said, the Act for the establishment of this railway had been obtained on the ground of its promising increased accommodation to the public, particularly the less opulent classes. And now this Bill was brought in, to repeal those obligations. He further called the attention of the House to the introduction of a clause confirming to the directors the power of opening parcels to see if the sender had inclosed two parcels instead of one. It would be just as reasonable to propose to enact, that every man should be obliged to make up his parcel to a hun- dredweight with stones and gravel, in order that the railway might charge for it. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

said, that having moved this Bill, in the absence of an hon. Friend, in his absence he should withdraw it.

did not think it right to throw out the whole Bill on account of one clause, and thought it had better be read a second time.

would not press for a division now,

said, he had to solicit the indulgence of the House in a personal matter. He did not like doing so where it was possible to avoid it, but in this instance he had no other means of setting himself right before the public, and it was besides a matter which referred to the memory of persons who were dear to him. In consequence of certain observations which he had thought it to be his duty to make in that House a few evenings since on the subject of the recent proceedings in Ceylon, he found in one of the public journals, the Morning Chronicle of this day, the following observations having reference to him. After commenting at some length on his speech, it proceeds to say:—

"Let us test Mr. Roebuck himself by the measure which he wishes to mete out to our colonies—we beg his pardon—to our conquered dependencies. We believe he lost a relative, amongst the ranks of the Canadian sympathisers, during the antepenultimate troubles in Canada. And we believe—and to his credit we say it—that he left no stone unturned to avenge his death, which he considered to have been an unjust act."

And then there was afterwards a supposititious case put, how he would have acted in that case if his brother had been hanged, thus leaving the world to suppose, what the direct assertion previously made would naturally suggest, that he (Mr. Roebuck) having lost a relative during the disturbances in Canada, that relative, according to the writer's belief, had been hanged. All he could say in reference to that assertion was, that all his relatives in Canada entertained very different views from what he had advocated with regard to that colony—that none of them had been sympathisers in the cause of the French or insurgent party, but that they had, on the contrary, acted against that party—that he had lost no relative throughout these transactions, and could not, therefore, have been influenced by feelings of revenge in the course which he had taken—and that, in point of fact, he had not been actuated by any such motives. He had heard a variety of statements made and insinuations thrown out against him with regard to this subject, but with these he had nothing to do on this occasion. In offering the present explanation, he had been influenced by a feeling of respect for the memory of those whom he held dear, and he therefore trusted that he should be pardoned for giving this explanation to the House.

moved the second reading of this Bill. He said that no person had a stronger objection to placing power in the hands of an irresponsible body than he had, but he believed that by adopting the system of the baronial sessions which existed in Ireland, and on which the magistrates and the higher class of ratepayers were associated together for the management of the roads, that considerable improvement might be effected. What he proposed was to associate the commissioners of assessed taxes with the magistrates of each district for the management of the highways; and he believed that such a plan would be much more advisable than the course that had been recommended of placing the roads under the care of the board of guardians.

opposed the Bill, in which he said there were many clauses of an unusual character. A measure upon the subject of highways was about to be laid upon the table by the hon. Member for Herefordshire, and it would be the better course to allow the Government Bill to be seen before proceeding with the one proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex to postpone his Bill until the one he was about to propose on the part of Her Majesty's Government should have been placed in the hands of Members.

, after presenting some petitions in favour of the establishment of boards for the control of county expenditure, proceeded to say, that he should not think it necessary to trouble the House with many observations in moving the Second Reading of the County Rates and Expenditure Bill, because the House was tolerably familiar with the subject, the Bill being similar to the measure which was before it last Session, both in its principle and in all its leading details; and he was rather taking up a measure which could not be completed last year, than introducing a new Bill. He had taken charge of the measure at the request of the hon. Member for Montrose, who brought it forward last year, and who, in fact, originated this proposal of a system of county councils to control county expenditure, analogous to the system introduced in boroughs to enable town-councils to control the municipal penditure. It was desirable, however, to remove a few misapprehensions which had arisen respecting this Bill. There had been an idea that, as an hon. Member had expressed it, it was to supersede Her Majesty's justices of the peace. It was not a Bill to supersede them, but to give the ratepayers in counties a concurrent control with Her Majesty's justices of the peace over the county expenditure; and it was entirely remote from his (Mr. Gibson's) mind, in promoting this measure, that he was in any way disparaging Her Majesty's justices of the peace, or wishing to supersede them in any of their judicial duties. Already we had the precedent of elected guardians and justices of the peace working harmoniously together, and engaged in controlling local expenditure under the head of poor-rate. The Commission appointed in 1836 to inquire into the whole subject of county rates, saw no objection to the constitution of such boards as those now proposed, consisting partly of justices, and partly of ratepayers, to control the county expenditure. The report of that Commission stated—

"The principle of the county rate seems open to serious objection upon the ground that the charge is imposed by persons not chosen by the ratepayers; no other tax of such magnitude is laid upon the subject except by his representatives. It is impossible not to admit that the persons who contribute to the county rate have little control over its expenditure. The administration of this fund is the exercise of an irresponsible power intrusted to a fluctuating body."

The Commissioners went on to hint at the adoption of a plan very similar to that now before the House. It was proposed by this Bill to establish county financial boards to control the assessing of county rates and the expenditure of county rates; that these boards should consist of ratepayers elected by the different boards of guardians, and justices of the peace elected by the justices; that to these boards should be transferred all the financial powers now vested in the justices of the peace; but the Bill would not interfere in any way with their judicial powers, or affect the administration of justice. An objection was started the other evening by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, who intimated that it was not fitting for Gentlemen holding opinions similar to his (Mr. Gibson's) to be asking that tenant-farmers and occupiers should have a control over this expenditure, having always contended that rates fell upon rent, and that therefore the occupier had no permanent interest in their control. He (Mr. Gibson) adhered to that view; but, although at every fresh bargain between a tenant and his landlord the amount of rates was taken into consideration in agreeing upon the rent, yet, when an agreement was once entered into, the tenant had a clear and obvious interest, in preventing during the currency of the term of his tenancy, an extravagant expenditure, or the rates being larger than he calculated on when he entered into the agreement. In Lancashire the county rate in one year rose from 125,000l. to 175,000l. that sudden increase must have been borne by the occupying tenants, who however had no opportunity of deciding whether the expenditure was judicious. But if there was a doubt as to the propriety of his (Mr. Gibson's) introducing this Bill, with his opinions, there could be none as to the propriety of the hon. Member's supporting it, for the whole of his policy seemed to be founded upon the conviction that these rates were paid, at first and at last, by the tenant-occupiers; how then could he object to giving them a power over the county expenditure? A petition from Buckinghamshire set forth the case so well that the House would perhaps allow a part of it to be cited to them. It came from the Aylesbury union. That union, it was stated, contained forty parishes, mostly agricultural; and the petitioners represented that they were principally occupiers of land, and in that capacity contributed very largely to the poor-rates, over which the Legislature had allowed the ratepayers a right of administration and control; but that the petitioners also contributed largely to the county rates, and, without wishing to impugn the propriety of their application, urged that the principle of supervision which Parliament had sanctioned in the case of poor-rates, should also be extended to the county rates; that 60,000l. had lately been charged upon the rates for the county on the erection of a new county gaol, and a large further expenditure was contemplated in the erection of a lunatic asylum. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Hear, hear!] The meaning of that cheer evidently was that Acts of Parliament and the Home Office imposed on the magistrates the obligation to erect these gaols and lunatic asylums, and that they were not responsible for that expenditure. So did Acts of Parliament impose upon guardians the obligation to relieve the destitute poor; but, nevertheless, the Legislature gave the ratepayers a control over the expenditure of the poor-rate, and a voice upon the question whether the applicants for relief were fit persons to receive it. Just so, because Acts of Parliament had imposed the obligation to erect gaols and lunatic asylums, it did not follow that those who had to pay for them might not have a voice in the making of contracts, and in the consideration whether more accommodation was provided and greater expenditure incurred than was necessary. In Yorkshire a sum of 200,000l. was expended, he believed, in prison-building for the reception of 160 prisoners. He had been informed that the requisite accommodation might have been provided for 35,000l. It would be a great public evil if lunatic asylums and prisons were not properly erected and regulated; but it was quite consistent with a due regard to this consideration that the ratepayers should have this control, and we might hope that they would be as much alive to the importance of having proper lunatic asylums and prisons as the justices. An hon. Member had suggested that the margin within which these financial boards could effect any reduction was so small that it was not worth while to alter a system with which persons had become familiarised. But he (Mr. Gibson) believed that a control in the way he had mentioned, might be exercised over all the expenditure, with the exception of that which was strictly necessary for the discharge of the judicial functions of the magistrates, and for that case there was a provision in the Bill. Besides, these financial boards would be bodies of men who could watch these new Bills and measures in Parliament which would lay fresh burdens upon the land; and when any such proposal came before Parliament we should have a competent business board to attend to the matter, and such measures would not be so liable to pass without due consideration. The county rate was no small sum, and its progressive increase could not be viewed without apprehension by gentlemen connected with the land. In 1835, when it was thought necessary to appoint a Commission upon it, the amount was 690,000l. in the year; it was now something like 1,300,000l. It had increased in a much greater ratio than either crime or population. In Lancashire it was about 3d. in the pound in 1834, and now he believed it was nearly 8d.; and the assessment on which it was taken had increased between 1834 and 1848 from 4,000,000l. to 6,000,000l. In proposing the second reading of this Bill, all he asked of the House was an acquiescence in this most reasonable principle, that there should be representative control over the county rate—that taxation and representation should go together; he did not ask the House to pledge themselves to all the details of the measure, and he should propose to refer it to a Select Committee on the Bill to consider the machinery for carrying the principle into effect. When the Bill had undergone the ordeal of a Select Committee, the House, if they did not approve of it, could exercise their discretion and throw it out on the third reading; but, looking to the petitions which bad been presented to the House, and the representations which had been made by boards of guardians com- posed of gentlemen entertaining different political opinions, and agreeing only on the present question, he hoped they would not refuse to read it a second time, with the understanding that no hon. Member would be supposed to pledge himself to more than the principle on which it was founded.

rose to put it to the right hon. Gentleman if he thought it would be proper to press his Motion, when he reflected that owing to the hasty manner in which the Bill had been introduced, only one day had virtually elapsed between the first reading and the present stage. The Bill professed to be the same as that of last Session, but it varied essentially in its details. He was favourable to the representative control of the county rates by the ratepayers, but he wished to see that principle affirmed with deliberation and care; and he was satisfied, if the House affirmed the principle now by reading the Bill a second time, they would not sanction the details. He therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.

thought, also, that many clauses of the Bill would require great time and deliberation before the House could assent to them. He vindicated the conduct of the magistracy in the transaction of county business. For five or six centuries these gentlemen had discharged their duties with great satisfaction to the country; and, before any change took place in the present system, a case of great fraud, extravagance, and waste, should be substantiated against them. He concurred with many Gentlemen on his side of the House that taxation should go along with representation; but, without aspiring to any reputation as a lawyer, he could not but say the present Bill did not carry out that principle. Why should not the tenant-farmers, and all persons who paid rates, have direct votes in the election of members of the Financial County Board? The Bill also introduced a principle of antagonism in the composition of the board, by providing that it should consist of magistrates, and of persons not magistrates, in an equal number. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had referred to the petitions in favour of a change; but the fact was, that the petitions were very few, considering the importance of the measure, and the petition on which the right hon. Gen- tleman relied proceeded from interested parties. It was all very true that ratepayers had an interest in economy in the county expenditure, and in the erection of gaols and asylums; but were the magistrates to have nothing to do with the country but to discharge their very onerous duties in dispensing justice? He hoped the debate would not be adjourned, but that the House would come to a decision on the principle of the Bill, which certainly was not that taxation should be represented.

suggested, that one of two questions ought to be discussed—the question of adjournment of the debate, or the actual merits of the Bill. As to the Motion for adjournment, he, personally, should not have asked for the postponement of the consideration of the Bill; but he was not prepared to express any final or decided opinion with respect to its details. If the discussion were to go on, however, he would be ready to state, as to the principle of the Bill, the course he should deem it advisable to take. Still, he was not inclined to regard the demand for postponement as unreasonable. Whatever might be the course to be adopted by the House as to the Bill, it was obviously quite impossible that a measure of the nature and importance of that before them should receive the sanction of the Legislature without full consideration and discussion; while, if it were to be thought necessary that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, that Committee ought, he imagined, to be invested with the power of taking evidence. Upon the whole, he was inclined to think that the suggestion for adjournment should be adopted.

deprecated a desultory discussion on a Bill of such importance. He wished to meet the measure in the fairest spirit; but was it not remarkable that a Bill of this magnitude, involving the monetary transactions of all the counties in England, should be forced upon the House only three days after it had been delivered to hon. Members? For his own part, he wished to obtain some information as to the probable working of the Bill in his own county, which information it was impossible he could be furnished with in time for the discussion, unless some delay were to be granted.

was sorry to see this attempt made to postpone, and, by postponing, defeat this Bill. Were a new question involved in the measure, then, no doubt, delay ought to be granted. But what was the fact? After the reform of the corporations, the revenues of boroughs were placed under the management of individuals appointed by the ratepayers of each town, and there was then a great cry that the management of county rates ought to be similarly reformed. He believed that there was no instance in the history of this country of such an amount of taxation as that paid in county rates being levied without the taxpayers having something to say as to its expenditure. He regretted extremely that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have taken the course he had adopted, after what had passed last year, and after the petitions in favour of some such measure which had emanated from almost every county in England. [Loud cries of "No, no!"from the Opposition.] Hon. Gentlemen said "No, no! "Well, then, lot them find and produce one petition for the maintenance of the existing order of things. He trusted that the House would not suffer this Bill to be defeated by a side-wind.

said, that it was very material that the House, in determining which course ought now to be adopted, should be influenced by those considerations which would most conduce to a full, satisfactory, and temperate consideration of this important measure. Now, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Manchester) would voluntarily acquiesce in the proposal made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that that course would much more conduce to such a temperate and full discussion, than, at that moment—nearly four o'clock—to open a debate upon the second reading. Let it be remembered that the proposal for delay came from a Gentleman distinctly declaring himself not to be hostile to the principle of the Bill, the principle of combining a representative system with the present method of managing the county rates. The Bill was only printed on Saturday last, and, although it was no doubt discussed during the last Session, yet surely it was not unimportant that there should be some time left to their constituents for the formation of public opinion as to the matter on its reintroduction. He asked for delay, not with the intention of defeating the Bill by postponement, but because he thought that the request was reasonable. Indeed, if it were not acquiesced in, he feared that a feeling would be roused likely to prevent the full and temperate discussion of the question. He did trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not press on his Motion. If he did, he could assure him that he would not thereby forward his views. Six o'clock would speedily come, and would bring with it a delay not conducive to the speedy resumption of the question. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the earliest possible day would be at once fixed for the resumption of the debate.

, taking into consideration the quarters whence those recommendations came, would be willing to acquiesce in them, but he wished the House justly to consider the position of an independent Member who stood alone in the House. Delay in his case was the loss of the measure for the Session. It might be a month before he could get another opportunity of bringing forward the measure of which he had taken charge. Was he to bear the responsibility of not proceeding with it when it came before the House in the order of business? Was he to abandon the second reading without any reasonable ground except the arguments of authority, such as the suggestions of the right hon. Baronets the Member for Tam-worth, and Northumberland North? He hoped Government would relieve him from that responsibility. He really could not stand against that sort of pressure For his own part, he would prefer to go on and take the sense of the House now on the second reading. Would the Government assist him by naming an early day? Perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government might throw a little light on the question.

understood that the principle of the Bill was, that taxation should be represented. He very well understood the right hon. Baronet's remark that the Bill should be carefully considered, but the present issue was with respect to the principle. He wanted to know if Government were for that principle. If not, he could understand their desire to postpone the second reading. But if they approved of the principle, he could not see why they should suggest any delay in affirming it.

hoped the Bill would be postponed. He did believe the Bill contained the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The details actually involved the principle, and an adjournment would only save time.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that when he spoke of the pressure upon him, he must be in error, if he supposed the counties thought him interested in their expenditure, or that they were interested in his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now wanted to appear as the farmers' friend, just as those who had destroyed our colonial interest affected to be the friends of the colonies; but it would not go down with the country. The highest authorities as men of business assured him they could not master the details of the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the adjournment to take place.

suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be as well to substitute for his measure, a Bill exempting occupying tenants from the payment of rates altogether.

said, that as it was now so late, there could be no chance of a decision before six o'clock, when they could proceed no further, and the practical consequence might be, that the right hon. Gentleman would be in no better position than if he had accepted the proposition I for an adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether the Government would throw some light on the question; which meant, as he understood, that Government should fix a day for the second reading. He (Lord J. Russell) regretted he could not accede to the suggestion, as he thought there was hardly a sufficient number of days for the Government business which had been announced. He must think, however, that some portion of delay, to enable the country to know the nature; of the measure, and the important consequences which would result from it, would not be injurious. The hon. and learned; Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had asked what was the disposition of the Government with regard to the principle of representation contained in the Bill. He (Lord J. Russell) could only answer that he was so strongly in favour of the introduction of that principle, that he should, when it came to the question, give his sup-port to the second reading. He would do so, however, without at all undertaking the defence of any of the details of the Bill; and, thinking it necessary that there should be a Select Committee to consider the details, it would be probably necessary also to take evidence before the Committee with respect to the present system.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relative to the management of highways in England and Wales. During the recess a Bill had been prepared having regard to the considerations which had arisen during the discussion on the Bill of the preceding Session, of which he would state the principle to the House. The difficulty of combining turnpike roads and highway roads had been so great in the latter Bill, that the Government had resolved not to attempt it. The present Bill was therefore limited to parish roads and highways, and did not refer to turnpike trusts. The details into which he would enter sufficiently showed the importance of the question, and the magnitude of the sums involved. In 1837 the total expenditure on highways in England and Wales, amounted to 1,113,434l. In 1845, the last year for which there were any accounts, it was 1,717,334l.; so that an increase of expenditure of 603,900l. had taken place in eight years. On the other hand, a diminution of 408,711l. had occurred in the same period in the expenditure on turnpike trusts in England and Wales; the amount for 1837 being 1,780,859l.; and in 1845, 1,372,148l. The cause of the change had been, to a great extent, the introduction of railways, which had altered the internal communications of the country, and had taken the traffic off many turnpike roads, while some parish carriage ways had become of primary importance. The expense of maintaining these roads fell with considerable weight, not only upon parishes in which the population were principally agricultural, but upon those parishes also where manufactures were largely carried on, and which were thickly populated. For the purpose of showing the House the way in which the present system worked, he would just call their attention to the expenditure for highways during the year 1845 in ten counties of England. In Middlesex it was 286,921l.; in Yorkshire, including all the ridings, 187,649l.; in Lancashire, 163,451l.; in Lincolnshire, 97,316l.; in Kent, 71,019l.; in Surrey, 65,189l.; in Devonshire, 42,198l.; in Gloucestershire, 41,057l.; in Warwickshire, 39,728l.; and in Somersetshire, 39,265l. To all who examined this subject, it must be obvious that the evils and inconveniences of the system were much aggravated by the small size of the districts upon which those rates were levied. In many cases the highways were maintained not by the parishes, but by the townships; and sometimes even the townships were divided. The result was, that no fewer than 15,841 distinct places paid separate highway rates; that they had each their individual surveyors appointed by the vestry; that those surveyors possessed no professional knowledge whatever respecting roads; that they were not in the habit of receiving any species of remuneration for their services; and that their accounts were, for the most part, very imperfectly audited. The general consequences of the present system, then, were, the want of economy, the want of skill, and the want of due discrimination in expenditure. In support of these observations, and especially in favour of small districts, he might read to them various authorities, but he should content himself with calling their attention to a note on the last Highway Act, an edition of which had been published by a barrister of some eminence. It was the opinion of that gentleman—and not of him alone, but of a very large portion of the public—that the parish roads were, for the most part, very imperfectly maintained; that placing the highways under the authorities of the vestries was a mode of proceeding repugnant to all sound principles of management; and that that species of road could never be placed upon a satisfactory footing till the mode of its management could be totally changed. Such he believed to be the opinion of the most intelligent portion of the community, founded upon the principles which had been recognised for some years. It could not fail to be in the recollection of the House, that in the 5th and 6th of William IV. clauses had been introduced to enable the justices at sessions to form combinations of parishes, each combination to be placed under a common surveyor; but those clauses remained a dead letter, and no advantage accrued to the country from their enactment. Looking, then, at the experience which the way in which those clauses were received had furnished, he should say, that if any impulse were to be given to the formation of larger districts and paid surveyors, it could only be accomplished by making the provisions of the Bill compulsory; and upon that principle he had drawn up the measure which he now proposed to introduce. In thus merely moving for leave to bring in a Bill, he had no wish to enter into unnecessary details. One mode of carrying out the principle upon which the measure had been founded was, that at petty sessions the districts of the county might be settled, supposing they adopted the plan of the Bill brought that day under their notice by the hon. Member for East Sussex. If they abolished the parish surveyors, and took away from the vestry the power of appointing them, they would deprive the ratepayers of a privilege which, perhaps, they did not very much value; still it had long been conceded to the vestry, it could be exercised by that body, and it would be hardly consistent with the principles generally received on such subjects to deprive the ratepayers of such a privilege, for the purpose of vesting it in the magistrates; he should, therefore, not like to propose anything against such a principle of representation. No doubt the power might be entrusted partly to the magistrates and partly to the ratepayers; but that, after all, would be only creating a duplicate board of guardians. Now, it appeared to him that it would be much better simply to take, as he proposed to do by the present measure, the existing divisions of the poor-law unions, and the boards of guardians as they stood, and give them the powers that had been previously exercised by the vestries. To adopt this course would prevent any necessity for creating fresh territorial divisions or the creation of any new elective body, and the boards of guardians might be authorised to choose paid surveyors, at the same time that each parish might be bound to maintain its own highways, and defray the expense of them. The only additional charge to be incurred would be the salary of the surveyor, and compensation to the union officers employed, for the trouble that they might incur. He further proposed to abolish the parish surveyors altogether, to abolish the highway rate as such, or under that name; and, as the districts which he proposed to create would be nearly coincident with the poor-law districts, the highway rate, and the poor's-rate, might be made to constitute one collection—both might be collected and paid by the overseers. In making this alteration, there would be no change effected in the incidence of the highway rate as a charge upon real property. By the Bill, as he proposed to frame it, there would be power given to combine parishes in certain cases for the purpose of enabling them at their joint expense to maintain the whole or a part of their own highways. There was a maximum rate now fixed by law for highways, and he proposed to continue that maximum—nearly the whole of the present system would remain in force except in the cases which he had specifically stated, the rate, as a charge incident to property, remaining the same as before. It had just been suggested by an hon. Friend near him, that he had not yet said anything respecting his proposed audit: upon that point it was only necessary for him to say, that as the accounts would be kept at the workhouse, and the meetings held there, that would be the fitting place for the audit, and to the poor-law auditors he proposed to entrust that duty. By them it could be made with little additional trouble or expense. The Bill which he now intended to introduce would also contain a clause for the purpose of repealing a statute well known by the name of Sir Charles Burrell's Act, by which measure provision was made for contributions from parishes on account of insolvent turnpike trusts; and in repealing that Act, he proposed to provide that the expenditure, according to its provisions, should be carried on, not by the officers of the turnpike trusts, but by the district surveyors. There was one other observation which he had omitted till now to make—namely, that the management of highways was not like the relief of the poor. It was not necessary, for the purpose of managing the highways, that constant attendance should be given. It was not necessary that there should be weekly, or even fortnightly, meetings; perhaps once a month would be found quite enough to enable a standing committee, appointed out of the whole body of the guardians, to do all that could be required for the efficient care and control of the highways. Of course, the boards of guardians, in electing such committees—which they might do annually—would select those who were in the habit of giving most attention to such subjects, and who were practically best acquainted with roads.

observed, that many of the poor-law unions contained one or two parishes which were out of the county in which the greater part of the union might be situate, and for such cases it would be necessary to make provision. With regard to the most important feature of the Bill, he must say he did not consider that the poor-law guardians would be the fittest persons to undertake the control and management of the highways; and he thought this plan the more objectionable inasmuch as the parishes which contained the greatest number of roads did not always return to their respective boards of guardians the greatest number of representatives; besides that, the guardians of the poor had quite enough to do in attending to their own proper functions.

considered that on several accounts the proposed measure would improve the state of the law. He approved of the Bill upon two grounds; one was that its provisions were compulsory, the other that it would do away with parish surveyors. He was sure that the Bill of his hon. Friend would be found simple and effective; but before he sat down he wished to inquire to what extent it was proposed to invest the guardians with the control and management of the highways.

said, that every day he became more and more confirmed in the opinion that they could not find a worse management for highways than a board of guardians; and he was sure that it must lead to the employment on the roads of ablebodied paupers in excessive numbers. The surveyors would never be able to resist the pressure that would be made on them to employ the poor of the districts. The only part of the proposed measure of which he cordially approved was the repeal of Sir Charles Burrell's Act.

reserved to himself the full power, at any future stage, of objecting to the details of this Bill; but he thanked the hon. Member opposite for having introduced such a measure to improve a system that was in many respects faulty. Although he was not certain that placing the control of the highways in the hands of the poor-law guardians would be the best possible course, yet he thought that plan must open the door to an improvement on the present system; for he could not but believe that a paid surveyor of a district would be more able to resist solicitations to employ the poor of parishes unprofitably, than the unpaid surveyor was now able to do. Under the present system, there was an extravagant expenditure of money, attended with great demoralisation of the people employed on the roads.

approved of the proposed audit, and offered to the hon. Member who moved for leave to bring in the Bill the meed of his gratitude for persevering in so useful a work. He considered it a great improvement that each parish should pay its own quota, and he considered it also absolutely necessary that some such measure should pass into a law, inasmuch as the great lines of railway ran nearly at right angles to our principal roads. Likewise he approved of the Bill because he thought it would effect a greater uniformity in the repair of roads; for if it passed into a law, no obstinate parish could resist a general desire for improvement.

understood that the charge for the highways would still fall on real property, and that, too, according to a wider area than the poor-rates. He apprehended that the Bill would add to the burdens on lands, instead of reducing them.

approved of the compulsory plan. The permissive system was worth nothing. Though some of the details of the measure might be open to objection, he thought that, under it, the country would have better roads than heretofore.

said, he had discharged a painful duty when, in the course of last Session, he opposed the measure of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Herefordshire, though he gave that Gentleman full credit for the excellent motives which induced him to bring forward the former proposition. He had now much pleasure in giving his cordial support to his present proposition, so far as the introduction of the Bill went. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to much credit for devoting his time and attention to a subject not in itself very inviting. It appeared to him that the proposed Bill had been framed judiciously with reference to the compulsory combination of parishes, in lieu of the permissive principle. There might, no doubt, in some quarters, be a great unwillingness to change a long existing practice, and in others to part with present patronage. In what mode the combination of parishes should be effected, was a most important question. The hon. Member proposed to make the existing districts subject to the management of poor-law guardians. It would be premature to give a positive opinion on this subject, but it was one of the greatest importance, and it would be well worthy the consideration of the House whether district bodies could not be established for the management of the highways better suited to the discharge of the duties required from them than the present boards of poor-law guardians. These latter bodies had been established without any reference to their fitness for deciding upon the various considerations which were involved in the great change made by the railways in the lines of communication throughout the country. The true principle on which the maintenance of the highways ought to be conducted, was to do the business in the most perfect manner at the least expense, discarding every other consideration. To intrust the management of parish highways to any authority that would be likely to employ the destitute poor upon the highways, because there was a certain amount of unemployed labourers in a union, would be objectionable in principle. Now would there not be an involuntary leaning on the part of boards of guardians to employ upon the highways the unemployed labourers of their respective parishes? He should have much more confidence in a board elected by ratepayers specially appointed to manage the highways, than in the administration by the poor-law guardians. Whether it was politic in other respects to transfer duties of this kind to poor-law guardians, was another important question. He doubted whether they would not act with more authority and weight, in the discharge of their proper duties, if they confined themselves to the administration of the poor-law, than if they had other business to discharge such as the management of highways. If the House should think there was any force in these considerations, it would not be impossible, he thought, to divide the country into districts convenient for the classification and management of the highways, having duo reference to the great changes made by the railways, permitting the ratepayers to have a voice in the election of a board distinct from the board of guardians, whose single province should be-to maintain the highways in the best state at the least expense, excluding every other consideration. Approving, then, of this Bill so far as it compelled a combination of parishes, and tended to a more economical administration, by enabling districts to make contracts on a larger scale and to secure more able surveyors, and reserving his opinion as to the constitution of the authority that should manage these highways, he would give his cordial support to the Bill. He did not think the mere audit of accounts, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Slaney), would be any check on the employment of unnecessary labour by a board of guardians. The duty of the auditors would be to see that a certain number of labourers had really been employed, and that they had been paid no more than reasonable wages. Whether or not employment had been given on the roads to destitute labourers for the purpose of diminishing the pressure on the poor-rate, the auditors could not determine. There might be a perfect audit upon the points he had mentioned, without a corrective of the tendency to make road-labour a source of relief for the unemployed.

had no doubt that the plan suggested by the right hon. Baronet was the best, if it were only practicable to carry it out. There were many objections to the boards of guardians, who might interfere injuriously with the supply of labour. He had more faith in a paid surveyor, as proposed to be appointed by this Bill. That officer would be likely to employ useful labour, and no other. He hoped it would not go forth to the country that a paid surveyor would entail additional expense on the districts. Such an impression was quite erroneous, as the present surveyors, though nominally unpaid, were not unpaid in reality. They received frequent votes of money from the parish vestries, and were also paid by jobs they had to perform in repairing the roads. As to the combination of the two rates, there was this objection to that plan—that we would not know how much was spent under the name of poor-rate, and how much under that of highway rate; and as long as the farmers could throw the burden of the poor on the highway rate, they would be always ready to do so. That was an argument in favour of the right hon. Baronet's suggestion; but if the right hon. Baronet had had the experience which others had acquired on this subject, in Committee upstairs, he would then have been aware of the extreme difficulty of discovering a proper remedy for these evils. He hoped that it would be shown that this measure would throw no additional burdens on land, because he was sure it would not be suffered to pass, if that would be its effect.

hoped that sufficient time would be given to the country to consider the details of so important a Bill. He thought the measure now proposed was preferable to the Bill of last Session; but he was satisfied that no addition of the nature now proposed, ought to be made to the duties of poor-law guardians. They would form committees of their body upon whom would practically devolve the management of these trusts, and he thought it better on many accounts to put the management of the highways under some other control.

wished to say a few words in reference to some remarks that had been made in course of the discussion. The Bill intended to enable the guardians to elect the paid surveyor, and fix his salary; and they would also be empowered to remove him, if his conduct called for his dismissal. That, he apprehended, would amount to a moral as well as a legal control over that officer; but if any additional words could be inserted to strengthen the intention of the clause, he would be quite ready to adopt the suggestion. To come to another point—he had already stated that he proposed to entirely abolish the highway rates by name, and require the overseers of the poor to make a rate for the purposes of the highways, and pay the money over to the board of guardians; but he did not propose any change in the incidence of the rate. Clauses were introduced into the Bill by which the rate would be made to fall on property exactly identical with that which was now subject to highway rate. He admitted the justness of the strictures of the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, on the union boundaries, and on the poor-law guardians as managers of highways; but he felt that this was a case where they had only a choice of difficulties; for whatever course they could recommend, valid objections would be urged against it. He fully admitted that if they had now for the first time to make a separate provision for the highways, it would not be advisable to adopt the poor-law area for the purpose; but, on the whole, after much consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the plan he now proposed was the one least open to objection. In reply to the hon. Member for Dover, who had inquired what control the guardians would have over the paid surveyor, he (Mr. Lewis) stated that they would elect him, they would have the power to fix his salary, and to remove him. With respect to the highway rate, he proposed entirely to abolish it under that name, and to require overseers of the poor to make a rate for the purpose of maintaining the highways, which rate it would be their duty to hand over to the boards of guardians; but he did not propose to make any change in the incidence of the rate, which would fall upon property just in the same manner as at present. He begged to thank the House for the manner in which the Bill had been received. He was glad to see so general a recognition of the importance of the subject of highways, of the improper manner in which highway rates were frequently spent, and of the importance of making it compulsory upon districts to unite for the management of their highways. He was aware of the difficulty of selecting a body to whom should be intrusted the management of highways. The last Bill he had proposed contemplated a separate elective board for the management of turnpikes and highways. But when the House resolved that the turnpikes should form the subject of distinct management, it was not thought worth while to have a separate elective body for the management of highways. If the question of territorial division were res Integra, he would admit that it would not be desirable to take the boundaries of the present poor-law unions; but the subject presented a choice of difficulties. Valid objections might be urged to whatever course might be proposed, but the plan he had adopted was open to the least objections in amount and gravity. He would, in the interval before the second reading of the Bill, see whether it would be possible to substitute any other local body in preference to the boards of guardians.