, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was not a new Bill, but an improvement on the Bill of 1835, the principal alterations being to fine the owner instead of the servant in case of overdriving horses in private vehicles, and to enable magistrates to inflict a fine of 5 l ., which had hitherto been limited to 40 s ., an alteration which the police magistrates of the metropolis, and of several large towns, strongly recommended.

fully approved of the principle of the Bill; but he wished to know if the existing laws were not sufficient. No man was more anxious to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals or to men than he was; but he feared that the multiplication of Acts might render the matter difficult instead of simple.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said, that, as observed by the noble Marquess, it was not a new Bill, but repealed the existing law, and re-enacted it with amendments, in some cases substituting imprisonment for a pecuniary penalty. He had not the least objection to the Bill, but he thought that in Committee it would require a most careful consideration.

inquired if there was any clause in it against steeple chasing.

said, there was no clause to that specific effect; but there was a power given by it to magistrates to inflict a penalty where animals were overdriven.

said, that as no one could object to the principle of the Bill, they had better not discuss its details until they went into Committee.

inquired if it was to extend to Ireland and Scotland.

had no objection to the principle of the Bill; but when in Committee he would move that it shall not extend to Scotland.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

said, he should not have felt it necessary to address the House in moving that this Bill be read a second time, but for the notice of the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich to oppose it in limine . In consequence of a general demand made through petitions, her Majesty was pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the general management of the county funds—the result of which was a preliminary report, presented 11th August, 1835, showing a careful inquiry into the different taxes, the amount collected, and the manner in which they were applied; and a second report, presented 2nd June, 1836, containing the evidence of many of the best-informed magistrates, who admitted the necessity of a change. He was examined, and stated that he considered that the fiscal reform which had been effected in the management of the borough rates had been approved of; and he saw no reason why that reform should not be carried to the counties. After that report was presented, he introduced a Bill, called the County Boards Bill, separating the whole financial affairs of the counties from the judicial. It was read a first time with the sanction of the Government; but on the second reading was lost through the opposition of the county Members. Since then he had had numerous applications to re-introduce the Bill, but he had declined, thinking it the duty of the Ministers to bring the matter before the House. But, in the early part of this Session, he had been waited on by a deputation from Lancashire, and, at their pressing request, he had introduced the present Bill, which materially differed from that of 1837. Since that time the country had been divided into poor-law unions, and the guardians were a representative body. Two or three public meetings in Lancashire had come to the conclusion that an independent county financial board, as provided by the Bill of 1837, would be unnecessary, and that certain elected guardians might form such board. It was proposed that each union should elect one of its guardians to form the county board, to which one magistrate would be added for every two guardians so elected. But if the House thought any other proposition more desirable, he should not object. It was his intention to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and the alteration might then be made. He conceived such alteration would be an injury to the measure; but he was disposed to submit to it, rather than risk the loss of the Bill altogether. In the Commissioners' report already referred to, the Commissioners justly complained of the county rate being the only tax of so large an amount levied without representation; and, on this ground, he hoped the House would consent to the alteration proposed, which was anxiously desired in very many counties. The Commissioners had recommended the formation of county financial boards, on the ground that by no other means could the expenditure of the county rates be properly controlled. In the 40 years between 1792 and 1832, the cost of maintaining bridges in the several counties had risen from 42,000 l . to 74,000 l ., an increase of 76 per cent; the expenses of gaols, from 92,000 l . to 177,000 l .—92 per cent; the maintenance of prisoners, from 45,000 l . to 127,000 l —178 per cent; cost of prosecutions, from 34,000 l . to 157,000 l .—359 per cent; constables, from 659 l . to 26,680 l .—4,300 per cent. On other items there was also a marked increase, averaging 148 per cent, all showing the necessity of steps to control the county expenditure. In 1835, the total county expenditure of England and Wales was 693,000 l .; in 1847, it was 1,100,000 l ., being an increase of 74 per cent in 12 years; and the increase in Lancashire alone had been 137 per cent. Though this increase was large, it would have been still larger had Parliament not stepped in to the relief of the counties. In 1835, the expenses of prosecutions at sessions and assizes had been thrown on the Consolidated Fund, which, with other items, relieved the county rates to the amount of 152,000 l .; and these payments had gone on increasing till, in 1847, they amounted to 533,000 l ., and in 1848 to 542,000 l ., forming in all an aggregate of 3,532,000 l . of expenditure, from which the county rates had been relieved, although these rates had nevertheless increased 74 per cent. The measure before the House had necessarily been framed so as to avoid the more prominent objections raised to the former measure; and he believed most county Members were now disposed to assent to the principle of county financial boards. Some hon. Members had expressed a wish that the Bill should give power for assessing owners of property to the cost of gaols and other new buildings; but he did not think such a provision could be conveniently included in the Bill. It might form the subject of a separate enactment, and it was one well worthy the attention of the House. With the view of applying some remedy to the evils existing in the county management, he solicited the House to give this Bill a second reading, referring the consideration of the details to a Select Committee.

stated that he would second the Motion. He understood the principle of the Bill was, that there should be a board for the management of the financial affairs of counties, separate from the county board. To that principle he was decidedly a friend, but he thought there was great misapprehension as to the powers of magistrates in these matters. He had never known the magistrates of the county where he resided hold a meeting which had not for its object to reduce the expenditure to its lowest possible amount. He held in his hand a copy of the last treasurer's accounts, and he was satisfied that there was not one farthing entered which had not been properly expended. It was impossible that boards chosen as the hon. Member for Montrose proposed could know what officers or salaries were necessary. What had been the course taken by boards of guardians? They had reduced expenditure which they ought least of all to have reduced—the salaries of medical officers and medical assistants. It had been his fate to see three gaols built in the county where he resided, not by the will of the magistrates, but by the will of the hon. Member and those who supported him in that House. What was done was not in accordance with what the magistrates thought most advisable, but in accordance with some philanthropic crotchet of the Home Secretary for the time being; and they were now going to an enormous expense in building another county gaol. Then considerable expense had been incurred for lunatics. About thirty years ago he had been the first person to move in the county board for a return of lunatics and fatuous persons. It was discovered that there were upwards of 300 in the county; and then it became necessary to have a lunatic asylum. In some of the representations made by the supporters of the Bill, the magistrates were accused of building splendid establishments at the expense of the ratepayers. They had no power in the matter; it was the Home Secretary who required that such accommodation should be provided. And when the building of these places was ascribed, as in a remonstrance from Birmingham, to a "magisterial monomania," it was evident that the remonstrants laboured under a total misapprehension, and that great delusion existed on the subject. He was of opinion that the rate-payers ought to have a voice in the administration of counties.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "that the Bill be now read a second time."

thought it would be unfortunate if the hon. Member for Montrose did not receive a little warmer support to his Bill than had been offered by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The principle of the Bill, as he (Sir J. Pakington) understood it, was, that those who contributed to the county rate should have a control over its expenditure. To that principle he did not object; but he thought that the Bill before the House, although it might suit the theories of the hon. Gentleman, and those who supported him, would not be found to effect the object in view. He held the Bill to be a most objectionable, and a most impracticable. Bill. With respect to county expenditure, he believed there never was a time when it was watched with more jealous care, and subjected to more rigid economy, than at the present moment. [Mr. HUME: By whom?] By the county magistrates. He could answer with respect to his own county, that the accounts of no mercantile establishment in the kingdom were subjected to a more rigid scrutiny than were the accounts of that county. As chairman of the board of magistrates of that county, he arrogated to himself no merit for instituting that scrutiny. It was the merit of the finance committee under the control of the magistrates at large. If any counties there were in which this economy was not practised, he should not object to the appointment of a Committee which should inquire into the county expenditure. So strong was his feeling on the subject of economy in these matters, that he had abandoned his intention of moving the rejection of the present measure, and had substituted an Amendment, which he would move in concluding his observations. He regarded the present Bill as an unnecessary affront to the House, and to those county gentlemen whom, in the discharge of most important duties, it was attempted to supersede, without alleging malpractices against them—almost without alleging complaint of any kind. The hon. Member for Montrose rested his case on the recent expenditure of the county of Lancaster. The expenditure of Lancaster had been made the very foundation of the Bill; but a case less in point, he thought, could not have been adduced. The hon. Member was correct in his figures, but had not made a fair application of them. True, in 1824, the expenditure of the county of Lancaster was 80,000 l ., and in 1848, 179,000 l ., showing an increase, within twenty-four years, of 100,000 l . But this increase in 1848 was to be accounted for by the additions which had been made to two gaols, and the building or additions to three lunatic asylums. Those items of expenditure amounted to 53,000 l . Again, in 1848, a large sum had to be paid for police establishments not in existence in 1824, the cost of maintaining which was 39,000 l . These two sums amounted together to 92,000 l ., which, deducted from 179,000 l ., left 87,000 l . as the expenditure of 1848, as compared with 80,000 l . in 1824; that was to say, 7,000 l . had been added to the county expenditure, whilst the population had increased one-third, and the value of the rateable property also one-third in the interval. But that was not the whole case; for he had a right to deduct 27,000 l . from that 87,000 l ., for the maintenance of prisoners, and other expenses connected with the gaols. If, then, he merely took the same items in 1848 which he took in 1824, the matter would stand thus, that in the former year the expenditure was 60,000 l . as compared with 80,000 l . in the latter. The Government, again, of late years had taken on themselves the cost of maintenance and prosecution of prisoners, and that constituted an item of expense. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, when the Lancashire magistrates were charged with extravagance, would explain that 15,000 l . or 16,000 l . had been expended to carry out the system of separate imprisonment, of which the right hon. Gentleman was an advocate. He trusted, also, that the magistrates of Lancashire would not he censured for the erection of lunatic asylums, without which the necessary accommodation could not have been afforded. The total number of pauper lunatics in Lancashire was 1,600. He believed that it was owing to some local squabble about the erection of these lunatic asylums that this most absurd Bill had found its way to the House. [Mr. HUME: No, no.] He had been so informed. But with respect to accommodation, it would appear that after the asylums had been erected they would only accommodate 1,500 persons; so falling short of the necessities of the case. Denying that the case of Lancashire was one which could be brought by the ratepayers against the magistrates, he could not, at all events, consent that the whole kingdom should be dosed because something wrong might be detected in a single county. His broad objection to the Bill was, however, that it would not effect its object. The practical effect of the Bill was, that every board of guardians should send a representative to the county board, and that the county magistrates should elect one out of their own body, to a number not exceeding one half the guardians so elected. Now, the working of this principle in Lancashire would be this: there were twenty-seven boards of guardians in Lancashire, and there would consequently be fourteen elected magistrates. In the town of Lancaster the board consisted of forty-one, and the magistrates of the county numbered 450; and here he thought he could point out the fallacy on which the Bill rested. The commissioners in 1836 said, in their report, that, although the magistrates were unwilling to concede the whole of the control to the ratepayers, they would not object to a concurrent control on the part of the ratepayers with themselves. Now, he could not understand this distinction drawn between the magistrates and the ratepayers, and he did not think that the four gentlemen who had appended their names to the report of the commission would, on consideration, have persevered in their fallacious and most erroneous distinction. ["Hear, hear!"] Let him ask those hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, whether the 450 magistrates, or their tenants, which was the same thing, did not pay the great—the enormous proportion of the rates? He denied that the tenants paid the rates. Rates were local charges on the land; they found their level in rents, and were all taken into account when a tenant took his farm. The rates, in fact, were paid by the landowner, and not by the tenant. Tenants might be liable for accidental expenditure for public buildings, but as a general rule the landlord paid the rates. He was quite willing that the landlords should take the rates on themselves; but he was averse to transfer the control of this expenditure from the county magistracy into the hands of persons, small farmers and shopkeepers, who either paid very little or no rates at all. In the county of Worcester there were two hundred magistrates, of whom forty were clergymen, whose incomes were highly taxed in proportion to their means. The great bulk of the ratepayers consisted of persons of landed property. The advantage derived from reposing this trust in the hands of such persons was, that they had an interest, a personal interest, in keeping down the expenditure to which they themselves contributed. He denied that, as a general rule, boards of guardians were eligible persons to whom to entrust the duty of managing these affairs. He would remind the House of what had occurred in the case of the Roads Bill. The Roads Bill gave the management of the roads into the hands of the boards of guardians. A deputation had waited on him from Lancashire, to say that the boards of guardians were composed principally of small tradesmen and manufacturers, and the deputation were afraid to intrust the management of the roads to such hands. Now, he would put it fairly to the House, whether it was expedient to transfer the county expenditure from a large body of gentlemen, to persons who could not be intrusted with the management of the roads. So he believed with respect to Lancashire, that there was a great indisposition felt to assign such duties to boards of guardians. When the county-rate commissioners, in 1836, recommended a plan similar to that now before the House, they had not had any experience of the working of the poor-law, and the eligibility of boards of guardians for the office now proposed to be assigned to them. The commissioners chose to call the magistrates a "fluctuating body," and to assign that as a reason why their duties should be shared in by others. But if any body of men could be pointed to as suggesting (excepting, of course, the casualty of life) the idea of permanency, he thought they were the county magistrates of this country. At all events, he could not conceive a less permanent body than boards of guardians. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, not to sanction this affront to the gentlemen of England. The Bill was one drawn by somebody who had evidently no practice or experience in the matter, and was founded in entire ignorance of the working of the present system. He would ask whether the judicial and financial duties of the magistrates were not so extremely interwoven that they could not well be separated? And let not the House tamper with a system that had long worked well, and would still continue to do so, if the gentry of England only did their duty. That property had its duties as well as its rights was a favourite maxim with many in that House; and he held that one of the first duties of those who were blessed with property was to attend to the administration of the local affairs of their district. In the performance of that duty they might depend upon it, that whatever was for the interest of the rich man was also for the interest of the poor man in these local affairs; and his only fear was, that the gentry of the counties of England would become less inclined to discharge those functions of local administration with which the constitution had so long entrusted them. So long, however, as the county magistrates performed their duty faithfully, he saw no reason why they should be superseded in the way that this Bill proposed. Under such a Bill it would be utterly impossible, with the body to which it sought to transfer the powers of the magistrates, that the present system of managing the gaols under the magistrates could be continued. The gaols would have to be taken under the management of the Government; for how could a body like the board pro-posed deal with the periodical reports of the visiting justices? Let it be shown that the justices had neglected their duty, and he was quite ready to agree to an inquiry before a Committee.

rose to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he did so with great satisfaction. He thought that the general principle that those who paid the largest amount of rates should have some voice in the administration of the funds to which they contributed, was altogether lost sight of in this Bill. It would appear from a perusal of the Bill of the hon. Member for Montrose, that he considered the magistrates of this country to be incompetent, or not of sufficient character, to be intrusted with the administration of local affairs. The hon. Gentleman, he believed, had no intention to convey such an imputation on the county magistracy; but he proposed by law to exclude from all management or control over the county rates every magistrate of a county, however largely interested he might be in the economical administration of the local rates. He could not admit that in any county he knew of the funds of the county had been mal-administered, and he doubted whether more economy would be effected by the mode proposed to be adopted by this Bill. For himself he had great experience at quarter-sessions, and he knew the practical working of the system. A finance committee was appointed, who supervised and checked every kind of bill that was brought before them; and he thought, with the hon. Baronet, who had moved the Amendment, that if there was anything which the magistrates watched with extreme jealousy, it was the proceedings of their own body in respect to all matters of expenditure. On inquiry he was sure it would not be found that the county-rate funds had been in any case extravagantly or thoughtlessly dealt with. He thought the hon. Member for Montrose must imagine that a much larger amount of funds was under the control of the magistracy than there really was. Now, there were in his county 150 magistrates; and all but those who might be elected under this Bill would be excluded from having any voice in the administration or management of the county rates. He believed that there was no feeling, on the part of the public generally, against the present mode of dealing with the county rates and the county expenditure. He was not opposed to, but on the contrary wished for, a full inquiry by a Select Committee or otherwise, in order to see whether a better mode might not be adopted by which the county expenditure might be reduced; and he was, therefore, prepared to second the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend, and for this reason especially, that if this Bill were read a second time and were referred to a Select Committee, they could not take evidence before that Committee. If the House should adopt the proposition of his hon. Friend, they could then elucidate any facts which might be stated as to the causes of mismanagement of these funds.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present mode of levying and expending the County Rate in England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether any more satisfactory mode of levying the said Rates, and more effectual and economical control over their expenditure can be adopted."

thought the people of England were very much indebted to the magistracy for the trouble they had taken in collecting and administering the rates and expenditure of the counties; but a great body of ratepayers considered it very vexatious that they should be called upon to pay without in any way being allowed to interfere. He did not think, however, that so large a reduction in the expenditure would be effected by a mixed board of guardians and magistrates as the advocates of this measure supposed, and it would not be fair to call on the representatives of the people to pass a general measure on this subject without inquiry. It appeared that, as we became more civilised, the expenditure of the counties increased. The Scotch were more economical in the management of their gaols, for they made the prisoners work for their maintenance, and a similar plan might be adopted here. The prisoners were much too comfortable; and in Lancashire, where some of the people were in a wretched condition, trifling offences were often committed so that the offenders might get into the gaols. The principle of this Bill, which established a financial board in which the ratepayers beyond the magistrates, such as the tenant farmers and others, would be represented, was one to which no person could object. It was a principle that was in operation in the reign of Henry VIII., and it was one which he was ready to support.

said, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had persevered in the Motion of which he gave notice, and asked the House to reject this Bill altogether by proposing "that the Bill be read a second time this day six months," thereby objecting to the principle of the Bill, he would have no hesitation in the course he should pursue. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill against such an Amendment, on this ground, that he was favourable to a plan for the creation of a county financial board for the assessment of county rates and the administration of the expenditure, into which the principle of representation should be introduced. He need not, he was sure, declare that he was not actuated by any feeling of the kind that was attributed to the proposer of this Bill, nor did he think that by him it was intended as an affront to the magistracy of this country. He believed that nothing could be further from the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, than to offer any affront to them; and on looking to the principles he found embodied in the report that had been alluded to that day, the report of the commissioners of county rates in England and Wales, he was satisfied that by no possibility, in making their recommendations, did they intend any affront to the magistracy. He would not base his support of the second reading of the Bill, in the case he had mentioned, on any belief that the magistrates of England, in the exercise of their functions, had been wanting in a due regard to economy and to those other considerations that ought to guide those who were entrusted with the duties they had to perform. On the contrary, he believed that the magistrates of England, being themselves large contributors, have a great interest in keeping down county expenditure, He was satisfied that it was their desire to keep down such expenditure; and where there had been cases of lavish expenditure, it was only when they had obeyed the statutory enactments with respect to gaols and lunatic asylums. He was bound to say that his hon. Friend seemed totally to misapprehend the position in which the Secretary of State was placed when he considered that he could call upon the magistrates to vary the expenditure, or that they were bound to vary it according to the varying whims of each succeeding Home Secretary. By the Act of George IV. certain obligations were placed upon the magistrates to provide efficient gaols—gaols that would contain all arrangements for classification, and sleeping places for prisoners. He was not prepared to say that in every case the amount of expenditure for every particular gaol or lunatic asylum (over which the Secretary of State has no discretion, except so far as his approbation of the plan is concerned) had been limited within the narrowest amount; neither was he aware of any case where there had been an extravagant expenditure; but the Secretary of State was merely to approve of the plan, and when he did approve of it, the question of expenditure was out of his control. The plan might be executed for different amounts of money, which might be increased by the amount given for the site, or expended upon architectural embellishments, which might be carried on at a greater expense than was necessary. He was not, however, aware of any case of the kind. He thought the magistrates had exercised a watchful care in county expenditure, and in his intercourse with them he had always found them most ready to attend to every suggestion coming from the Secretary of State. He did not mean to say that they were ready servilely to adopt any suggestion coming from him, but they were ready to give it consideration, and either adopt it or give good reason for differing from the Secretary of State. He was not aware of any case in which a difference of opinion existed between them, where there was not a fair ground for it. He did not, however, agree with his hon. Friend opposite, that the whole expenditure of the county rates should be placed in the hands of any one class of persons to the exclusion of all others; and if that were the only question they had to decide, he would vote for the second reading; but when he came to the details of the Bill, he must agree in nearly everything that had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite. But to the details of the Bill, the hon. Member for Montrose did not attach much importance, and he was willing to have them considered in Committee. Those details were objectionable, and the Bill at present was one to which he could not give his assent. In many cases it would, he thought, be found that a Bill of this kind would substitute worse boards than those now existing. With regard to the proportion in which the elected bodies were to stand to the magistrates, he thought that proportion was altogether wrong; and, looking to the interest which the magistrates have in the payment of rates, the preponderance, he conceived, ought to be directly the reverse to that proposed. He wished, however, to guard himself against expressing any opinion beyond this—that the principle of representation was one to which he gave his assent. With regard to the allegation that the present magistracy was a fluctuating body, he thought his hon. Friend opposite did not deal quite fairly with the commissioners as to the manner in which they stated it to be a fluctuating body. It was impossible for any person conversant with public business not to know there are some magistrates who give their constant attendance to the county business, but there are occasions on which fluctuations take place. There are cases on which a very few only attend, but sometimes a greater number are present; and it happens that occasionally the opinions of those who constantly attend are overruled by magistrates who take a very small share in public business. Then there are four quarter-sessions in the course of the year, frequently held, as in the county he represented (the county of Northumberland), at different places. He would not say that, under such circumstances, some of the magistrates did not always attend, but all of them did not always attend; and the consequence is, that the magistracy is a fluctuating body. The hon. Gentleman opposite was willing to have the whole question referred to a Select Committee; and he (Sir G. Grey) must say, that before they carried out this principle, further inquiry was necessary; and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should carry the second reading of the Bill, and if the subject then were referred to a Select Committee, he thought the powers of the Committee should be enlarged, and that they should enter into a wider inquiry co-extensive with that of the hon. Baronet opposite. In fact, there was very little practical difference in the two proposals before the House; and when inquiry was made, the Committee could come to a decision unfettered by any plan. As to the county rates, he found, by a return lately presented to the House, giving an abstract of accounts from county treasurers in England and Wales, in reference to the payments in 1847 and 1848, that the payments made by the Treasury in 1848 amounted to 133,000 l . more than the payments in 1847.

begged to set the right hon. Gentleman right as to the true cause of the difference, as it was very important that there should be no misunderstanding on the subject. The difference arose in this way—the new regulation only commenced in 1846, and, therefore, in the first half year of 1847 it was not in actual operation.

said, that his attention had been called to the subject by one of the Judges of assize, at the close of one of their largest circuits. He had, therefore, called for information on the subject, and that information might form the groundwork for putting some effective check on this expenditure. He had got returns of the expenditure at the assizes and quarter-sessions, which could be referred to a commission, consisting of a few gentlemen possessing knowledge on the subject, in order that some control might in future be applied to it.

thought the right hon. Gentleman should have better considered the question with regard to the increase of some items of county expenses before he called the attention of the House to it, and he might have contrasted, somewhat more favourably for the county magistrates, the expenses of assize and the expenses of sessions prosecutions. With regard to assize prosecutions, the magistrates had nothing to do but to pay the bill. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The committing magistrate has.] The committing magistrate has control over the payment of some expenses before committal. They form part of the whole expenses, and are regulated by scale; but the great expense incurred was in that part of the matter settled by the clerk of assize, and over that portion of it no one but the judge had any control. He admitted that the judge could not exercise a sufficient control over it, for he had not time, and it was done in a great hurry. The county treasurer was hound to pay on the certificate of the clerk of assize, and the magistrate had nothing to do with it but to see that the check was produced for the sum ordered to be paid. He thought it better to go into Committee on the whole subject, and he was sure there could not be any objection to the reduction of county expenditure. He believed that the expenditure in connexion with county business had been conducted with much greater economy under the existing authority than that required under the poor-law, which was under the control of the Government. However unwilling he was to be considered as opposed to the principle of popular representation, he still felt it his duty to oppose this Bill on the ground that it would not work, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Montrose would consent to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee.

said, that the difference between the two propositions before the House was simply that one of them was of a more practical nature than the other. By rejecting the second reading of this Bill, they refused to affirm its principle; and by so doing they would not only not affirm the principle of popular representation, but they would practically support the principle of the hon. Member for Droitwich, who considered popular representation as an entire fallacy. The old argument against the passing of the Reform Bill had been reiterated in the course of the debate—that the present system worked well, and that there was, therefore, no need of interference. It had also been said that the Bill was an insult to the gentlemen of the country who acted in the capacity of magistrates. He did not think that anything of the kind was intended by the measure. He denied that the body proposed to be constituted by this Bill would be a more fluctuating one than that which now existed. Looking at the great increase of the county rates, he felt deeply convinced of the necessity of establishing the principle of popular representation, with a view to an efficient control of the expenditure.

concurred in the censure which had been cast on those county magistrates who, having property, did not efficiently discharge their duties; but he must say that those with whom he was connected were not open to that charge. He could not understand how the hon. Member for Montrose, who professed to be the advocate of popular representation, had introduced a measure in which the principle of representation was not efficiently carried out. His (Mr. Patten's) constituents were anxious to obtain a share in the management of the county rates, and he did not see why the ratepayers should not elect the magistrates for the county board. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich in thinking that the county rates ought to be entirely thrown upon the landlords, and not upon the occupiers, who, not having a permanent interest in improvements, would be perfectly justified in refusing to vote money for that purpose. He considered the present law altogether inadequate for effecting a re-assessment of the county rates, and thought it desirable that a power should be given for enforcing such re-assessment. Should the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, that and many other important points might be fully considered. He, therefore, recommended the hon. Member for Montrose to allow the whole subject of county rates and county expenditure to be considered by such a Committee.

said, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was opposed to the introduction of the principle of representation into the county rates. [Sir J. PAKINGTON dissented.] If the hon. Member admitted the principle, well and good. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was of opinion that the principle of representation ought to be introduced. Now, after what had taken place, and looking at the Amendment, he was at a loss to conceive whether the House admitted the principle of the Bill or not. It was most desirable to come to some decision on that point. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman to vote against the Amendment, and to affirm the principle of the Bill, and then to let the Bill be referred to a Committee. What was the principle which the House was called upon to decide? According to the proposition of the hon. Member for Droitwich, any man who acquired property took a certain standing in a county, and was in a position to become a magistrate, and not only to become a magistrate, but to tax the people. Now, it was an acknowledged principle that the people ought to have a voice in their taxation. In towns, the great principle of representation had been introduced, and he wished to extend to counties the rights enjoyed by municipalities. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose did not ask the House, at the present moment, to agree upon any mode of carrying out his plan, but merely to take the single step of affirming the principle of the measure; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, having acknowledged the principle, would not suffer a resolution to pass which, by a side wind, would get rid of that principle. A Government ought to be able to avow a policy, and stick by it. They ought not to keep their places by avoiding all great questions that might arise, but when they agreed upon a principle, it was their duty to stand by it. They ought to govern the country upon a settled, clear, understandable policy, and not to go on avoiding difficulties by referring them to Commissions or Committees. He hoped the time was coming when such a Government would not be the Government of the country, and he trusted the right hon. Baronet would not lend his support to such a weak, vacillating mode of proceeding. The right hon. Baronet having admitted the principle, ought to act as the general of the party on this occasion, and allow them to fight under his banner. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Droitwich, who was opposed to the principles which he (the right hon. Baronet) had enunciated.

wished to state distinctly the course which, in his opinion, ought to be taken, in order that hon. Members might be under no misapprehension. If the hon. Member for Droitwich had persevered in his original Motion, "that the Bill be read a second time this day six months," the question at issue would have been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield—namely, shall we admit the principle of representation into the financial board for assessing the county rates and administering the county expenditure, or reject that principle? If that was the point at issue, he (Sir G. Grey) should have no hesitation in voting for the second reading of the Bill, greatly as he disapproved of many of its details. But the hon. Member for Droitwich had waived that Motion, and came forward with a proposition which appeared practically to lead to the same result—namely, that a Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of levying, administering, and assessing the county rates. The hon. Member did not ask the House to reject the principle altogether. If he (Sir G. Grey) was to be bound by the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, he had a right to appeal to the speech of the hon. Member by whom it was seconded, who was favourable to the principle of representation, as was also the hon. Member for North Lancashire. If the proposition of the hon. Member for Droitwich should be adopted, the House would not have admitted the principle of the Bill, nor would they have rejected it. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield said it was a weak and vacillating policy to refer questions of this kind to Committees. But that was not his (Sir G. Grey's) proposition, but that of the hon. Member for Montrose, who admitted that he was not prepared to defend all the details of the measure. If the Bill should be referred to a Committee, the province of that Committee must be enlarged, and they must institute such an inquiry as that suggested by the hon. Member for Droitwich; and as the Bill could not be passed during the present Session, the practical result would be the same.

said, that his argument had been misrepresented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, and he, therefore, wished to say a word in explanation. He had not said one word as to whether he approved or disapproved of the principle of representation. He had expressed his doubts whether, considering the extent to which the judicial and financial duties of the county magistrates were interwoven, it would be possible to adopt that principle in the administration of the county finances.

said, that he felt much indebted to the hon. Member for Montrose, by whom the present Bill had been introduced; and for this, amongst other reasons, he felt obliged to that hon. Gentleman—that the discussion to which the Bill had given rise had had the effect of dispelling any impression that might have existed as to unfairness respecting the administration of the rates. It must now be seen how little discretion the magistrates really possessed, and therefore he trusted it would be evident to the House that the Bill was neither more nor less than a direct affront to the magistracy of England. He admitted that it would be highly desirable to establish the principle of representation in all county matters, but he doubted the practicability of any attempt having such an object in view.

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Montrose bad proposed that the question now before the House should be referred to a Select Committee.

observed that that was a mistake. What he said was, that he wished the principle of the Bill to be first acknowledged, and then he should have no objection to its being sent before a Select Committee.

replied, that the effect of sending it before a Select Committee would be to refer the whole question to that Committee. As to the principle of representation in the management of county matters, he had only to say, that he had often heard it stated that those rates were imposed by persons not necessarily having a direct interest in the matter. Although it was, generally speaking, true that county magistrates were persons possessing estates in the counties for which they were in the commission, yet, as was well known, there existed no absolute necessity for their possessing more than a residence within the county. When they were told that the rates were not imposed by the ratepayers, they were told that which was perfectly true, but it would be only fair at the same time to state that the principle of representation had never been fully introduced into the system of our local taxation. In the case of the poor-rates, and in that also of the road-rates, the ratepayers never had possessed any choice with respect to the persons by whom those rates were to be imposed. Until the year 1834 the ratepayers had no choice whatever. As to the roads, as great a sum as 3,000,000 l . annually was collected from the people of England for the purpose of maintaining those roads, but no portion of that sum had ever been levied with the consent of the parties who paid it. The money paid for roads might be regarded as consisting of two portions—that which was paid to trustees, and that which was paid on account of highways. The trustees, as was well known, were not chosen upon any principle of popular representation, and it was not even asserted that they were under any control, while the highway rate was made by the surveyor on his own authority. Now, if the present Bill and the question which it raised were to be referred to a Select Committee, it would be for them to determine how far and in what manner the principle of representation was to be carried out. It was also an important question to determine whether the whole should be paid by the owners or the occupiers of the land. For his own part he certainly thought that the principle of deducting rates paid by tenants from rents due to landlords might be carried out further than it had been; and, in conclusion, he strongly advised the House, if they referred the matter to a Select Committee, to refer to that Committee also the incidents of the tax as well as the expenditure of the rates. He quite agreed with those who thought that the time had arrived when the whole subject ought to be examined by a Committee, with the view of determining the course of legislation that ought to be pursued.

said, he came down to the House determined to oppose the Bill and the principle upon which it was founded, because it manifestly cast a slur and an indignity on the magistrates of England. Since the discussion commenced, his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had altered his Amendment; and if he (Mr. W. Miles) were called upon to say whether in the event of a Committee being appointed, the subject of representation ought to be referred to them, he should answer in the affirmative. It was his opinion that they ought to let the whole question, in all its parts come before a Committee; local taxation and local expenditure alike. From the examination which would probably be instituted by such a Committee, he conceived that many advantages were likely to accrue, and amongst others this, that such a Committee would have the means and opportunity to compare the expenditure of one county with that of another, for the purpose of seeing which was the most economical, and on the whole most advantageous. While upon this point he thought it right to inform the House that of late years a very strict economy had in many counties been practised, and that most of them had permanent committees for promoting economy; to such committees he should have no objection to see ratepayers added, if practicable. If they took the poor-law unions as the basis of legislation, he did not hesitate to say that in nine cases out of ten the magistrates would be elected. With respect to the vote which he was about to give, he should say, that the principle of the Bill was so mixed up with the details that he must vote against it, not because he objected to the principle of representation, but because he thought the Bill cast a slur on the magistracy.

observed, that unlike the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he came down to support the Bill. He regretted some expressions which had been dropped by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and he regretted also to hear it said that the gentlemen of England did not do their duty. He likewise regretted the necessity which he felt himself under of differing from the right hon. Member for Northampton, and he thought it would be better that they should go into Committee on the whole measure without being prejudiced by any vote at which the House might arrive. As the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed himself favourable to the principle of representation, he should support the proposition made by his right hon. Friend.

regarded the Bill as one, not of admission, but of exclusion. He was favourable to the principle of representation; but he looked at the Bill, and, so far from seeing in it anything of representation, he found it to be a Bill of exclusion. He should therefore object to its going before a Committee, even supposing it should pass the second reading.

said, he did not rise to make any observations on the Bill generally; but the measure appeared to him to be most important, and he conceived it would be wrong to create, by any vote of the House, a prejudice in the minds of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Montrose objected to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, on the ground that the principle of the measure had not been previously acknowledged. Now, if the House felt disposed to grant the Committee, he hoped they would do so without acknowledging the principle of the Bill, but rather leave the Committee perfectly free and unshackled.

recommended his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose to assent to the appointment of a Committee, in the manner proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He did so as a sincere Friend of the principle of representation, which indeed had been assented to by many hon. Gentlemen opposite,

, in reply, said, he desired to state to the House, before they divided, the object which he had in view. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich said he objected to the Bill because it cast a slur upon country gentlemen; but, for his part, he saw no slur cast upon any one. The object which he desired to carry out by the Bill was the representation of the ratepayers at the county boards; and he had already said to the House, if the details were defective, he had no objection it should go before a Committee; but he asked them now to affirm the principle of representation by reading the Bill a second time. If the House wished to enlarge the powers of the Committee to embrace the whole question, he concurred, and only desired that the Committee should conduct their investigation with the principle of representation steadily before them. He must say he was extremely sorry he was deceived by the Government; indeed, to use a common word, he was sold. He had sent to the Secretary for the Home Department to ask him to introduce the Bill; but the answer which he got was, that he approved of the principle of the Bill, but could not introduce it. He then sent to the Prime Minister, who returned him a similar answer. He therefore expected, when the Bill was introduced, to have got the support of the Government, and he never looked to be sold in this way. Hon. Members who concurred with him in the principle of representation would vote for the second reading.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 154: Majority 58.

proposed an addition to the proposition of the hon. Member for Droitwich, which would have the effect of referring to the same Committee the principle of representation in the constitution of the county boards.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "ascertain," the words "the best mode of arranging an effective control on the part of the Ratepayers over the County Expenditure and:"—

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he could see no reason for rejecting the addition proposed by the right hon. Member for Manchester. If the Bill of the hon. Member for Montrose had been sent to a Committee, the hands of the Committee would have been tied up; but now they could conduct their inquiry into the whole subject. But while he said so, he, for one, could not come to the conclusion that representation should form a part of the system, until he could see that it would work. His doubt was, whether a plan could be devised whereby representation could be carried out in county boards with any satisfaction to the Members themselves, or those whom they represented. If such a plan could be devised, it had his concurrence with all his heart. He would only detain the House while he adverted to the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which had been alluded to in the debate as an illustration. He had a statement by him of the expenditure since 1841, to which the hon. Member for North Lancashire alluded as showing the increase that had taken place up to 1848; and he could explain the reason of that increase if he felt at liberty to trespass on the time of the House. He would only remind them of the increase since 1841 in the number of prisoners, the enlargement of the prisons, the enlargement of Wakefield prison for instance, to hold 400 convicts, and the building of an asylum. These extra expenses, he hoped, would soon come to an end; but in the meantime they were necessary. The Government had now undertaken to pay the expenses of the county prosecutions, which, with the completion of the necessary buildings, would soon reduce the expenditure of the West Riding within a small compass.

was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's concurrence in the principle of representation. Whether the plan now submitted to the House were the best or not, it was not for him to say, now that the plan which he had laid before them had been negatived.

said, the question before them now was, whether the principle of representation should be referred to a Committee. He must express his opinion that no settlement of that question could give satisfaction but that which should take place in that House. The popular assembly was the only arena for that question. He objected, therefore, to that question being referred to a Committee. They might direct the labours of the Committee. The hon. Member for Droitwich would direct them to subjects which might be most beneficially and satisfactorily discussed there; but no settlement of the question of representation for our rural districts could be satisfactory, and that House was as competent now as ever to take it into their consideration. The representative system in the counties depended on a principle of which they could not weigh the importance—of which they must well weigh the consequences, and which they must first accurately consider. It was a slur—they had heard a great deal that day about a slur—it was a slur upon the House of Commons to suppose that they were incompetent to enter upon this great constitutional question, for such it was, without the preliminary labours and the advantage of the researches of a Select Committee. As the House had resolved that a Select Committee should investigate other subjects, he had nothing to say to that; he addressed himself to the question whether that principle should be referred to that Committee. He hoped the right hon. Member for Manchester would not persist in his proposition; it would be but a waste of their time, and the labours of the Committee were unnecessary.

rose to explain that what he had said before, and what he repeated now, was not that they should send the principle of representation before the Committee, but that, being appointed by the House, the Committee should investigate the management and working details of the principle. They assumed the principle, and only proposed to send the details for the practical carrying out of it before the Committee. He believed that, during the whole Session, they had not had so important a Bill before them as the one they had been discussing that day. He expected then to have seen such a Bill, on so large, so grave, so important a subject, brought in and advanced by the Government; but instead of that it was left to a private Member, whose industry was always ready for a great object, and left to him, little countenanced or supported by the Government.

said, he did not understand whether the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the course adopted by the Government, or that pursued by himself in the course of the debate. If he complained of the first, he must inform him that it was not many weeks since a deputation from Manchester, where the Bill, he believed, originated, waited on him, and wished the Government to introduce the Bill this Session. He said, he refused to pledge the Government to the Bill for the present Session. He did not think any hon. Gentleman was bound to oppose a Bin which contained principles in which he concurred. At the same time, if the question had been plainly whether or not he approved of the representative principle, as applied to financial boards, he should have voted in favour of the second reading, in order to affirm that principle. But that issue was not taken. He objected, however, to the practice of reading Bills imperfectly framed the second time, and then referring them to a Select Committee.

reminded the right hon. Baronet that he had not stated his opinion as to the Amendment now before the House.

had not the slightest objection to it, except that the words limited the control to the ratepayers, whereas the control of the Treasury over their very large expenditure would be essential.

said, that every Member who had spoken in the debate had more or loss supported the principle of representation. It must be admitted by every person that it was monstrous and intolerable for the sum of 1,500,000 l . to be annually spent without any control by those who contributed to it. In all constituencies, rural as well as urban, there was a growing feeling upon this subject which it was desirable to satisfy. If, then, all or nearly all were agreed upon this principle being introduced m some shape or other, no hon. Gentleman could object to the introduction of words which gave merely the general sanction of the House to the principle of representation and the control of the ratepayers.

would state his view upon the addition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. After maturely considering the words, he could not find himself at liberty to accede to their insertion into the Motion quite so readily as some hon. Members seemed disposed to expect. He had endeavoured to meet the question as fairly as he possibly could; he had waived his original Amendment, which went to the rejection of the Bill altogether, and moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject; and he appealed to the House whether that was not a fair mode of meeting the question. But the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be equivalent to affirming the second reading of the Bill, for they ran as follows:—

"And this Committee shall inquire, with a view to ascertain the best mode of arrang ing an effective

That was to say, the Amendment assumed that the control of the ratepayers over county expenditure had been conceded by the House. Such, however, was not the case. It was the object of the inquiry he proposed, to ascertain whether that should be done, and not to assume it. He had expressed no opinion against the adoption of the principle of representation. The question was not whether the House approved of the abstract principle, but whether it was consistent with the present mode of administering the affairs of counties. The practicability of it might be referred properly to a Committee. He was not disposed to prejudge the decision of the Committee, but he repeated that these words assumed the principle, and only left the Committee to inquire into the best mode of carrying it out. For these reasons, he could not consent to their adoption without taking the sense of the House upon them.

said, those Members who agreed with the principle of representation would not object to the words being introduced; but those who wished for inquiring whether it could be carried out, would vote against them. He had made up his mind as to the principle of representation, and had voted against the second reading of the Bill; but he had no objection to the insertion of the words, because he thought the Committee might usefully inquire into the whole subject, to see how far the principle could be carried out.

agreed that those who were desirous of having the elective system would vote for the words; but he also thought that those who were not prepared to agree to it might equally vote for them, because they went to give an effective control on the part of the ratepayers over the expenditure. Some would say the best control was by auditors elected by the ratepayers; some by the magistrates themselves. That was the subject for consideration. His right hon. Friend, as he understood, only wanted it considered, and that, it appeared to him, was the real question.

suggested that the inquiry should be to ascertain "whether any or what control over the expenditure on the part of the ratepayers could be advantageously introduced."

said, the words of the Amendment no more fettered the question of representation than the original proposition. The only doubt he had was, whether representation would secure good management and economy; and he should be glad to make the whole question before the Committee as open as possible. The present system was as economical, though it might not be so satisfactory in some other respects, as any we were ever likely to enjoy. Representation had been introduced into the administration of the poor-law, but he denied that it had effected economy. On the contrary, it had made it more expensive than before. He assured the House that in the metropolitan county of which he had the honour to be a magistrate, that more inquiry was made into the expenditure of a penny than that House made into the expenditure of a pound.

considered that the discussion on this question was owing to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the Amendment. He had not recommended it as involving the assertion of an important principle for the first time, but as a means of enlarging the field of inquiry in Committee. If hon. Members voted for it, they ought to consider that it involved the assertion of a most important principle, and in this respect he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It was impossible, he thought, for any Member to vote for the Amendment who had not made up his mind that there ought to be a control by the ratepayers, for that was what the words involved. He was himself disposed to adopt the principle as far as he comprehended the question; but the House ought to understand that in adopting the Amendment it would not be open to argument or question in Committee, whether there ought to be an elective system or not. That there ought to be an elective system, would be carried if the Amendment were adopted; and the only question in Committee would be how to carry it out. If the object only was to enlarge the field of inquiry, the words suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire would best accomplish it.

[House cleared for a division; but an hon. Member having moved the adjournment of the House by way of Amendment to the question of division,]

said, that there had been an attempt to obtain success, which did not appear to be frank and straightforward. The Attorney General had made a speech which seemed to carry conviction to those around him; yet the Attorney General had made misrepresentations of a very flagrant character. He had said, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester merely called upon this House to sanction the principle that there should be an effective control of the expenditure of the county rates; and he appealed to all hon. Gentlemen opposite whether that was a principle to which they could object. But the words "on the part of the ratepayers" were omitted.

begged to assure the hon. Member that he was mistaken. The words were not omitted.

His impression was not a solitary impression, but was shared in by every Gentleman who sat near him. He would, however, take the word of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he fairly stated the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Manchester as proposing an effective control on county expenditure on the part of ratepayers: how could be contend at the same time that that was not an admission of the representative principle? He gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the choice of either of these circumstances, and the result would be, in either case, highly unsatisfactory to the impression which he wished to convey. He recurred to the point which he had endeavoured to impress upon the House. He said that this important principle ought to be submitted to ample, public, and frank discussion. It had not been submitted to that ordeal. He did not believe that half the Members in the House during the discussion were aware of what was at stake, and he was convinced that their views had been altered on the question as the discussion was going on. This was not a settlement of a great principle which ought to be satisfactory even to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He gave no opinion on the merits of the principle. He had said nothing for or against the introduction of the representative principle in the administration of county rates. He was prepared on the proper occasion to enter into that discussion. He thought the discussion ought to take place in this House, and ought not to be trusted to the investigation of a Committee, which, in his opinion, would be useless; but he asked any Gentleman present, had there been a fair and frank discussion of the principle? and if there had not been a fair and frank discussion, he said the recognition of the principle as now proposed would not be satisfactory to the country. Every Gentleman felt that it would not be satisfactory. It could not be the subject of legitimate triumph even to those who were the most ardent advocates of the introduction of the representative principle into the administration of county rates. It ought not to be asserted as a triumph, if they retired from the House, and felt that they had obtained their purpose by a manœuvre. He should oppose, by every constitutional means, the hasty and precipitate settlement of this question.

said, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had thought fit to accuse him of an unintentional mis-statement. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would now do him the favour, which he had not accorded him before, of attending to him. The hon. Gentleman had either been present whilst he (the Attorney General) was speaking, or he was absent, as indeed he was during the earlier part of the debate. And he had availed himself of his absence, and of his consequent ignorance of what had passed, to misrepresent what hon. Members had stated. What he (the Attorney General) had said was, that those who agreed in the principle of representation and those who were opposed to it might equally vote for the Amendment, and he then road the words, which he would now read again. The hon. and learned Gentleman accordingly again read the words, and repeated his comments upon them. He now gave the hon. Gentleman his choice of a dilemma; for he had either attacked him in total ignorance of what had occurred, or he had availed himself of his absence from the debate to bring an unfounded charge, and was guilty of having recourse to a manœuvre by which he endeavoured to obtain an advantage.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 131: Majority 48.

said, that as the House had affirmed that if they consented to go into Committee, the principle was established, and as he felt that required further consideration he moved, "That the House do now adjourn."

, as representative of a large constituency interested in the county rates, thought it advisable that Government should let the House know what the instructions were for the Select Committee, or else that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester should withdraw the Amendment of which he had given notice. If he refused to do so, he would second the Motion for the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

said, that there could be no doubt that the course which was taken was intentionally to create delay. Even hon. Gentlemen who admitted the principle had voted for the postponement. He thought it would be more becoming the character of county Gentlemen for them honestly to come forward and say whether they would admit, or not admit, the principle of control, by representation, over the expenditure of county rates, and not to take the course which they now took for delay. He was prepared to consent to any mode by which the Committee might think fit to carry out the principle of representation. Why did not the county Gentlemen manfully come forward and say, "We do not wish for popular representation, and, on that ground, we will use every means to defeat your plan." Instead of that they meanly shrunk from openly avowing their opinions. He did not care about being beaten, provided he was fairly beaten; but he could not submit to be defeated by an evasion inconsistent with the character of the House, and inconsistent with the high station which hon. Gentlemen opposite held. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had truly stated that this question was second to none that had ever been brought forward. The question was whether the county ratepayers were to be put in the situation in which the ratepayers of every borough were put, namely, to have a voice in the election of those who taxed them for the county expenditure.

appealed to the House whether or not he had met the Motion as fairly and frankly as possible? He thought they had much more to complain of the course pursued by the right hon. Member for Manchester.

said he was in favour of the principle, but he had voted as he had done, in consequence of the difference of opinion which existed relative to the words of the Amendment between two great authorities in that House.

And it being Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.