have individuals acting as magistrates, who, being named by the Lord-Lieutenant, without any choice on the part of the people, have ample power to take from the pockets of the people any sum for any expenditure they may think proper. It appears, by the evidence given before the Committee on County-Rates in the last Session, that there is no fixed general principle for assessing the rates in counties; that the assessment varies in each county, and very often there are different modes of assessment pursued in the same county. By the Report of that Committee, the valuation on which the rates are collected was made in eighteen counties on the amount of the Property-tax as it was in 1814; in twenty counties the rates are laid on the actual value, or some proportion thereof; in thirteen counties it is not known on what principle the collection is made; and in one county it is agreeable to 12th Geo. 3rd. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to say on what principle the present system rests. It happens in some counties, that large masses of propertyare never assessed for the purpose of local taxation; and while the owners of such property derive equal benefits with the rate-payers from the application, of the county-rates, yet they do not contribute anything towards them. It is, therefore, utterly impossible that justice can be done, whilst inequality in the valuation and assessment prevails to such a degree in separate parishes and in towns. To illustrate this as regards parishes, I would submit a statement of the present assessment of the county of Middlesex. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), in introducing his Bill for the establishment of the metropolitan police, was obliged to assume a certain sum for levying the rates in each parish for the support of the police force, I shall read from a parliamentary paper some of the valuations on which the police-rate is levied in the parishes in and about the metropolis. The parishes of Acton contribute on two-thirds of rack-rent; Barnes, on the net value; Battersea, on the full, or rack-rent; Christ Church, Surrey, on two-thirds of ditto; Clerkenwell, on something less than rack-rent; Fulham, on five-sixths of assessment; Greenwich, on four-fiths of rack-rent; Mile-end Old Town, on-three-fourths of assessment; Paddington, on four-fifths of ditto; Penge on 2s. 6d. per 1l. on assessment; Poplar, on seven-tenths of rackrent; Putney, on between three-quarters and seven-eighths of rack-rent; Ratcliff, seven-eighths of rack-rent; St. Anne, Limehouse, on two-thirds small, and four-fifths large houses; St. Anne, Westminster, on four-fifths; and St. Mary, Stratford, Bow, on seven-eighths. Sir, if it had been desirable to devise the greatest possible variety of assessments, the ingenuity of man could not have effected that object to a greater extent than appears from this document to exist in this and the neighbouring county. Inequality also exists in many other counties, though perhaps not to the same extent. Other counties have been called upon to give returns of the mode upon which each of them proceeds in its assessments, but they have not been made, and I cannot, therefore, give further examples. The Police Report states this:—

It appears that the assessment on which the county-rate is founded was made, from time to time, by the parish authorities of the respective patishes; that different parishes made the returns in different ways: that in some, the rating empty houses was objected to, and.

could not but congratulate his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, on his having brought forward such a measure as that which he had just moved for leave to introduce, which appeared to be in some measure founded upon the Irish Grand Jury Bill. It would be remembered that when some time ago a similar measure was introduced, it was said it could not be carried into effect. Since then the Municipal Corporation Acts had demonstrated the sense which the Legislature had of the importance of giving to the borough rate-payers control over their local affairs. And he rejoiced at seeing this measure introduced, as it seemed to be the first step towards extending that principle to the counties. He trusted that when it had been found applicable to England, it would not be long ere it was extended to Ireland also.

Sir, I do not object in the slightest degree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, as it goes to exonerate the county magistrates from a portion of the onerous and painful duties which they now have to perform. With respect to the inequality of the rates in various counties, on which the hon. Member has dwelt at some length I must observe that it does not appear to me to be applicable to the present question; because the magistrates at present have no control over that subject. With respect to the salaries, &c. and the other branches of county expenditure referred to, all these have been considered before the County Rates Committee; and to the abuses at present existing, all the remedies suggested by the hon. Member have been proposed. But what I wish principally to observe is this; that I do not think the hon. Member has gone far enough; for I fear much that if you take away from the magistrates their financial control, you will find considerable difficulty in getting them to attend to their judicial duties. In my own county I can speak from experience, for on the first day of the Sessions, when financial matters are to be settled, there are usually from thirty to forty magistrates present; but on the next and following days, though perhaps there may be 150 prisoners to try, I can often with difficulty obtain the presence of a second magistrate; and if I refer in any case of difficulty to any magistrate present for his opinion, the answer usually got is, "Decide it yourself; you know much more about it than I do." I think, therefore, the Bill of the hon. Gentleman should be carried further, and that, as he has in what he now proposes copied the measure of municipal reform, he should copy it to the extent of appointing a County Recorder, to be nominated and paid by the Crown, who shall be a Barrister of not less than ten years' standing, and who shall preside at Quarter Sessions, and at other intermediate Sessions, for the trial of offences. And I think that he should not only sit at Quarter Sessions, but should sit in various parts of the county. For the fact is, that if you separate the financial and the judicial functions, you will find great difficulty in getting the magistrates to attend to the onerous and invidious duty of punishment only. With respect to what the hon. Member has suggested as to the appointing of county magistrates, by recommendation from the County Board, there can be no objection to that, if the persons so recommended are from their property, education, and other circumstances, fit to be elected to the magisterial office. If, as I understand, this Bill provides no qualification whatever, I confess I see great difficulty in effecting that object. At the same time I must protest against any charge being expressed against the county magistrates; for I do not think that under the present system justice could be administered better; though I think it may be administered much cheaper. I can only say for my own part I court the most perfect responsibility; and I think this Bill ought to be introduced, that it may be brought into such a shape as may give universal satisfaction.

begged to call the attention of the House to the Act of 1833, for the amendment of the law which referred it to the Judges to make certain rules relative to Pleading, subject to the approbation of that House. The most important perhaps of these rules was that which called on all parties to plead specifically and distinctly, and to put their defence plainly upon record. Notwithstanding this salutary provision there had been a clause inserted in many Acts that had passed, such as Acts relating to fisheries, omnibuses, and many others, for the purpose of allowing parties to plead the general issue, and yet give special matter in evidence. The plain English of such a clause was, that the defendant was to be enabled to take advantage of the plaintiff by surprise, that he was not to let him know his case till the hour of trial, and then he was to be permitted to bring forward evidence of which he was not aware, and which, had he been aware of it, he would have been prepared with evidence to rebut; and by these means the defendant was, perhaps, enabled to snap a verdict contrary to the real merits of the case. He had just heard that the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Sir W. Follett) had it in contemplation to propose a Bill to remedy this evil. Had he been aware of the fact sooner, he would have taken an opportunity of conferring with that hon. and learned Gentleman; but at present he would content himself with moving, "That it is contrary to the spirit and intention of the Statute 3rd and 4th Wm. 4th, chap. 42, sect. 11, and to the rules of the Judges founded thereon, to introduce into Bills a clause enabling persons sued for any act under the same, to plead the general issue, and to give the special matter in evidence."

expressed his entire concurrence in all that had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he believed that he would receive the thanks of the profession and of the public at large for having brought it forward, There was indeed some feeling amongst the public, against what was called special pleading, but it was only amongst those who did not understand that the whole object of it was, that the plaintiff should distinctly state his ground of complaint, that the defendant should as distinctly state what he had to allege to the contrary, how much of the complaint he admitted, and how much he denied, so that both parties should know what was the real question to go before a Jury, and be prepared with evidence accordingly. At the same time he must say, that the evil which the hon. Member proposed to meet was one which this House always had the power to meet. The Resolution he proposed only went to affirm that the House would in future meet it; and he thought that having brought the subject before the House, and the feeling of the House being evidently most strongly against the custom which he wished to put an end to; and as the Resolution would only hamper the House, and might produce great inconvenience, the hon. Member would feel it unnecessary to press it. He (the Solicitor-General) was quite sure that in future they would have all their eyes about them, and endeavour to prevent the continuance of the practice.

After what my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, has said, I beg to withdraw my motion. My only object in bringing it forward was to give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the subject.

rose to propose a motion of which he had given notice, "that the 3rd section of the clause relating to the question of qualification, be restored to the Bill." The object of the Reform Bill was not only to secure the representation of numbers, but of property also; but by the present state of the law many an honest voter was deprived of his franchise, although possessed of the requisite qualification, while others, who since their first registration had parted with their property, were enabled still to vote. It was also pretty well known that property was often conferred upon parties at the time of registration in order to make a vote for those who so transferred it. It was not to be expected that Members of Parliament would go to the expense of keeping up a machinery for the purpose of finding out and cancelling bad votes, but the law should be so constructed as to have that effect as far as it was practicable. He conceived that such would be the effect of a third question which he wished to have incorporated with the Bill. This protection against fraudulent voting, he admitted, was required more in counties than in boroughs and towns, because in the latter the overseers of the several parishes and other local officers were on the spot for the purpose of testing the qualification of the vote. The only questions now proposed by the Bill to be put to the party presenting himself at the hustings, were, first, as to the name and residence, and second, "Have you already voted either here or elsewhere at this election?" &c. Now, what he proposed to add was this question, "Have you the same property which is described in the register, or as much thereof as will entitle you to vote?" This would deprive no man who was properly qualified of his vote, while it would prevent bad votes from being taken.

suggested, that the amendment was applicable to the clause following before the Committee: amendment deferred; the clause agreed to.

expressed his willingness to support the amendment, if it were so modified as to meet the case of borough electors. It often happened that persons were deprived of their votes, not because they had no qualification, but simply because they had changed their place of residence; while others, who had become insolvent and retained no part of the qualification on which they were originally registered, came up and exercised the franchise; and not unfrequently would a man, after he had entirely left the place, as well as lost the property, return and vote at an election upon the qualification originally registered. These things he conceived to be entirely at variance with the principles of the Reform Act and of justice, and means ought to be taken to put a stop to them.

moved the omission of all the words after the words, "shall have tendered his vote at such election." The purport of the words so proposed to be left out was to restrict the power of Committees on election petitions to decide upon the right of parties to vote to cases "in which the name of such person shall have been specially retained upon the register, or inserted therein, or expunged or omitted there from, by the express decision of the Revising Barrister, or by the decision of the Court of Appeal," and also to cases of alleged legal incapacity of the person at the time of voting, by virtue of any Act now or hereafter to be in force, or which may have arisen subsequently to the making out of the register; in all other cases the register of voters in force at the time of election to be final and conclusive. He objected to this provision, as unequal and partial in operation. By adopting this rule, it would happen that in case of a disputed return for a borough which had been long subject to severe contested elections, and the register of which had consequently been thoroughly examined and disputed before the Revising Barrister, and was likely, therefore, to be the more correct, the Committee of this House would again undertake the task of examining and revising the list, thus doubling the expense and the trouble of those who had already had sufficient of both in endeavouring to make the register perfect. On the other hand, in the case of a borough, which had not been contested for some time previous, and the register of which had consequently been neglected by the constituents—this case, where no trouble had been gone to by the parties in order to obtain accuracy, where no expense had been incurred in disputing claims before the Revising Barrister—in such a case as this, where the greatest inaccuracy might reasonably be expected to prevail in the lists, no investigation was allowed to the Committee on the subject; and the parties who had spared themselves any trouble and expense on the subject, were now, through that very act of neglect, to escape from both for the future. This was, he thought, a very strong argument against the justness and the expediency of this part of the clause, and as he had not yet heard any attempt to defend the proposition, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the amendment which he had just moved.

objected to this clause, on the ground that a voter, residing at a distant part of the county, might be unable in unfavourable weather to exercise his franchise; he wished that the consideration of the clause should be postponed.

said, that there might be some imaginary cases in which parties might not be able to come to the poll, but it was impossible to legislate for every contingency that might be suggested, and he thought that the balance of convenience was in favour of the retention of the clause.

contended, that if this clause were to be allowed to stand part of the Bill, it would debar the freeholders in many cases from exercising their rights to vote. It was not at all an extraordinary case, that an individual living on the borders of the counties should have property in each, and how was he to vote in respect to that property, if the poll was to be limited to one day? Besides, it would be giving the freeholders of the town in which the polling booth was erected, an immense advantage over the country freeholders. As to the argument which had been used on a former occasion in favour of this measure, that bribery was more successfully brought into play after the first day's poll, he must say that there were very few instances of bribery in counties. He did not see that there was any inconvenience from the excitement of the second day's poll, because the great struggle was made the first day, and the polling was always carried on languidly on the second day of polling. He should, therefore, decidedly oppose the clause.

thought, that if power were given to the magistrates or the sheriff, to increase the number of polling places, the poll in counties might with great safety be limited to one day. The Committee which investigated this subject re ported, that it was well known that the time most favourable for bribery was between the first and second day's polling, and that many persons refused to vote on the first day, in order that they might be able to make their own terms. He could state, from his own experience, that instances of bribery in county elections were by no means so rare as the noble Lord opposite supposed, and bribery would be most effectually stopped if the poll were closed in one day. He found, by a comparative estimate that had been made of the number of voters who polled on the first and second days of polling in ten counties, that 37,000 polled the first day, and 7,000 the second, showing that five-sixths of the constituencies of those counties polled on the first day; and in another estimate, where thirty-three counties were taken, 115,000 polled the first day, and 25,000 the second. He would cite a glorious instance of what might be done from an example which occured before the Reform Act. In 1768, in the county of Norfolk, there was a contested election, and four candidates, and by an agreement between themselves and the sheriff, it was settled, that the election should be decided by the first day's poll. The election took place in the month of March, the poll began at eight o'clock in the morning, and closed at eight at night, and in the course of that time, 5,500 voters polled in the city of Norwich, and the poll might, in fact, have been closed by five o'clock. He had this statement from a living witness—Mr. Coke, of Norfolk. Thinking, therefore, that it was practicable to take the poll in counties in one day, and being of opinion that if that were done, it would save expense and prevent bribery, he trusted the Committee would agree to the clause.

observed, that in the last contested election for the West Riding of Yorkshire, where there was a body of 18,000 electors, and the extent of the district was not less than eighty miles in length, and from fifty to sixty miles in breadth, there would not have been the least difficulty in taking the whole of the votes in one day, and, in fact, a very few driblets of voters came up in the course of the second day. The whole body of electors, 18,000 in number, was polled out the first day, except about 2,000, and only a portion of those came up on the second day. If, then, the polling places were increased in number, he felt confident there would be no difficulty in taking the poll in counties in one day.

remarked, that this clause embodied a disputed principle, and it would surely be most proper to have the question discussed in a separate form, and as a separate measure, and not to mix it up with details relating merely to the registration of votes. There might be many persons who objected to this part of the Bill, who agreed in thinking the clauses relating to registration expedient, and he would really put it to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it would not be better to withdraw the clause, and treat it as a separate measure.

entirely agreed with the object which this clause had in view, but it was perhaps worthy of consideration, whether it would not be most convenient to deal with it as a separate Bill.

proposed an amendment, which was rendered necessary in consequence of the loose manner in which the 25th Clause of the Reform Act was worded. Till that Act was passed, leaseholders for a term of years had no franchise. A lease for lives was held to be equivalent to a freehold; but if it was terminable at a less period it was not so. For the first time, under the Reform Act, copyholds of 10l. per annum gave a right to vote in counties; and leaseholds, under certain limitations, were placed on the level of freeholds. It was the intention of the framers of that Bill that the right of voting in counties should interfere as little as possible with the right of voting in cities and boroughs, and it was therefore enacted, that no person should be entitled to vote for a county in respect of copyholds and leaseholds in boroughs. The intention of the framers of the Bill had, however, been defeated in consequence of the word "occupied" having been inserted in the 25th Clause of the Reform Act, instead of the word "held." The words of that clause were, that no person should be entitled to vote for a county "in respect of his estate or interest as a copyholder or customary tenant, or as such lessee or assignee, or as such tenant and occupier, as aforesaid, in any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building, or in any land "occupied" together with a house, warehouse, &c, such house, warehouse, &c, being either separately or jointly with the land so" occupied" therewith of such value "as would give a right of voting for the city or borough. He would put a case to illustrate his meaning. He, himself, occupied a house in Grosvenor-place, under a lease of sixty years unexpired, from the Marquess of Westminster. That house being a 10l. house, gave him a right to vote for the city of Westminster. Now, if he wished to create a vote out of that lease for the county of Middlesex, he could do it in this manner: he might let his coach-house for 7l. a year, and his stable for 6l. a year; and then, as he ceased to occupy them, it had been held by the revising barristers that they would also give him a vote for the county of Middlesex. Now, that was in direct contravention of the meaning and intention of the framers of the Reform Act; and he therefore wished to introduce a clause to remedy that defect. For that purpose he moved a clause, the object of which was to declare that no lease or assignment of a term of sixty years or twenty years respectively, or any unexpired portion of such term which confers a right of voting for a city or borough, shall confer a right of voting for the county in which such city or borough is situated.

proposed, that this amendment, which was very important in itself, and very complicated in its wording, should be postponed for future consideration. It was taking hon. Members by surprise to call upon the Committee to pass it when thus suddenly pressed upon its notice.

said, that as this amendment had been on the notice-paper for more than a month, it could not fairly be said that it took the House by surprise. He fully agreed in the propriety of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland.

denied that, there was any fraudulent object in this species of voters for counties.

agreed with his right hon. Friend that the object of the framers of the Reform Bill was to prevent the inhabitants of towns voting for counties or premises which gave them the right of voting for cities and boroughs. He did not, however, understand how parties could make out before the revising barrister their claim to vote for counties in the mode in which his right hon. Friend had stated.

objected to this amendment. It would have a much more extensive operation than the right hon. Baronet intended, and would act most injuriously to the interests and franchises of all subtenants.

said, that if this matter were tried on the intentions of the framers of the Reform Act, the parties whom the right hon. Baronet opposed were not entitled to have votes for counties; but if it were to be tried on the merits, undoubtedly they ought to have them. It was intended by the Reform Act that property should be represented, and these parties having property in the county were entitled to the franchise. He should therefore oppose this amendment, and vote for retaining the clause as it stood at present in the Reform Act.

was also opposed to the amendment. There was no objection on the part of the right hon. Baronet and his friends on the opposite side of the House, to let the landlords split their farms, so as to create as many votes as they could. It WHS well known that the landlords had availed themselves to the utmost of that power, and they only objected to it because they found that the landlords in towns were endeavouring to remedy that evil by availing themselves of their property for the same purpose. If the wording of the Reform Act had given this franchise to the holders of property in towns, he saw no reason why it should now be taken from them to please the right hon. Baronet and his friends on the other side of the House.

would like to say to the Committee, "It is now 12 o'clock;" but as those words might perhaps be considered objectionable, he would only say, that he should oppose this amendment, as to his knowledge it would disfranchise nearly a thousand good votes in the town and neighbourhood of Manchester.

thought that it would produce the same effect in Birmingham. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would therefore withdraw his amendment, for as a Reformer the right hon. Baronet should be anxious to extend rather than to contract the constituency.

had not said, that these votes were fraudulent. He had only said, and he must still maintain, that they were fictitious votes.

moved that the Chairman do now report progress.

moved, that the House do now adjourn. His reason was, that as his Majesty's Ministers thought that the time had arrived for reporting progress, it was clear that, in their opinion, the time must also have arrived for the adjournment of the House.

said, as the noble Lord (Lincoln) seemed to demand from him an explanation of his vote, he would state, that his opinion, as he had already mentioned was, that the clause of the Reform Act was entirely in conformity with the view stated by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham). In the course of the discussion, however, his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, stated to him that he thought that there ought to be a further consideration of the original clause before the amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet, was agreed to. His hon. and learned Friend thought the original words of the Reform Act to be so extremely plain as to render it necessary that there should be some further consideration before it was determined whether any and what words might be required to be introduced to fill up any obscurity in the clause as it now stood. Having received that opinion from his hon. and learned Friend, he (Lord J. Russell) certainly took part with him, and consequently voted for the Motion, that the Chairman do report progress. He felt himself perfectly justified in taking that course, and he was quite indifferent to any interpretation which the noble Lord or the hon. Gentleman opposite might put upon his vote.

If the noble Lord had intimated, in the most distant manner, that he should have had no objection to the amendment, if upon further consideration it appeared necessary to carry out the original intention of the Act, he (Sir James Graham) should at once have requested permission of the House to withdraw the clause. If he now understood from the noble Lord that the clause would not be objected to, if upon further consideration it should seem requisite to achieve the object of the Act as it was originally passed, he should certainly request his noble Friend (Lord Lincoln) to withdraw the motion he had just made.

stated, that believing, as he did, the intention of the clause, as originally framed, to have been such as his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) had stated, if upon further consideration it should appear that such a clause as that proposed by the right hon. Baronet was necessary to carry that intention into effect, he should certainly feel bound to support it.

withdrew his motion, which allowed the House to complete some routine business before it adjourned.