had to present a petition, signed by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Ludlow, which he considered worthy of some degree of attention from the House. The petitioners prayed that some remedy might be afforded for the very serious grievance to which they had been subjected by the conduct of their predecessors in office, the councillors, under the old law. It was provided by a clause in the Municipal Corporations' Act, that immediately upon the election of the new council, all papers, deeds, and documents of every description which had belonged to the old council should be delivered into the custody of the new; and by another clause, it was enacted, that no disposition of properly on the part of the old corporation should be valid if made after June 5, 1835, unless in pursuance of some previous valid covenant or agreement. Now the old corporation of Ludlow, instead of giving up their papers, deeds, &c, into the hands of the new council, had thought fit to make an order on the 23rd of December, a few days before they went out of office, to put into the hands of certain bankers all their deeds, documents, and papers, as security for a balance of an account, amounting to 3,000l.and owing by them to these bankers. By this means, the new council were prevented from taking possession of these documents; repeated applications for the production of which had been made, but without any effect. The new council were, in consequence, unable to come at any knowledge of the acts of the old; but there was reason to think that the sum, whatever it might be, which was owing by that body to their bankers, at or about the passing of the Act, was increased between the months of October and December, 1835, by no less than 1,800l. But since, by another clause, the new town-councils had no power to call in question the acts of the old corporation, after the expiration of six months from the date of their election, it was obviously for the interest of those corporators to keep the new body in ignorance of their proceedings for that period, at least. Nor would the House be surprised at the caution exhibited in these proceedings when they were made acquainted with the description of bargain which they had entered into with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. L. Charlton). They had passed a resolution to sell or exchange certain property with the hon. Member for Ludlow, not in consequence of any recent contract, but of an agreement bearing date twenty-three years previous to that transaction. The hon. Member, who was also one of the old corporation, possessed a life interest in a house called the Charlton Arms in Ludlow, to the amount of 32l. per annum, on the rack-rent. On the28th of October, 1835, the corporation made a proposal to Mr. L. Charlton, to pay him 500l. for the alteration of this house according to a specified plan, to which Mr. L. Charlton having assented, the corporation next thought proper to present the hon. Gentleman with 50l. more, together with their thanks, in consideration of his altering a road leading to the house in question. But this was not all, for only two days before they went out of office, they made him a further present of 50l. for altering the road, thus making up 600l. in all, for alterations about a house in which he had an interest to the value of 32l. a-year only. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to refer to the appointment of trustees of charity estates in boroughs having been placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, when.

, rose to order. He was sure it did not occur to the hon. and learned Member, but he would beg to suggest, that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Charlton) was not in his place. It would be better to suspend this discussion at present.

would propose, that the petition be printed, and referred to the Committee, before which the case of Mr. L. Charlton then was.

was of opinion, that the subject-matter of this petition did not fall within the province of the Committee of Privileges. He put it to the hon. Member, whether it was not a fact, that the subject of this petition formed part of the case now under litigation in the Court of Chancery? He understood that the papers were now in the Master's-office, and if the Court should not eventually do enough to meet the hon. Member's views in this case, then it would be time enough for him to bring this petition before the House. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of letting the matter drop for the present, more especially as it could not be long before the decision of the Committee would be communicated to the House.

said, that, as regarded the question of order, he really could see no reason why he should have been interrupted on that ground. Had he been allowed to proceed, he should have shown that the petition had reference to many points involved in the question now under the consideration of the Committee. The subject of inquiry was, whether a real contempt of the Court of Chancery had been committed, not merely whether the Lord High Chancellor had declared such contempt to have taken place, and many parts of the petition would have served to elucidate this matter. In the prosecution of his duty, as a Member of that House, he should not refrain from presenting any petition which was intrusted to him merely because an hon. Gentleman was accidentally absent from his seat who might be referred to in the statements of that petition. He could not consent to put off the presentation of a petition for an indefinite period on any such grounds. What other means of redress were within reach of the petitioners, but that of a petition to the House of Commons? The petition in no respect interfered with the inquiry before the Lord Chancellor; the subject matter of that inquiry was the appointment of trustees of charity estates; it had no relation to the disposal of the property of the late Corporation, and if he (Mr. Blackburne) found that the property was wasted upon an hon. Member of that House, surely he was entitled to present a petition setting forth the grievance and praying for legislative relief and redress. As there could be no doubt that many facts stated in this petition were calculated to facilitate the inquiry now before the Committee of the House, it was proper that the petition be referred to them, the better to enable them to come to a correct decision on the subject.

said, the inquiry before the Committee had nothing to do with the subject of this petition; the contempt of court had no reference to the retention of these documents and deeds, but to a letter written by Mr. L. Charlton. He should suggest to the hon. Member to take the advice of the hon. Member for Surrey.

said, that although the names of two noble relatives of his were mentioned in the petition, he would content himself with declaring, for them and for himself, that, so far from shrinking from inquiry, they courted inquiry as far as it could be carried. He had seen the hon. Member for Ludlow, and had shortly stated to him the nature of this petition, and it was but justice to him to state that he professed himself perfectly ready to meet all inquiry. With these observations, he should sit down. The question as to how far the hon. Member was correct in bringing forward this petition in the absence of the hon. Member for Ludlow was for the House to decide; he would only repeat, that he, as well as his noble relatives, courted inquiry to the fullest extent.

moved, that the petition be referred to the Committee of Privileges

felt great objections to encumbering the inquiry before the Committee with this subject. They hoped at present, to be enabled to present their Report to the House by Monday; he should resist any reference of this sort, which must unavoidably have the effect of prolonging their deliberations.

said, that the only ground for referring this petition to the Committee of Privileges would be, that inquiries had been entered into before that Committee with reference to the subject of this petition; but from the statements of this petition, it was clear that it had no bearing upon the matters under the consideration of the Committee, and as it seemed most objectionable to refer to a Committee petitions which had little or no connexion with the subject of the deliberations of the Committee, he would suggest, that it would be better for the hon. Member to take some other course.

presented a Petition numerously signed by the owners and masters of vessels at Brighton, complaining of numerous grievances, which he hoped he might be excused for stating to the House. The petitioners set forth that they had invested property to the amount of 10,000l.in the fisheries, and that on the nights of the 3rd and 4th instant their property had been damaged by the French fishermen to the extent of several hundred pounds; that remonstrances had been made in various quarters on this subject, since the year 1829, but no relief had been obtained. The consequence was, that a very large body of men, were, at this moment, totally out of employment. The Duke of Wellington had answered to a memorial laid before his Government on the subject, that the British fishermen might take the law into their own hands. But retaliation was out of the question; for the French boats were better built and better manned than the English. He should only at present remark, that it was extraordinary, that whilst the French suffered no fishing vessels of any nation to approach within nine miles of their coast, their vessels were in the habit of coming within boat-hook's length of the British shore. He should shortly call the attention of the House more fully to this subject.

felt it was necessary to trouble the House with a few remarks in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, otherwise, those who were uninformed on this subject might receive an impression that his Majesty's Government had been guilty of great negligence in not providing a speedy remedy for such grievances. Now, he would engage to say, that if the facts stated by the hon. and gallant Member were embodied in the shape of a memorial, and laid before the Board of Trade, no time would be lost in communicating with the Board of Admiralty, and, in case the facts upon inquiry were made out, no time would be lost in affording the proper naval protection. He did not know whether the terms of the treaty with France were complained of; that was a very different matter; if any infraction of that treaty had taken place, no time ought to be lost in making the proper representations to the Foreign office. He would only remark that the most speedy mode of procuring redress for the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member would have been to have, in the first instance, memorialised that department of the Government to which the matter more properly belonged; and if their representations had been disregarded, then it would have been time enough for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to come down, and ask redress from that House.

said, remonstrances on this subject had been made time out of mind; and though he would not say the present Government had not shown every disposition to afford protection, he did assert that protection had been refused by the Board of Admiralty, of which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, was the head. This he could show by documents in writing, if necessary. He was determined, if Government refused, to take up this matter himself, with a view of compelling the French to observe the principle of equity and justice.

could only assure the hon. and gallant Member that no time would be lost in making application to the Admiralty, who would, he could take upon himself to say, pay every attention to the representations made to them.

moved the second reading of the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill.

hoped that the learned Lord intended this Bill but as introductory to further measures; for unless something were done to remove the evils in the Scotch Courts, which were, he might say, recognised in the present Bill, he (Mr. Wallace) should feel it his duty to take up the subject, with a view to completing these reforms. There was very much that was reprehensible in the present system of taking evidence in some of the Scotch Courts; viva voce evidence was entirely excluded from the supreme courts, a practice that prevailed in no other Court in the universe, he believed, except, indeed, the English Court of Chancery, which had always been an exception to every sound rule of jurisprudence. If the Lord Advocate did not bring in a Bill to allow viva voce evidence to be given in the Court of Session, he (Mr. Wallace) would do so himself.

defended the Report of the Commissioners. He admitted that it might be well to allow viva voce evidence to be taken in the Court of Session, but it was necessary that the greatest caution should be exercised in making the change.

was satisfied that the country was under great obligations to the Commissioners who drew up the Report. He was happy to find that the general merits of the Bill were admitted by all parties. The change proposed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Green-ock, was one which did not come within the scope of the present Bill.

said, there was much novelty, much expense, and much violation of important principle, in this Bill. He wished particularly to draw the attention of his Majesty's Attorney-General to it, and to know whether it had his sanction. The Corporation Reform Act gave the town-councils the power of suggesting to the Crown the salaries they were prepared to pay to the Recorders to be appointed. This Bill proposed to give these Recorders the power of appointing deputies in all cases in which the business of the quarter sessions extended beyond three days, including the day upon which the court was opened; and these deputies were to be paid out of the corporate funds, or where these were insufficient for the purpose, out of a rate to be levied upon the inhabitants of the borough. But it was to the unconstitutional power of delegating to the Recorder, who was a high judicial officer, the power of naming a deputy that he more particularly objected. Nor was it proposed to restrict the power of the Recorder to the naming of his deputy merely. He was also to have the power of unnaming him; for his appointment would be by a power of attorney, or some similar instrument, which he could revoke at pleasure. Surely such a power was in the highest degree objectionable. If these gentlemen found their duties too heavy for them, they were at liberty to retire; but it was rather too soon for them to come to that House for a power to add to the expenses of the boroughs to which they had been appointed. but it seemed that there was to be not merely a deputy Recorder; there was also to be a deputy town-clerk, and a deputy town-crier; the whole expenses of which were to be thrown upon the town. Then, let him call the attention of the House to this fact, that the Recorder was a judge, not only in civil, but in criminal cases also; having, in some places, a jurisdiction commensurate with that of the judges in the superior courts at Westminster, holding pleas of any extent, and taking cognizance of matters of life and death. He was to be allowed to name a deputy; well, was it right that such an officer should be paid by the day? Was he to have a sort of flying interest in the protraction of the cases he had to try? He was to have his three guineas or his five guineas a-day, he (Mr. Harvey) supposed; but surely that never could be the mode in which the judges of the land should be paid. Then let him ask who these deputies were to be? Some small Barristers, who were one day without a brief, and the next deciding upon evidence, and awarding sentences. Was that seemly or proper in any point of view? He trusted that before the Bill was suffered to pass, the several points to which he had adverted would receive due attention, and that the whole measure would be rendered less exceptionable than he could not but feel it now was. While he was up, he would take the opportunity of stating that when the Bill went into Committee, it was his intention to move the insertion of a clause to the effect that no person appointed to fill the office of deputy Recorder should be capable of representing in that House the borough in which he presided. He would also give notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General) that when his Bill for amending the Municipal Corporation Act was in Committee, he intended to move the insertion of a clause to the effect, that no person hereafter appointed Recorder in a borough should be eligible to hold a seat in that House.

could assure the hon. Gentleman, that so far from throwing a greater expense on the borough, this Bill would be a relief to the witnesses, to the prosecutor, to the jury, and to the borough itself. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

thought it would be against the principles of law and justice to allow the Bill to be passed into a law. It might be well enough to allow the councils to appoint a locum tenens for the Recorder, but to allow the judge to appoint his own deputy was a power which would never be allowed in superior courts. Let him suppose that Lord Denman was to appoint a Deputy Chief Justice of England, he would be very apt to lose whatever glory he had acquired by proscribing that House as a publisher of libels. He must certainly vote against the Bill.

did not object to the general objects of the Bill. He thought that, in such cases as that of Leeds it was likely enough that a deputy might be required—but he trusted that the hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill would take time to relieve it from some of the objections which now seemed to he against it.

rose, and said he was anxious to ascertain from his noble Friend, the Secretary of State, whether there was any intention on the part of his Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the system of National Education in Ireland? That measure had been introduced as an experiment, and it had now been in operation for a sufficient length of time to afford proofs of the way in which it had worked. His noble Friend would admit, he was sure, that the conflicting statements made in that House and elsewhere should be set at rest. If it was the intention of his noble Friend to take up the question, he would be most happy to leave it in his hands; but if there were no such intention on the part of the noble Lord, he should certainly take an early opportunity to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire fully and impartially into the practical working of the system, so that if it had operated beneficially, it might be continued, and if prejudicially, that it might be suppressed.

said, he should certainly feel it to be his duty, in the introduction of any measure, to give poor-laws or any other measure of improvement to Ireland, to see that steps were taken to promote a good and extensive system of education for that country. He agreed with his noble Friend, however, in thinking that an investigation should be instituted, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the system now in existence was the best that could be devised. But whether that should turn out to be the case or not, he was satisfied that education, and general education, was a thing that should be promoted by the Legislature and the Government. It was his intention, however, on an early day to propose a Committee of inquiry into Education in Ireland. But he could not even thus advert to the subject, without stating it as his opinion that the present system was working well. It was due to those persons by whom it had been conducted to state that opinion, although, as he had already said, he was in favour of the fullest inquiry into the subject.

wished to know whether it was the noble Lord's intention to include in that inquiry the system of education adopted at Maynooth?

said, he did not think it would be desirable to include Maynooth in the inquiry. With regard to any special inquiry into the college of Maynooth, he saw no objection to such an inquiry. His opinion was, that the result of it would be to show that the grant to that college should he increased.

wished to know whether there was any objection to inquire into the systems of education pursued at Oxford and Cambridge? If it were considered that the system adopted in Ireland was so important to the people of that country, and he admitted that it was so, surely the systems acted upon at Oxford and Cambridge could not be less important to the people of England.

rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill which he had introduced last Session, for the appointment of County Boards, to superintend the financial department in each county. The late period at which the Bill had been introduced last Session, prevented its getting farther than the first reading. Since, then, however, the country had been made acquainted with its provisions and its objects, for he had sent a copy of the Bill to the clerk of the peace in each county. Perhaps he might be told by some persons that this was a very gratuitous act, but he conceived he had only done his duty. A Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Stroud, and passed at the end of last Session, had rendered most of the enactments, which the Bill he formerly introduced contained, useless. The one he now sought to introduce made a complete distinction between the financial and the judicial business of the county. It was limited to the financial department only—the judicial, he thought, ought to remain with the representatives of his Majesty. Much misconception had gone abroad on the subject of the present Bill, and he thought it necessary to state its principle and its object. It was intended that a council should be elected in each county by the rate-payers in the county for the management of the finances. By the previous Bill it was provided that all divisions of the counties were to be made by commissioners to be named under the Bill. Some suggestions had been made to him on this point, and it was now intended that the divisions made by the Poor-law Commissioners should be adopted where that was found advantageous. He therefore proposed that the Commissioners should have a discretionary power to adopt divisions already existing, and to make them where it was necessary; and he had no doubt that if the council were once established, they would, in a few years, be able to point out the exact limit of every division. It was proposed, also, that an election should take place in every parish, the votes to be taken by proper officers, and the returns to be sent to the officer of the union. The Bill also appoints auditors, to be elected by the ratepayers, and all officers under the Bill, from the secretary to the servant, were to be paid a certain fixed salary, but to be entitled to no fees. The Bill also proposed the establishment of a system of police under the direction of the county board. They would thus obtain throughout the country one uniform and systematic body of police, which he believed would prevent a great many offences, and he was sure that the expense of such a system of efficient police would not exceed the sum expended on the present inefficient body. The Bill went to assimilate the counties to the burghs, and to give to rate-payers the management and control over their finances. It was also proposed that the unions should have the power of recommending individuals to be appointed by his Majesty as justices of the peace. This was a point which he was aware was considered of very great difficulty, but he deemed it essential to the well-working of the system, and hoped it would meet with no opposition. He was anxious to see a responsible magistracy, as it appeared to him the country stood greatly in need of it. He moved that leave be given to bring in a Bill for placing the finances of counties under a County Board, to be elected by the rate-payers.

begged to second the motion so unostentatiously brought forward by his hon. Friend. He was glad that one portion of the measure related to the county magistracy. There was one anomaly in the present system which permitted clergymen to assume the judicial character. He believed there were two counties in England where clergymen were not allowed to sit on the Bench. He trusted that that practice would be extended to all England, as it was a violation of the attributes of justice and religion, to unite the spiritual and judicial authority in one person. He felt bound to approve of the system of an effective county police, and he ventured to think that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, would have acted more in accordance with the spirit of the age, had he, when he established the metropolitan police, placed the management and control of it under a municipal government. The practice of establishing county boards had been long introduced even in despotic countries. They existed in Prussia—they were also established in France and in Belgium. In France, he believed the germ of liberty would spring from them, and not from a subservient Chamber of Deputies. The present Bill was in strict accordance with the ancient practice of this country, and he considered if the measure passed, it would be the greatest been the country had received since the Reform Bill, if not superior to that Bill itself.

did not rise to oppose the Bill on the present occasion. He had read it, and if it was not the same as that of last Session he considered it as of equally dangerous tendency. He objected to it on one ground—it gave great political power to the Secretary of State, and besides this, it would make an additional charge on the poor-rates, already sufficiently burdensome. He considered the Bill as transferring the whole management of the affairs of a county to a body of persons who had no property at all, and it conveyed an imputation upon a body of men who had hitherto discharged their duty honestly and faithfully. He thought the Bill was introduced for the purpose of undermining the ancient constitution of the country. He feared there would be little use in resisting the measure in that House, particularly in such a House of Commons as they now had, but he trusted in another place it would not meet with approbation. However, as far as he was concerned, he should be always in his place, to give the Bill every opposition in his power.

said, that when the hon. Member for Middlesex brought in his Bill last Session, he expressed then, as he did now, his approbation of the principle of not intrusting funds to the management of any body of persons without responsibility, and he was perfectly willing that some restriction should be made upon the power of the magistrates to deal with the county rates, in order that they might escape even the suspicion of corruption. Whether this Bill would have this effect or not was another question. The duties of the magistrates of quarter sessions, were threefold,—the control of the county expenditure; the civil business, which included appeals; and thirdly, the judicial business. Now, any one who had any experience in these matters knew very well, that after the first day of the Sessions, when matters relating to the county expenditure were finished, the attendance was very scanty, and for the hearing of the civil business and appeals there was rarely a bench composed of more than three or five members, although cases of great importance were frequently brought before them and when the judicial business came to be disposed of, it was, with the greatest difficulty sometimes, that he was able to get one magistrate to hear the cases with him, so that if the county business were taken away from the magistrates at quarter sessions, there would be, he would not say no inducement, but no occupation for them, after they had travelled a considerable distance and incurred considerable expense. He contended, therefore, that if this Bill were carried it would alter the whole construction of the judicial establishment of the county, and it would be necessary to have a single person appointed to transact the judicial business. A county recorder, competent to the business, might not only deliver the gaol every sessions, but by holding a court every fortnight would do away with the necessity of having Local Courts, and the result would be, that imprisonment before trial would seldom be more than seven days. When punishment was immediate upon the commission of crime, a most important advantage was obtained; for not only did offences become less frequent, but an enormous expense would be saved by not keeping prisoners two or three months in prison before trial. But there was one point in the observations of the hon. Member for Liverpool, to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that the chief and most important duties of the magistrates consisted in trying prisoners. He totally forgot how they were employed when they did not sit at quarter sessions. The most important of their duties was their residence in the various places in the county where they lived, and where they were enabled to act as friends of the poor, and heal disputes as arbitrators and referees. In cases of assault, differences between masters and servants, and cases of trespass, their interposition was most constant and most useful. They formed a link in the social chain which bound the poor and the middle class together, and if the hon. Member's Bill were carried, he feared greatly that it would dissolve a connexion which had been most beneficial to the country. He contended that the large amount of the county rates was not attributable to the mal-administration of the county funds by the magistrates, but to the burdens which had been thrown on them by the legislature itself. The Prisoners' Counsel Bill alone doubled the expenses of trials, and the Weights and Measures' Bill, and expense of country bridges, all fell upon the county rates, and he would venture to say, that the magistracy had done everything in their power to reduce the rates, and had, to a great extent, succeeded in effecting that object. Nothing could be more unwise than a measure, the effect of which would be to take away the resident magistracy. He wished that Ireland had, like this country, a large, a resident, and a respectable magistracy, and he would pledge his credit that it would be more quiet and peaceable than it was now. He could bear his testimony to the charac- ter of the magistrates of England. They had always, as far as his observation extended, been ready to give their attention to the petitions and recommendations of all classes, no matter how humble. As to clerical magistrates, he had long contended that they ought not to be in the Commission of the Peace, but in many counties it was extremely difficult to get a sufficient number of magistrates without clergymen, and till this obstacle was surmounted he should not. be able to say that, in his opinion, no clergymen ought to be magistrates. With respect to this Bill, he wished to know if the hon. Member would be satisfied to introduce his Bill for one county, Middlesex alone, as an experiment, because the difference between the metropolitan counties and the rural districts was as great as between light and dark. If the hon. Member would be content with that, and succeeded in carrying his Bill, and it were found, after a year's trial, that it worked well, he would support him in bringing forward a Bill to apply to the whole of England.

protested against the limitation of this Bill to the county of Middlesex. If it were to pass into law, it ought to be extended to the kingdom at large, otherwise it would look like a slur upon the magistracy of the county to which its application was to be confined. As far as the county of Middlesex was concerned, he could not but regret that the magistrates of that county had to complain of the non-attendance of one of their body who occupied an influential position in it on all those occasions, when the financial business of the county was under consideration. Yes, he was sorry to say that the hon. Member for Middlesex was, of all the magistrates of that county, the magistrate that attended least to the auditing of its financial accounts, and to the controlling of its expenditure. Without entering at all into the merits of the Bill, he would give notice that on the second reading of this Bill, he would oppose it, and take the sense of the House upon it.

thought, that what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, the Member for Warwickshire, ought to induce the House to pass the Bill, as he had had great experience in the business of quarter sessions. He stated, that, if the Bill passed, it would be necessary to have a county judge. Now in Ireland there was a precedent that was found to work well, and from the late divisions of counties by the Lord-lieutenant, the assistant barrister was obliged to spend almost his entire time in the discharge of his duties. He believed it would be of great advantage to the people of England to have a person qualified to act and educated for the administration of the laws. He did not know that the conduct of the magistracy of Middlesex was so pure as to be above all suspicion; for he had read in the newspapers some resolutions passed by the vestry of St. George, Hanover-square, in which they intimated that the magistracy of that county had misapplied some 11,000l. of the county money. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that if magistrates were selected by the people, the character of the office would not be exalted. Now he was of a different opinion, and he was sure the bad would be omitted and the good only returned. He went, however, on higher ground, and he would state that it was only a return to the old constitutional principle of taxation by representation and of election by the people. It appeared that magistrates, however pure, were not, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion. The Bill before the House proposed a return to the common law practice prior to the time of the statute of Edward 3rd, which was enacted pro hac vice to vest in the Crown the appointment of magistrates. The gallant Member for Lincoln was afraid that this was of a democratic principle. If the word democratic were translated for his benefit, it would be seen that it only meant popular, and he did not think it so fearful a thing to give to the people of England a popular control over the expenditure of money raised from themselves. The appointment of the Lord Lieutenant was objectionable—he might be a Whig, and then he probably would appoint what the gallant Member for Lincoln might call improper magistrates. He might be a Tory, and the odds were that he was so, and then he would nominate persons in whom the people could not have confidence. It was well known that the commission was given away as a matter of favour; no one denied it, and it was a fearful thing that persons should be selected, not for their fitness or capability, but for their having found favour in the eyes of the Lord Lieutenant of the county.

admitted the system of assistant-barristers had worked well in Ireland, but doubted whether it would work equally well in England. He must, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, protest against any measure which would destroy the golden link between the middle classes and poor, by depriving the latter of their natural friends and protectors.

asked, was not the Bill intended to give power to the democracy? He would ask the hon. Member for Middlesex to point out to him any petitions which had been presented from the counties of England, complaining of the conduct of the magistracy, or praying for the proposed alterations. He was not aware of any such having been presented. And looking at the state of the great commercial interest in that great city, where there was nothing but doubt, perplexity, and alarm, he could not attribute the hon. Member for Middlesex's allowing his mind to be perverted to so trivial an affair as this or to any other cause than to the spirit of party.

could not allow the introduction of the present Bill, without expressing his opposition to it. He considered it a measure, than which, he had never seen anything more essentially dangerous. There were already, as he thought, enough elections of one kind or the other without introducing any fresh; and from what he had seen of those elections, he had little cause to be pleased with them; he thought that they did not tend to the good harmony of society, or the good order of the community, but that they were productive of much ill will. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln, that he did not like to act on a bench of magistrates along with the clergy; when he (Mr. Trevor) had seen those rev. gentlemen on the bench, he had never seen any conduct from them but such as would do honour to their sacred character. In many parts of the country the gentry were very few, and in those parts if the clergy did not act as magistrates much inconvenience would be experienced. He objected also to the observations of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, as to the conduct of Lords-Lieutenant in the appointment of magistrates. He (Mr. Trevor) did not think that the Lords-Lieutenant acted from political motives. He thought no one would object to sit on the same bench, or act as a magistrate with a gentleman, because their political creeds happened to differ. The hon. Member for Middlesex had no right to throw out any insinuations, and he could not think of the reason why the hon. Member should bring forward this Bill, unless it was because it was the fashion of the present day not to leave one earthly thing alone. It was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite that if anything had continued for a long period it was necessarily wrong, and that an entire change must take place without consulting public opinion, and whether any complaints were expressed or not. Had any petition been presented in favour of any such change as the present? The hon. Member for Liverpool would, perhaps, tell him whence they had come; he was not aware of any. He agreed that one great tendency of the present measure was towards democracy, and towards giving a preponderating power to that class of persons which has very little to lose—to the prejudice of those who have a great deal. The Opposition were continual told that this measure and that measure was only working out the principle of the Reform Bill; all he could say was, that if such were the case, the Reform Bill had been the parent of a most mischievous offspring. After the opinion expressed by his hon. Friends around him, that this Bill should be allowed to be laid on the table, it would be presumptuous in him now to offer any opposition; but if he had consulted his own feelings, he would have divided the House upon it, even if he had stood alone. He objected to it, however ab initio usque ad finem, and he should not omit any step which might lead to its rejection.

thought it was rather hard of the hon. Member who had just sat down to complain of the hon. Member for Middlesex for introducing this Bill, and because the hon. Member for Middlesex would not leave things alone, since it was only the other day that the hon. Member for Durham had himself given notice for the introduction of two Bills—one for the punishment of offences against the person, and the other for an alteration in the sale of Beer Bill. If the hon. Member did not like continued alteration, why could he not leave these two subjects alone?—He was to be allowed to meddle with what he pleased, but the hon. Member for Middlesex, and every body else, were not to be allowed that privilege.—With respect to the principle of the present Bill it would be difficult to make any objection. Where a large sum of money was raised by rate and expended, a sum the amount of which had been much increased within the last few years, he thought that the principle of placing the levying and expenditure of the rate in some measure under the control of the rate-payers was not objectionable.—It had been said that there were no petitions in favour of such a change; but if he recollected there had been petitioners from Staffordshire, Somersetshire, and Hertfordshire; and with respect to the county of Devon, in particular, he knew that much ill-will and considerable discontent existed among the farmers and yeomanry, because their money was disposed of without any control on their part. There was, therefore, a prima facie case for the introduction of this Bill by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He did not know whether he had understood correctly the observations which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made in stating that this was not a Bill which he was prepared to second. He was, however, inclined to use as an argument in favour of this Bill the very observations which the hon. Baronet had used as an argument against it. The hon. Baronet had stated that the magistrates were in the habit of attending in great numbers to discuss the expenditure of the county rates, to examine what monies had been levied and received, to see how the county treasurer discharged his duty, and, when occasion required, to appoint his successor; but that when it was necessary to obtain their presence upon the civil business of the county their attendance was thin, and when it was necessary to obtain it on criminal business it was still thinner. Now he did not consider such a state of things very creditable to the magistracy. That the chairman of the quarter sessions should be left with only two magistrates, and those, perhaps, not the most distinguished for talent, to transact the criminal business of the county, was a spectacle that one would not wish to see, and there could be no good reason for continuing such a system. The hon. Baronet, the Member for North Warwickshire, likewise observed, that if this plan proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex were adopted, it might lead to the appointment of a recorder or judge for each county. He would not give a decided opinion on the propriety of such an appointment, but this he would say, that there was great difficulty at present in obtaining the assistance of gentlemen competent for the task of acting as chairmen at quarter sessions. No one knew better than the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that it required considerable talent, great knowledge of law, and no small sacrifice of time, to perform that task in an adequate manner. With the great increase of civil and criminal business which had arisen of late years, and with the still greater increase which might be expected from the Prisoners' Counsel Bill passed last session, that task would become every year more arduous and laborious, and he therefore anticipated that from year to year it would become more difficult to find a competent chairman for the quarter sessions. If his anticipation should be correct, and if it should in consequence become necessary to appoint recorders of counties, that would form no reason for not separating the financial from the criminal business of the county. He would not venture at present any opinion upon the details of this measure. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member for Middlesex would bring them forward in such a shape as would enable the Bill to pass the Legislature, and that he would take care not to create any expensive offices in the machinery he might devise for carrying it into effect. He did not mean to assert that there were not objections to the mode in which the business was now conducted—he admitted that there were objections, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Middlesex would find means to obviate them. He thought that the county council ought to be kept together as short a time as possible, and that there should be as few permanent paid officers as possible. With regard to the clause for the appointment of magistrates, he must say, that in his opinion, it did not stand at present in a very satisfactory state. He was free to admit, that there was at present a want of system and of regularity in the mode of appointing the county magistracy. The appointments depended too much on the opinions, and he might even say, the prejudices, of individuals. There was no general rule by which the Lord-Lieutenants were guided in the selections they made of individuals for the bench. Each acted upon his own discretion. For instance, the Duke of Wellington did not think it right to recommend any clergyman for the magistracy, when any other gentleman could be appointed in the district. Other Lord-Lieutenants adopted a different rule, and recommended a greater number of clergymen than of any other class to the bench. Though he did not think much of the patronage exercised by the Lord-Lieutenants, he must say, that a practice had grown up amongst them, on which it was incumbent to place a check. It was the practice of most of the Lord-Lieutenants, when a gentleman was recommended to them as a fit person to be inserted in the commission of the peace, to refer his name to the magistrates of the district, and to determine, upon their answer, whether he would insert his name or not. This gave the magistrates the power of electing as their colleagues on the bench men of their own party, and of rejecting those, who though objectionable to them on private grounds might not be objectionable on any public grounds. He thought that there should be greater uniformity than that which now existed in the rules for determining the eligibility of individuals to the magistracy, but he was not prepared to go the length of saying that the Crown ought not to have the power of appointing as magistrates other individuals besides whose who were recommended to it by the county council.

had only meant to say that the chairman of quarter sessions executed almost all the duties of the magistrates, whilst the others sat merely to make a court. They were merely wanted to make up a court and it could not be expected that many Gentlemen could be induced to attend, when they had nothing to do but to sit with their hands before them.

had been Chairman of the Sessions in Berkshire for several years, and had experienced no difficulty from the non-attendance of magistrates to assist in the criminal business, but this he attributed to the fact, that the criminal business was transacted before the civil. He believed that the hon. Member for Middlesex had brought in the Bill in order to save expence to the counties, and he (Mr. P.) was not disposed to offer any objection to the general principle, that those who pay the rates should have some voice in the expenditure, though he thought there was a considerable difference between the county-rate and the public taxes, because the county magistrates had no power to make a rate and levy money except so far as they were authorized by the Legislature, and they had little discretion given to them except as to the salaries which they should give to their officers. The hon. Member for Middlesex had complained that he had not received any answer from any county magistrate to whom his circular had been addressed, but he would take the liberty of informing the hon. Member, that in the County of Berks, this did not proceed from any disrespect. The letter was taken into consideration by the Magistrates, they expressed their thanks to the hon. Member for his courtesy, but they thought it no part of their duty to give an explicit answer, they had, however, instructed the Clerk of the Peace to write to the hon. Member, thanking him for his attention; and, as far as he (Mr. Palmer) could collect, the general impression was, that although it was desirable to give a control to the people, yet that a greater expense than at present would be created by this Bill, without presenting any countervailing benefits from its theoretical advantages.

would recommend to the hon. Baronet and the other Members opposite to follow the example of the Magistrates of Cambridge, who highly approved of the principle of the Bill. It was most essential, in his opinion, that the financial and civil business should be separated, as at present the system was productive of much inconvenience.

complained of the lavish manner in which the public money was expended by the Magistrates, though the hon. Member for Berkshire had said they had no discretion.

explained. What he meant to say was, that very little of the county expenditure was now under the actual control of the Magistrates, except the salaries of their own officers.

had at that moment in his eye the Castle of York, to which the walls of Babylon were nothing. That had been built at an enormous expense, and was a monument of folly to the country. There was also the gaol of Leicester, which was unfortunately too large for the wants of the people of that county—and in Lancashire the Magistrates had persisted in laying out large sums upon the gaol, although they were well aware that for some years it was the general opinion that the assizes for the southern division of the county should be held at Liverpool or Manchester. That gaol was now much too large, and he was glad that some check was likely to be put to this lavish and injudicious expenditure

did not think it right to enter into the details of the measure at that early stage, but he thought it right to direct the attention of the House to the principle of the Bill, and one more obnoxious in principle, or more objectionable in detail, he had never read. He could not suppose the House would pass a Bill so degrading to the Magistracy, and so derogatory to the privileges of the Crown itself. Were not the Magistrates selected from those who had the largest property in the county?—and would it be now said, that they should take from them the management of their own property? He meant the property of the county, in the disbursement of which they had so large a stake. Would not any man who came to take a farm inquire what the amount of poor-rates and county-rates, &c, was, before he fixed upon the value of the farm, and was not the landlord therefore the person most deeply interested in the amount and application of those rates? The Bill not only prevented that, but it prevented the Magistrates interfering with the police force of the county, although no class of men were so fit to arrange that portion of the local business of the country. He had taken some pains to ascertain where those rate-payers who would have a vote were to be found, and he had ascertained that in the agricultural districts the sum total of the rates paid did not exceed one-twentieth of the whole. In short, the 3l. tenants, men who had no interest whatever in the land, would have a voice in the election of that council which was to nominate the Magistrates; and be it observed, that there was no security as to qualification of the persons they were to elect. He thought it would be necessary for the hon. Member for Middlesex to do what he had recommended to his hon. Friend the Member for Bath—to pat Ministers a little oftener on the back, before he could expect to carry that most objectionable measure, which he was confident would be rejected by the House.

thought it must be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Middlesex, to know that no objection had been taken to the principle of the Bill. He believed it would always be found that where hospitality was extended to the Magistrates by the gentry of the neigh bourhood, there was always a full attend- ance at Sessions. In the county of Sussex, with which he had the honour to be connected, he was happy to say that the Lord Lieutenant had broken through the rule of appointing Magistrates solely on the recommendation of the Bench, a thing which he thought highly objectionable. One inconvenience of the present mode of conducting the business at Quarter Sessions, was, that the Magistrates were often obliged to retire into another room, to look over the county rates, instead of being able to attend to the trial of prisoners committed by themselves. Another objection was, that all information as to the purpose to which the rate was levied, was in many instances withheld from the rate-payers. The Bill was on these grounds most likely to give great satisfaction to the country, and would receive his (Capt. Pechell's) strenuous support.

expressed the warmest approbation of both the principle and details of the Bill, as the present system of levying county-rates had been productive or great injustice and inconvenience. It had been asked what petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill. Many would have been presented if the mode of presenting them in that House were more satisfactory. Thousands would have been presented if it were not known that petitions which had cost weeks of preparation were presented without discussion or observation, and with the formality of merely walking from that place to the table. With respect to the election of a county board by the rate-payers, there was nothing objectionable; they had an election every seven years for Members of Parliament, and yet here was a case in which the interests of every working man in England were concerned, in which the application and levy of the surplus of his labour were concerned, and what did they see on the other side of the House which had exhibited so laudable an anxiety to establish Conservative Operative Associations? Why, that not twenty Members could be brought together upon a question so vitally important to the working classes, so deeply affecting the security of their property, the welfare of their persons, and the happiness of their children. Here was an illustration of the democratic principle, the object of which was to give life and energy to the country, to protect the interests of all classes; and great as were the obstacles which it had to encounter, it was sure to succeed. In the struggle it was now making against tyranny and despotism, it would eventually prostrate every foe and secure to the people the greatest share of happiness and enjoyment they could acquire. No honest magistrate could object to the Bill—it would confer a greater power upon the good magistrates and remove it from those who had hitherto only abused it. A better Bill, in his opinion, had never been introduced. It had been proposed to confine its operation to Middlesex, and he (Mr. Wakley) for one Middlesex rate-payer, was most anxious it should be applied to that county. If the other parts of England were aware of the advantages it would confer, it would soon be very generally established. What, he would ask, was there objectionable in it? The hon. Member for Essex had said that those who would have the right of voting paid only one-twentieth part of the rates. He would be glad to know where or how he had made such a calculation. In some counties in England the county and poor-rates were combined, yet in others they were very properly separated. Hon. Members said no, but he would satisfy them that such was the case, in the county of Middlesex and elsewhere, and he hoped it would soon be very generally established throughout the country.

would merely offer one observation to the House. The principle of the Bill was, in his opinion, short and comprehensive—it was, that those on whom the burthen fell should have some voice in the nomination of those by whom it was to be imposed. To that he expressed his unqualified assent, and he regretted that the hon. Member for Essex should have so inappropriately directed his arguments to that point. If any objection was hereafter made to the details of the measure they would see how they could be amended in Committee. As a magistrate of the county of Middlesex, he was glad to see the principle put forward, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House.

would ask the hon Member for Middlesex, whether any demand had been made by the middle or higher classes for a stricter inquiry into the expenditure of the county-rates? No such thing, and until that was done, he saw no necessity for the present measure.

said, the principle on which this Bill was founded was that on which the House of Commons was constituted, and on which the Municipal Corporation Bill passed the year before last was framed, and the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite (if good for anything) against the principle of the Bill, would equally tend to destroy both the one and the other. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not proved that magistrates had sufficiently attended to the discharge of their public duties. He contended for this great principle that a free people ought to have control over the money which they themselves raised. The Bill was called popular and democratical. It ought to be as much so as the Municipal Corporation Bill, or the Reform of Parliament Bill. The frequency of elections which had been complained of would, he considered, along with elections for vestries, or municipal councils, tend to educate and prepare the people for the exercise of the more important franchise—the Parliamentary. What right had that House to set up two kinds of constitutions, one for the towns and the other for the counties? He saw no reason why the people of England should be deprived of the benefit of those institutions, which were established in almost every civilised country in the world.

said, that, as chairman of quarter sessions for his county, he had entered into the details of this Bill to a full attendance of his brother magistrates, and they agreed it contained many excellent provisions, though some of the details might be improved. He agreed with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Warwick, and the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, as to the propriety of establishing a county recorder, or judge. Not having been regularly educated for the law, he did not feel himself competent to discharge the duties of the situation he was called on to occupy.

replied. Three separate Committees had sat and reported upon the subject with which this Bill purposed to deal, and a commission had issued which had presented a very comprehensive report. He had presented on one occasion eight petitions from eight different counties in favour of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite had termed the Bill mischievous. Now, if by that they meant that it was popular, and tended to increase popular control, it was perfectly consistent in those Members who had steadily resisted all advancement of the popular cause to make that objection. But just on that ground that it was popular, and did extend popular control, did he (Mr. Hume) support the Bill. The Bill was also called an innovation. Now, let hon. Members recollect that he was not the innovator; that he was merely proposing a return to the ancient system. Lord Denman had lately decided, after elaborate argument, that the rate-payers had no right to apply to see the vouchers of county expenditure; that it was sufficient for the magistrates to see them, and the magistrates were irresponsible to the rate-payers. The details of the Bill might be doubtless improved, but he would not give up the principle of popular control, and he trusted that the House of Commons would not reject it. He had been accused of not attending the meetings of the Middlesex bench of magistrates, but the reason was, that he could not, by reason of other and more important duties, find time to discharge properly the functions of a county magistrate.

rose to ask for leave to bring in a Bill similar to the Bill of last Session, and which arose out of a recommendation of the Committee which sat last year to consider the manner in which Members of that House were put to very considerable and irregular expenses on their elections. That Committee had laid on the table many lengthened and precise details of the evils of the present system, and the Report recommended the Bill which he now moved for leave to bring in, the object of it being to define what were legal charges, and what not. The Bill, however, as compared with that of last Session, was very much improved. Many clauses had been left out, and the Bill was now limited expressly to the expenses of elections. As the Bill was not yet before the House, he considered it unnecessary to say more. He hoped he would be allowed to introduce it, as by that means hon. Members might have the Bill, and make themselves masters of its contents, and see whether or not it deserved support.

said, that whatever might be the democratic tendency of the last Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Middlesex, this Bill was certainly not democratic. He had himself always exercised feelings of hospitality and charity towards those with whom he had the honour to be connected, and whether this Bill passed the House or not, it should not prevent him from continuing to do so. This Bill would not be very popular—he was sure it would not be very satisfactory to the hon. Member's constituents. He thought there was a degree of niggardliness about the Bill that was inconsistent with the British character. He loved to be amongst his constituents, and they loved to be with him. If the hon. Member for Middlesex would do him the honour to accept an invitation to his place, he was sure that that hon. Member's opinion as to the necessity of this Bill would be altogether changed.

was opposed to the repeal of this proviso. He did not consider dispensaries as beneficial to the poor. He knew of a case in which a surgeon to an hospital received from 100l.to 200l. a-year for the trifling service of visiting an hospital twice a week. He thought the subject ought more properly to be introduced into the Poor-law Bill. The expense to the county was not what he objected to, but the opinion he entertained of the inutility of these establishments.

hoped the clause would be maintained. The proviso would be found to act inconveniently, especially in those districts of Ireland such as his own, in which the medical attendant could derive little additional remuneration from private practice.

also hoped that the clause would be retained. He had received many communications, showing the great inconvenience which had resulted from the proviso. The cupidity of some persons might lead them to undertake the medical superintendence of an extensive district, which it was physically impossible that they could properly attend to; but the Legislature ought not to hold an encouragement to such a system.

could confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a general complaint was made in Ireland at the prospect of the effect of the clause of the Act of last year, which limited the salary of the medical attendant to a moiety of the private subscriptions, and he could add a case within his own knowledge in the county of Dublin, where, in a neighbourhood in which he was much interested, a dispensary had been recently established, and which could not continue to exist, if the medical attendant was not allowed a larger remuneration than the half of the private subscriptions; he quite approved of the repeal of that clause.

assured the hon. Member for Finsbury, his Irish correspondents had been amusing themselves with his credulity, as to the injurious effects of the clause in the late Bill, to which he had alluded, such as depriving the poor of Ireland of medical assistance. That clause had not as yet come into operation; its provisions had never been acted upon; no assizes had been held since the passing of the Act in which it was embodied, and, in fact, matters were at that moment in precisely the same state as they were previous to its introduction. The hon. Member perfectly misunderstood both his noble Friend, the Member for Leitrim, and himself, if he imagined they were not anxious medical assistance should be afforded to the poorer classes of their fellow-countrymen. For his own part, he was desirous that professional skill and medical assistance should universally, throughout Ireland, be provided for the peasantry, and that fair and ample remuneration should be secured to the gentleman devoting his time and abilities to their services. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had alluded to the dispensary in his immediate neighbourhood, and stated that thousands of persons would be deprived of professional assistance if this clause was rejected, as the medical attendant could not continue if his salary was reduced. The dispensary was all he had to depend on. From the poorness of the district, notwithstanding its great extent, 5l. could not in the year be calculated on [from any other quarter. Now, although he (Mr. French) was not aware of the circumstances of that particular dispensary, from his general know- ledge on the subject, he would venture to assert the salary of the medical attendant did not exceed 70l. or 80l. a-year. [Mr. O'Connell stated across the House—75l.] Was 75l., he would ask, a sum sufficient to remunerate a gentleman of skill and education; or could it be expected for anything so paltry, persons competent to discharge the duties could be found? The present system could not be rendered effective, nor under a salary of 300l. a-year could qualified persons be found in all medical appointments, whether to hospitals, infirmaries, or dispensaries; all favouritism and jobbery should be guarded against; an examination should take place before the Board of the College of Surgeons in Dublin, and the best qualified should be the person appointed to each vacancy. As he was on his legs, he would wish to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, to the Netterville Dispensary, in order to induce him to adopt some measure to render that institution useful to a very poor and impoverished district in the city of Dublin. Two of the trustees appointed under Lord Netterville's will had, he understood, declined taking any share of the duties on themselves, and the third only troubled himself to the extent of nominating the officers and discharging the accounts. The institution ought not to be considered a private one; the parishioners were called on to contribute to its support; a committee of management ought to be appointed, and the advantage of a parochial dispensary afforded to the poor.

said, that he should certainly retain the clause. There had arisen under the old system an abuse which the Act of last year had been intended to remove; but it had been found that the proviso inserted for that purpose was not the proper means of remedying that abuse, and that it had the effect of rendering the remuneration of a medical attendant most scanty in districts which did not happen to be opulent. He regretted, that the dispensary was beyond the power of Government, as it was in the Court of Chancery.