asked, if it was likely that salaries would soon be fixed for the clerks of county courts, in lieu of fees, as had been done with the judges.

said, the duties of the judges being much of the same character and occupying about the same proportion of their time, it had been found practicable to fix a uniform scale of salary for the judges, the mininum being settled by the Act of Parliament. With regard to the clerks, the case was quite different, for the extent of their duties was very various, some, for instance, acted for a single court, others took a certain district; hence it had been found impossible to fix a uniform salary. Their cases had been investigated; but the Government had not yet been able to fix the amount in each individual case at which a commutation should be effected. In some cases, where the fees received were much higher than the salary allowed by law, it had been thought right that a commutation should take place immediately.

asked if anything was to be done with regard to the fees of bailiffs, who were suffering great inconvenience at present, and were positive losers. As the writs must be delivered by them, unless something was done to secure their services, the whole business of these courts would soon be at a standstill.

said, that was also matter of inquiry. In certain districts the fees did not amount to a sufficient sum to afford an adequate remuneration to the bailiffs. He believed the only thing to be done would be to reduce their number.

rose for the purpose of moving as an Amendment the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present mode of levying and expending the county rate in England and Wales. He considered it absolutely necessary, before proceeding to deal with so important a subject, that full and complete inquiry should be previously made. It was his wish to approach the discussion of the Bill in the fairest spirit. He admitted a great many petitions had been presented in favour of it; but what he felt was, that a bonâ fide inquiry into the subject was an essential preliminary in dealing with so difficult a matter. If it could be shown that the financial business of the counties, as conducted by English gentlemen, could be better managed by a board more popularly constituted, he should be most happy to give his consent to a change of that kind; but he was not prepared to assent to a Bill which was most objectionable, not only in all its details, but, as he conceived, in its principle also. He was certainly surprised that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, on a former day, deviating from his usual caution, without having heard a word of the discussion on the subject, should pledge himself to consent to the second reading of the Bill. Upon a subject of so much importance, he could not but think that if any change were to be made, such alteration ought to be effected with the responsibility of the Government rather than upon that of a private individual. The real origin of the present Bill was not to be found in any real love of constitutional theories, but in a mere local squabble in the county of Lancaster, among the large towns, with respect to a lunatic asylum. In order to support the Bill, a case of great grievance had been attempted to be made out for the county in which the Bill originated. Now what were the facts of the case with respect to county rates in Lancashire? In the year 1824 the amount of county expenditure was 80,00l., and in 1848 only amounted to 87,000l. for the same items of expense, being an increase of only 7,000l., notwithstanding the enormous increase both in wealth and population of the county. But out of that 87,000l., so raised in 1848, the county had received back from the Consolidated Fund no less than 27,000l., so that the ratepayers had actually contributed but 60,000l., for what cost them 80,000l. in 1824. Again, in 1825, the amount of rate imposed was 74,800l., in 1849, 77,430l., being an increase of only 2,600l., of which not less than 31,000l. was for the charge of the county police, a sum considerably exceeding that paid back from the Consolidated Fund for cost of prosecutions. Large sums had been expended in the county of Lancaster and other counties for building and improving county lunatic asylums, and in carrying out other prison improvements, directed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and it was thus that the apparent increase above the sums he had mentioned bad arisen in the last few years. Was it right or fair that the discharge of these duties by the county magistracy should be made a matter of inculpation and blame upon those who had only acted in the strict performance of their duty? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had stated a few days since that in the county of Cumberland, with which he was connected, the county rates had diminished since 1822 not less than 40 per cent. He was not aware whether, in that reduction, credit was taken for the amount returned from the Consolidated Fund. [Sir J. GRAHAM stated that he had taken credit for that amount.] That, however, did not amount to 40 per cent of the county rates, and there had therefore been a reduction to some extent in the county rates of Cumberland. Now, he would show by reference to the county of Worcester, with which he (Sir J. Pakington) was connected, that even if new boards were elected, they would have little or no power over the county expenditure. The county expenditure of Worcestershire in 1849 was 27,000l. in round numbers. The expenses of the gaols were 5,200l., conveying prisoners to gaol 575l, cost of prosecutions 5,500l. Over neither of these items could the newly-elected board have any control. The expense of the office of the clerk of the peace was about 1,000l. This expense was incurred for services required to be performed by Act of Parliament—preparing lists of voters and other things. The expense of the coroner's office was 1,500l. Over this the hoard could exercise no control. The cost of bridges was 580l., interests on the debt for the Shire Hall, 2,000l., and there remained only the cost of the county police, amounting to 7,800l., a portion of which he thought ought, as in the case of Ireland and of the metropolis, to be borne by the Consolidated Fund. But, in his opinion, nothing would be more injudicious than to give the control of the police to any varying and elective hoard. He had shown, therefore, he trusted, so far as he had already gone, that due economy was exercised by the existing machinery; that no grievances existed; and he would now proceed to show that even if any grievances did exist, this Bill, if passed, would not afford any remedy. It was suited for the county of Lancaster, and for that county only. There were twenty-seven unions in the county of Lancaster, and no detached bits of unions as there were in some other counties. The board there, under the new Bill, would consequently consist of 27 elected justices and 27 elected guardians, who would supersede a body of 450 magistrates. In the county of Worcester there were twelve unions, that is, twelve centres of unions; but there were also several detached bits of unions. They had four cases in which there were three Worcestershire parishes belonging to unions in other counties; they had two cases in which there were two Worcestershire parishes belonging to unions in other counties; and there were three cases where there was a single Worcestershire parish belonging to a union in another county. How, then, would this Bill operate? Those detached bits of unions were also to elect magistrates and guardians; but they must be magistrates of the county to which those parishes or bits of unions were attached. The consequence would be, in the four cases where there were three detached parishes, that although those detached parishes could each elect guardians, they would not be able to elect magistrates, for they would have no magistrates of the county in which the board was to act, to elect. In the three cases where there was a single parish, the guardian there, whoever he might be, must every year elect himself to be a member of the county board. The state of things he had described would destroy the equality: they could not have an equal number of guardians and magistrates. They must have a greater number of guardians, for there were places where they could have no magistrates, there being no magistrate of the county in those districts. There was another objection. He would venture to give a union in Worcestershire, in which there were resident four magistrates, who from their abilities and habits ought not to be off any county board. They could not be well dispensed with, and it would be an injustice to deprive the county of their services; but under this Bill it would be impossible to choose more than one of them, and the others must be set aside, and magistrates elected from a different part of the county, who from habits and qualifications were not so fit to be members of the board. He would give the House another illustration of what would be the effect of the Bill. If the inequalities he had pointed out were corrected by not allowing such detached bits of unions to elect representatives, he would show that in the county of Worcester, with twelve unions, there would be twelve magistrates and twelve guardians; and see what an injustice that would be when there were 170 to 180 magistrates in the county. He considered the magistrates were, in the first place, the largest ratepayers; and, in the next place, he contended that their tenants did not pay the rate. Each occupier had but a small rate, and he maintained that directly, as well as indirectly, the magistrates were the largest ratepayers. That being the case, would it be just in the county of Worcester to supersede nearly 180 magistrates, and supply their places on the board by the election of twelve small ratepayers? What had happened in the county of Gloucester only last year? A question arose about the reduction of salaries; and what would be the result if small ratepayers were to settle the question? But 120 persons who paid a largo portion of the rates came together, watched the inquiry with the greatest anxiety, and decided the question with great deliberation. The duties of the magistrates of England were never discharged with more care and economy than now: there was a finance committee in every county, and every transaction regarding the public expenditure was carried on under Act of Parliament in open court. He thought he was making the fairest possible proposal, when he asked them to go upstairs, and there, in a Select Committee, have a bonâ fide inquiry on the subject. Let them beware how they tampered with the existing state of things, or superseded the present men by a measure of this kind. Let not the House be carried away by the fallacy which many gentlemen were affected by, that the magistrates exercised an irresponsible and arbitrary power. It was not so. The magistrates could not arbitrarily impose taxation under the powers given them by the Act of Parliament. They had certain duties to discharge, and to enable them to carry out those duties, they had power to raise money, but that power was exercised in open court, and limited by statute. He did not say that no improvement could be made in the present system. He dared say, that if they went into Committee, an improved mode of auditing public accounts might be adopted, and means also taken to give increased facilities for the inspection of the public accounts. Though he could not sanction the second reading, he was willing to go into an inquiry on this subject, and he warned the House how they tampered with the present system of voluntary exertion.

expressed his regret that, from the manner in which the Amendment was framed, his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich would not allow him to vote with him now as he did last year, when he proposed that this subject should be referred to a Select Committee. In a great deal of what he had said he entirely agreed; but the House had already ox-pressed its opinion on the principle of the measure, namely, that the county ratepayer should have some control over the county expenditure. However, he would be ready to join with his hon. Friend so far as an attempt to amend this Bill, for he thought there was a great deal of it which was most objectionable. His hon. Friend had stated that the feeling regarding this measure in Lancashire had been caused by a county squabble with regard to two lunatic asylums. He believed that circumstance had added a little to the feeling on the subject in the county of Lancaster; but it was not the origin of the feeling, which existed not only in Lancashire, but elsewhere, with regard to the control of the county expenditure. As to the conduct of the magistrates of the county of Lancaster, he had himself been ready to give an explanation of it, and to defend them from many of the misrepresentations which had been made of their proceedings; but the hon. Baronet had himself relieved him from this task. The feeling in Lancashire with respect to this question originated in a great measure from a sense of injustice as to the way in which the county rates were collected. In that he agreed, for the present system of collecting the county rate was not founded upon a strict principle of justice. The rate was levied immediately upon the occupying tenant, and included expenses with which the occupying tenant ought not to be saddled. It included permanent improvements—for instance, bridges, and several other buildings. He had lately met several of the ratepayers of Lancashire, by one of whom his attention was called to the subject of county bridges. He asked him (Mr. Patten) if it were not too bad that he should have to pay for a bridge in the neighbourhood, when he only held for two years, and the entire sum for that bridge had been laid on the rates for one year. As to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, he was sorry that he could not give it his full accordance. He would vote for the second reading of it, simply on this ground, that it recognised the principle that the ratepayers should have some control over the expenditure; but he reserved to himself the right to give expression to his disapprobation of a great portion of the Bill. One of his objections was, that the very abuses to which he had alluded were not provided against by this measure. The great body of ratepayers were occupiers, who would, of course, elect persons on the board to represent their own interests; and when a question came to be decided with regard to the erection of a large public building in the county, or the carrying out of any other improvement of a permanent nature, the occupiers would say they would not age to it because they had no permanent interest in the matter. Consequently it would be impossible to have such improvements made. He was strengthened in this opinion by an examination of the petitions which had been presented to the House, and he could say that as regarded those from his own county ninety-nine out of 100 of the signatures belonged to occupiers and not to owners. He thought the principle of popular control might be established without interfering with the judicial functions of the magistrates at all; and if they altered the system of collecting the county rates, and relieved the occupiers from the payment of those rates, they might have a system of representation by which those judicial functions would not be interfered with. At any rate it was undeniable that the inspection of the county rates might be given to the ratepayers of a county without interfering with the judicial control of the magistrates. At a public meeting of the county of Lancaster, he and his right hon. Friend had met the ratepayers from all parts of the county, and he was so satisfied with his right hon. Friend's statement on that occasion, of the course which he intended to pursue, that he promised to support him in it. The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman made then was the one he wanted him to make now; it was agreed to last Session by the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had changed his course altogether, and one reason why he (Mr. Patten) rose now was to show that he was ready to fulfil the engagement he had made to his right hon. Friend. On the occasion to which he referred, there was a general concurrence of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman; but this Bill, he thought, would meet with disapprobation. In conclusion, he would again say it would be better for his right hon. Friend, after the second reading of the Bill, to adopt the course taken last year, and let it be referred to a Committee to ascertain in what way popular control should be exercised over the public expenditure.

was anxious to disabuse the hon Gentleman who just sat down of the opinion he entertained that this Bill was otherwise than was intended last Session; and he thought the hon. Gentleman was under a great mistake, if he thought the supporters of the Bill had altered their plans. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Committee said he wanted to have a bonâ fide inquiry; but was he ignorant that a bonâ fide inquiry had already taken place with the greatest care? An inquiry had taken place on the subject long before this Bill was introduced; that inquiry toot place in 1835; and instead of the Bill having originated in the county of Lancaster, he (Mr. Hume), in the year 1837, had introduced a Bill to the same effect. Many of the provisions of this Bill would not carry out the principle he contended for by his Bill; for, to remove the objections of magistrates, some of the provisions of his Bill were omitted. The Bill had been introduced in consequence of the report of the Committee which had inquired into the subject. In that report it was stated that the management of the county funds was regarded with some distrust, and whatever ground there might be for the imputation, it was natural it should be made whilst the funds were administered by individuals over whose proceedings there was no effectual control. The hon. Baronet the Mover of the Amendment had asked them, would they destroy the long established institutions of the country by superseding those who had so well conducted the business of the county; but he (Mr. Hume) tendered the evidence given before the Committee, to show that such a change was necessary. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch said the magistrates were better qualified to discharge the duties than persons appointed by the ratepayers, he (Mr. Hume) asked him what were the opinions of those who sent petitions to the House on the subject? There was not one petition that did not express distrust of the magistrates, and ask the House to pass a Bill that would give the ratepayers control over the expenditure. He would support the second reading of this measure, on the understanding that it should be then sent to a Select Committee, with instructions that that Committee should not enter into any new matter.

called upon the House to consider how different the state of things now was, from the state of things that existed in 1835, when the report was made on which the hon. Member for Montrose founded his support of this measure. The law had since been completely altered, and the relative positions of the magistrates and ratepayers had been materially changed. Powers had been given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to the Lunatic Commission, by which the expenditure could be controlled, and there were no complaints to be made at present, like those which had been made before that Committee. He, for one, would say as a magistrate, that he should be glad to get rid of the trouble of managing the county rates; but he was perfectly persuaded that if this Bill came into operation, it would cause confusion, and increase the county rates. There was a provision for the payment of the members elected by the board of guardians, which might lead to jobbing, and also increase the county rates. The amount raised by the county rate was not, in fact, well known at pi-t-sent, because it was raised with the poor-rate. It was mixed up with the poor-rate, and the consequence was, if the ratepayers paid 3s., 4s., or 5s. in the pound, they immediately said, see how high the county rates are. Many ratepayers imagined that the county magistrates could do what they pleased as to the rates; but that was not the case. The rates were under four heads—1. Those for the protection of life and property, half of which was now thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and over which this board would have no control. 2. The sums for lunatic asylums; and as to those none could be built but with the sanction of the Lunacy Commissioners. 3. For Bridges. 4. For the registration of voters, over which also the board would have no control. Considering the expensive machinery this Bill provided, and the small sums over which the magistrates had any control, he was sure there would not be many petitions in its favour. If the county rates had been collected in a different manner from the poor-rates, he was quite sure that this outcry would not have been raised. He should therefore vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwitch, thinking that the House was not at present sufficiently acquainted with the subject to legislate upon it.

entertained objections to some of the details of the Bill, but he should support the second reading. In his neighbourhood the magistrates were not very large ratepayers, and it might so happen that a magistrate might not be rated at all.

said, he wished to state shortly the reasons of the vote which he was about to give. The object of the Bill was to provide for a better administration of county rates, and was founded on the principle of the introduction of popular control over the irresponsible power now exercised by the magistrates of England in reference to taxation. His hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich said, that the measure introduced a change of great magnitude. That was very true; but were they of late years so unaccustomed to changes of great magnitude? The reform of the borough corporations of England was a great change. Previous to that the power of raising rates in all their municipalities was vested in a self-elected and irresponsible body. That was found to be so great a grievance by the ratepayers, that the principle of representation as a check on taxation was introduced by Parliament. Then, with regard to the poor-rate, what was the principle of the new Poor Law Amendment Act? Was it not the introduction of control by a body of guardians annually elected by popular constituencies to cheek that great branch of expenditure? The reform of the Poor Law was a great change. The reform of Parliament was a great change. Therefore the magnitude of the change did not alarm him. Well, but it was said in reference to this measure that the magistrates of England who exercised this irresponsible power were the great proprietors, and had the greatest interest in the expenditure of the county rate, and that, therefore, it was perfectly safe to allow them to regulate that expenditure, to which they themselves most largely contributed, without the check of popular representation. That seemed to him to be a very odd argument to use in the House of Commons. Why, on the very same ground they might entrust the taxation of the whole country to the House of Lords without any interference from the representatives of the people. The House of Lords consisted generally of the large landed proprietors of the country. They, therefore, it might be said, had an interest in keeping down taxation, yet was it found necessary to have the check and control of this elective assembly. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire said, that there was a limit to this power of taxation on the part of the magistrates; he said that the tax of county rate was a matter of no great consequence, that it was very small in amount. But it was one of those local burdens of which they had lately heard so much. It was small now, but it was very large a few nights ago, when you wished to transfer it as a local burden to the general taxation of the country. It was a sum, however, of 1,200,000l. The hon. Gentleman said, that there were only four heads of expenditure, but these were four important heads of expenditure; and if the magistrates decided on rebuilding a bridge, which, although to them it might seem to be necessary, might not appear to be so to the tenant, it would be but little comfort to him to read the account of the expenditure of his money in the county newspaper. Hon. Gentlemen had lately called to their councils the tenant farmers of England; but if he was not mistaken, he read a speech made by Mr. Bennet, who was well known as the representative of the tenant farmers, in Willis's roooms, and he said distinctly with regard to a Bill introduced by the Under Secretary of State respecting roads, where the power was vested in the magistrates, that that measure was, in the opinion of the tenant farmers indefensible, because it transferred the power to the magistrates, who were irresponsible, and that, from the experience of the tenant farmers with regard to the county rate, they would not support or favour any further extension of irresponsible power in that direction. With regard to the county with which he was connected, a saving had been effected in the county expenditure of 40 per cent since 1822. Great abuses had previously existed, because the magistrates exercised their authority in secret court, and the public were not admitted to their discussions. The press and the public had been excluded, and he could state from his own experience that great jobbing had existed. Immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill an Act of Parliament was introduced, to the effect that all public money should be voted in open court; and the operation of this cheek was found to be most salutary in the county in which he had local experience. It was now the practice in most counties to appoint a financial committee, who prepared a report which was laid before the bench assembled in open court. That course had been very much commended, but he was not sure that it was not open to the objection of counteracting the good effect of voting money in open court, because a report so brought forward, ready cut and dry, was adopted without any or with very little discussion, and was generally acquiesced in and adopted off-hand. His opinion was that some check, founded on popular election, and consisting of ratepayers, acting with the magistrates, and on the magistrates, was now necessary, and ought to be established. That appeared to be generally acquiesced in. His hon. Friend below him was not prepared to resist that principle. It was said that this was a Lancashire Bill. He had always thought that the mode in which the county rates were administered there was admirable, considering the natrue of the conflicting interests in that great county. There were rival and conflicting interests in the north and south of that county; and by an excellent arrangement, it was agreed that an annual meeting should be held at Preston, where the expenses of the whole county should be discussed by the assembled magistrates, and the local expenses for the different portions of the county should be regulated. But that plan had been rendered inoperative by a system of adjournments, so that when a question arose affecting Liverpool, the meeting was adjourned to a special session in that hundred, and so on for the north and south of the county. In consequence of the adoption of that system of adjournments, the ratepayers, who had a deep interest in the administration of the funds, became dissatisfied. He was not prepared to say that the details of this Bill approached to anything like what he should have wished; but the question was, whether the time had not not now arrived, when they should endeavour to introduce a better system of managing the county rate, and whether they should not sanction the principle of some popular control, to check the power of the magistrates. As far as that went, he should not hesitate for one moment to vote for the second reading. He was not prepared to pledge himself to the details, but the right hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading was ready to send it to a Committee. He (Sir J. Graham) believed that if such a Committee were appointed, the Bill, notwithstanding its imperfections, which were numerous, would come out of that Committee so improved as to be worthy the support of the House. On these grounds he should not hesitate for one single moment to support the measure.

said, he came down prepared to support the principle of the Bill and the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, whose experience and judgment were entitled to the greatest respect, confirmed him in the view he took of the subject. He could state that the right hon. Gentleman was most assiduous in attending to the affairs of the county of Cumberland, and there was no person there who did not feel indebted to him for his assistance. He did not think the present system was calculated to give satisfaction in regard to the expenditure of the county rate, because those who levied and administered it were an irresponsible body. A question had been raised, whether it was the owner or occupier that paid the rate; but in the county where he resided there were a great number of persons who occupied their own property, and it was a great hardship upon such persons to be told that the magisstrates were the owners, and, as such, had the greatest interest in the expenditure for the county. He considered also that the mode by which magistrates were now appointed was most objectionable. There Could be no doubt that a more effectual control over the county rate was necessary than any that existed at present. Therefore, he did not think that a Committee was necessary, and he expected no other result from it than doubt, delay, and dissatisfaction.

was of opinion that some control by the ratepayers over the magistracy was desirable, and the only question before the House was the way in which that principle was to be carried into effect. The Bill before the House was of a character so impracticable that he doubted whether by sending the Bill to a Committee they would not delay the accomplishment of the object which his right hon. Friend opposite had in view in proposing this measure. As, however, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had expressed his opinion that the Bill might be so altered in Committee as to make it a good measure, he should advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. There was no doubt that the Bill would be thoroughly sifted in Committee, since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had said that in its present form the Bill was totally impracticable. The Amendment of his hon. Friend differed from that which was proposed last year in this respect, that the Select Committee was to be directed to inquire, not into the "best" mode of levying the county rates, and controlling the expenditure, but whether any "more" satisfactory mode of levying the rates, and giving the ratepayers a control, could be adopted. He suggested, however, as the best course, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Bill, and that the whole question should then be referred to a Select Committee, the principle being conceded that there ought to be a more effectual control over the county expenditure by the ratepayers.

said, that when this Bill was before the House a few weeks ago, his noble Friend at the head of the Government stated the course which he intended to pursue, and the reasons why the Government had determined to affirm the principle of the Bill by supporting the second reading. It was, therefore, unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by entering into an explanation of those reasons. The principle of this Bill was the formation of financial boards based on the representative principle. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich was not correct in saying that this was a transfer of the duties and powers which now devolved upon a large number of magistrates to a body consisting of ten or twelve persons, because it must be borne in mind that these boards would be mixed. He had no hesitation in expressing his concurrence in the general principle of the Bill, but, at the same time, he felt that there were very great difficulties in the way of carrying that principle into effect, as the Bill was framed, differing, as he did, from many, and these important, details. The Bill, though based on a sound principle, could only be carried into effect after due inquiry, and with great caution. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last admitted that there was a difference between the Motion now brought forward, and the Amendment moved last year. The terms in which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Droitwich was framed, would imply that the principle of popular control was to be referred to the Committee; whereas last year that principle was distinctly affirmed by the House. It was clearly understood that if the Bill was now read a second time, the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of it would refer it to a Select Committee for a thorough investigation. If, then, this principle was admitted by the Committee, it was but fitting that they should have before them a Bill with a specific plan for the purpose of carrying it out. The mode of election, whether the election should be annual or not, and the qualification of the members of the board, were all matters of detail. He begged to say that he did not support this Bill, on the ground that the magistrates did not pay proper attention to their duties. From his own experience he could state that, in regulating the county expenditure, the magistrates had endeavoured to combine economy with efficiency; and, while he thought the principle a sound one, and the demand a just one, that taxation and representation should go together, he must not be understood to throw any imputation upon the magistrates. The paper which had been referred to appeared to him to afford a complete explanation of the expenditure of the county of Lancaster. This Bill required much consideration. One point must be fully considered, which had attracted the notice of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire on a former occasion, namely, as to whether they should leave duties to be discharged by magistrates when they took away the power of performing them by leaving no funds at their disposal. For these reasons, he hoped that the Bill would be speedily returned from the Select Committee with such amendments as it might deem it expedient to introduce.

wished, as he had, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, filled the office of Secretary for the Home Department, and was also a Member of the Committee in 1837, and had paid much attention to the subject, shortly to state the grounds upon which he should vote. He did not give his vote on any supposition that the magistrates of the county had abused the power and trust reposed in them, but from a conviction that there was a defect in the constitution of the body to which these powers were entrusted. He believed that implicit confidence might be placed in the integrity of the gentlemen who constituted the magistracy; and that, as far as they were personally concerned, there was no body of men on whom he should less hesitate to repose trust. As he said before, however, there was a defect in the constitution of the present county board, which rendered it difficult for them, with every caution, to give entire satisfaction. He presented a petition yesterday on the subject of this Bill, from a body that was highly calculated to exercise an unprejudiced and dispassionate judgment on the matter. It was from a board of guardians in a part of the country with which he was immediately connected, who urged that there should be some concurrent control with the magistrates over the county expenditure; and that for this purpose the principle of representation should be adopted. The petition was unanimously adopted by the board, and was concurred in by nearly all the magistrates who generally came in contact with it The petition prayed for some concurrent control with the magistrates. Looking at the opinions which prevailed out of doors as to the charges which were borne by the county rate, and at the complaints which were urged against taxation, he thought there would be great dissatisfaction if all inquiry were not in some degree controlled by the principle of representation. Though his belief remained unaltered as to the integrity of the magistrates, he conceived the time had arrived when they should freely and calmly consider the whole subject; and, after what had passed, if he was a magistrate, he should not wish to retain the power objected to without such inquiry. If all inquiry were refused, the magistracy would be placed in a very invidious position; their duties would become more irksome and difficult; and they ought, therefore, to acquiesce in, rather than dissent from, the proposal calmly and dispassionately to consider their position. On these grounds, he wished for the fullest inquiry into the whole subject of the control of the county rates. In the county of Lancaster unjust imputations had been thrown out as to the conduct of the magistrates in regard to the imposition of the rates. He had gone through the accounts, and he was satisfied that this unfavourable impression had arisen from a supposition that the increase of the rates was the act of the magisterial body, from attributing the increased expenditure, due to other causes, to the want of vigilance, or profusion of the magistrates. He was sure they were anxious, not that they should at once legislate, but should consider whether there could not be some concurrent control with that which they exercised. It appeared to him, indeed, that there was little difference of opinion on the subject. He, therefore, was inclined to support the second reading of the Bill, in preference to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, reserving to himself the right to consider any important modifications of it when it reached the Committee. By voting for the second reading, he should admit—what he was prepared to admit—the principle that the representative system should, to a certain extent, be adopted in the administration of the county funds. His hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich admitted the same thing, for he proposed that the House of Commons should institute a Select Committee to inquire into the present mode of levying and expending the county rate of England and Wales, with a view to ascertain whether any more satisfactory mode of levying the said rates, and of giving to the ratepayers more effectual control over their expenditure, could be adopted. It was impossible not to discover, in this admission of the necessity of inquiry, a recognition of the general principle of the Bill. In voting as he intended to do, he only recognised that general principle which was virtually acknowledged by his hon. Friend in his Amendment. He did not care very much which Motion was adopted, as in his opinion each implied an admission in favour of the principle of representation. Without implying the least suspicion of the fidelity and care with which the magistrates had hitherto performed their functions of managers of the county expenditure—giving them the fullest credit for the manner in which they had discharged the duties entrusted to them—he should vote for the second reading of the Bill.

said, that in the county which he represented, no strong objection was felt to the principle of the measure; but with respect to the Bill itself, he believed that it was impracticable. If the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, it was not likely that a single clause would ever come back to the House; nevertheless, after the opinions which had been expressed by high authority in the course of the discussion, he would not object to the second reading of the Bill.

really wished to know what was the principle of this Bill, for several hon. Gentlemen had given a totally different description of it; he therefore preferred the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwitch. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had said, that if the change proposed by this Bill should be effected, the magistracy ought to be relieved from certain duties. That was what he had himself suggested, and he did not object to it; but he would show the House how it was proposed to effect the object by the Bill.

said, that he had referred to provisions which ought to be introduced into the Bill, but were not in it now.

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; they were in the Bill at that moment. The Bill was the Bill of last Session amended, and it was amended as regarded the particular point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. It did, in fact, contain the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman said were not in it. The Bill completely superseded the power of the magistrates with respect to all matters relating to the allowance of rates of every kind. It superseded them as regarded the duties of visiting prisons, lunatic asylums, and workhouses, and he believed that by the 8th clause they were also superseded as ex officio guardians of the poor. Now, with all these matters introduced into the Bill, who would undertake to say what its principle was? The right hon. Member for Ripon said that the county rates of Cumberland had been reduced 40 per cent within a stated period; but he had not informed the House whether that reduction was the result of the completion of the permanent buildings of the county for which the high rates were formerly required. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the magistrates increasing the rates by the building of new bridges, but he ought to know that, by law, no bench of magistrates could order a new bridge to be built. [Sir J. GRAHAM: They can pull old ones down, and build new ones.] County bridges, after all, were not very numerous. The reduction of the rates in Cumberland was, no doubt, caused by the completion of the permanent buildings of the county. In order to show the difficult nature of the question with which the House was called upon to deal, it was only necessary to state what the gentleman who framed the Bill proposed should be done with respect to auditing the accounts. They were afraid to intrust their own newly-elected body with the auditing of the accounts, so they established a separate audit, and gave every single ratepayer the right of appeal against the audit; and to whom did the House suppose the appeal was to lie? Why, to the justices at quarter-sessions. That was a specimen of the extraordinary inconsistencies into which the authors of the Bill had fallen. The 8th clause transferred to the new board all the functions now discharged by magistrates, excepting judicial ones. Now, the commitment of prisoners was not a judicial function, and therefore the magistracy would be divested of that. Another clause repealed every Act of Parliament which was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. That was summary justice with a vengeance. After such a sweeping clause as that, it might be supposed that a schedule would be annexed to the Bill, containing the titles of all the Acts of Parliament which it was proposed to render thus null and void; but there was nothing of the kind. This important question ought to have been taken up by the Government, and Ministers shrank from their responsibility in leaving the Bill in the hands of a private Member. In conclusion, he begged to state, that he did not object to the principle of establishing popular control over county expenditure.

felt, as the subject had been fully discussed, that there was no necessity to go into it. The principle was admitted that there should be some popular control over the county expenditure, and the only possible effect of the Amendment would be, to cause further delay, which would give rise to much dissatisfaction. He should not have addressed the House, unless for the observation of the hon. Member for Droitwich, that this was a Lancashire question, and that it arose from a squabble between the two divisions of it as to building a lunatic asylum. He could state that this was not a mere Lancashire question; but there was a very general feeling in favour of the Bill in many counties of England. He was sure, in all places where the subject had been considered, there was a strong desire that this Bill should pass into a law. In the county in which he resided (Yorkshire), few subjects had excited so much interest as this question of control over local expenditure. A worthless and extravagant expenditure had been gone into for building a great wall round the gaol, which was more fitted to resist another Danish invasion than to serve any useful purpose at the present day.

said, that his hon. Friend had observed that there was a general feeling in favour of this Bill. Now he believed he had presented the greatest number of petitions, perhaps, that had been presented to the House from any district, except Lancashire, namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire; and he had examined all those petitions attentively, and though in their general tenor they prayed for the establishment of financial county boards, they did not say one word in favour of such a Bill as that before the House. He never recollected a Bill which had been so cordially pulled to pieces on both sides of the House as this had been, and he did not believe that any hon. Member competent to form an opinion on the subject would vote for any of its clauses as they stood. He believed, when it returned from the Select Committee, they would find every word in it changed, except the first word "Whereas." It had been said last year, that popular representation should be mixed up with this part of the magisterial business of the country, but he doubted much whether the plan could be made to work well. He had no objection to the exercise of control over the county expenditure; but he warned the House against such powers being entrusted to bodies which might defeat the objects and intentions of the magistrates, and the Government of the day. No doubt the expenditure was very great, and the county rates had of late years pressed heavily upon the ratepayers. But to what was that owing? Why, to the building and improvement of prisons; and thus the very outlay itself has been instrumental in saving expense at future times. He believed between 60 and 70 new prisons had been built, and others had been improved at great expense; and this was absolutely necessary to carry out the Acts of Parliament, which declared that a certain and uniform system of prison discipline should be adopted. He warned the House, if they put it to the ratepayers or their delegates to say whether a prison, or bridge, or other public work should be erected, they would often find them take a shortsighted view of the case, and refuse to assent to the proposal. Nowhere had the expenditure for these purposes been so great as in Lancashire and the West Riding. In the latter district, ten years ago, the expenditure was 49,000l. a year, while in the last ten years it had been respectively 102,000l. and 93,000l., which had been occasioned chiefly by the erection of a new prison. He was sure, under the Bill as it stood, the county expenditure would not be reduced.

was not prepared to support the Bill of the right hon. Member for Manchester. It had been stated that the county rates of England and Wales amounted to 1,250,000l., the management of which it was proposed to leave to local elected boards. How they could think of imposing fifty-two county financial boards on the country, which were to perform functions somewhat analogous to those of the House of Commons, he did not understand. He did homage to the principle of taxation being allied with representation; but, in this case, he thought the Government should propose to the House to take many of the charges now on the county rates and defray them from the public funds of the country. He would not detain the House by going through the sixteen heads of charges on the county rates. He could not understand why the charge for coroners' inquests, and for the inspectors of weights and measures, should be defrayed out of these rates. Again, if a person committed a robbery, and stole a bale of goods, or any other article, he was prosecuted at the public expense, but he maintained, on conviction, in prison was at the expense of the county. Why this should be allowed to continue, he could not understand.

said, he was not on the present occasion going to repeat himself. All he intended to do was to impress this—that the House was not forced to commit itself to the details of the present measure. They were only asked that, having adopted the measure, which, to the best of the ability of those who framed it, they thought was calculated to carry out the representative system in controlling-expenditure, the House would give the proposition a chance of being submitted to a Select Committee, who would give the matter full and deliberate consideration. He thought the proposition was a fair and reasonable one. He thought he should not be doing much service to the cause he was supporting, were he to undertake to defend in that House the details of the measure, especially against so acute a critic in Acts of Parliament as the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, who always made him (Mr. Gibson) tremble when he set about explaining or criticising one. These details would undergo full consideration; and were certain to be brought into such shape as to secure the principle which they sought to establish. The adoption of the Bill would furnish a check to inconsiderate and extravagant expenditure; and, in his opinion, when brought into operation, could not be regarded as throwing a slur on the characters of magistrates, but as a measure analogous to the principle acted on in boroughs, where town councils had the control over the expenditure of the rates.

should have preferred the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, because he believed it would be found that in this Bill it would be impossible to separate the machinery from the principle of it. It was proposed that boards of guardians should each elect a member of their boards; but in that case they would depart from the principle of property being the qualification. He denied that occupiers had a direct interest in the question, for the burden ultimately fell upon the owners of property.

said, in explanation, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had referred to the difference between the terms of his Amendment this year and last year. He had only to say that this difference was entirely accidental; and he had no objection to adopting the very same words as he had used before. With regard to whether he should divide the House or not on his Amendment, he found that he now stood in a very different position from the one he occupied when he moved the Amendment, having had the satisfaction of finding that almost everybody, on all sides, condemned this Bill; and it was therefore a question for the House whether it was desirable to send such a Bill to an inquiry upstairs. But, bowing to the high authority before and behind him, and hoping that the future progress of the measure would be watched with jealous care, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he had already explained its objects in detail on introducing the measure. The simple object of the Bill was to give a permissive power to town councils, to levy a small rate for the establishment of public libraries and museums in all municipal towns. The Bill was founded on the recommendation of a Select Committee which sat last Session, and also on the expressed wishes of several towns which had petitioned Parliament on the subject. An Act called the Museums Act was passed four years ago, enabling town councils in towns having a population of 10,000 inhabitants and upwards to levy a small rate to establish museums of art and science for the benefit of the public; and all that the present Bill proposed was to extend the principle of the Museum Act to the establishment of public libraries also. In asking the House to adopt such a measure, he was backed by the feeling of many of the towns of the country; and since he had introduced it, he had received communications from several large towns in Scotland and Ireland, which were desirous of having the Bill extended to both of those countries as well as to England. He had only to repeat that he was fully prepared to adopt any reasonable amendment when the Bill went into Committee; and as the measure was calculated to afford the working classes in our populous towns proper facilities for the cultivation of their minds, and the refinement of their tastes in science and art, he trusted the House would assent to the principle by agreeing to the second reading.

thought this Bill nothing more nor less than an attempt to impose a general increase of taxation on Her Majesty's subjects; and doubted whether it was legitimate to introduce such a measure, excepting in a Committee of the whole House. He would be happy at any time to contribute his mite towards providing libraries and proper recreations for the humbler classes in large towns; but he thought that, however excellent food for the mind might be, food for the body was what was now most wanted for the people. He did not like reading at all, and he hated it when at Oxford; but he could not Bee how one halfpenny in the pound would be enough to enable town councils to carry into effect the immense powers they were to have by this Bill. He strongly objected to the clause enabling them to borrow money on the credit of the borough rates to carry out the purposes of the Act. He would be very glad, he had said, to give his mite to provide the city of Lincoln with the benefits of a library; but when it was said that giving a few coals to a poor man was corruption, no doubt it would be said, "Oh! what a gross act of bribery to give a few pounds for a public library!" He did not charge the hon. Member for Dumfries with seeking to lay a trap for him and others, but he would have been much more ready to support the hon. Gentleman if he had tried to encourage national industry by keeping out the foreigner. Before going any farther he would take the liberty of asking the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department whether it was constitutional for a private Member, unconnected with the Government, to introduce a Bill to levy taxes from the Queen's subjects?

did not apprehend there was anything unconstitutional in this Bill with regard to the levying of rates, which it proposed to do under Act of Parliament. Under the present Museums Bill, town councils already had that power; and this measure was merely an extension of the same principle. It was plain that if this Bill was unconstitutional, the Museums Bill must be unconstitutional too. Town councils were constitutional bodies elected by the ratepayers: and he saw no objection to the principle of this measure.

He felt that this Bill would increase the taxation of the people in times when it was not at all necessary; and therefore he moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

approved of the objects of this Bill, but objected to the unjust mode it proposed for carrying them out. The additional taxation which it proposed, at a time when the nation was so generally impoverished, was considered a great grievance by the manufacturing as well as the landed interest of the country; but the burden would fall as heavily on landed property in the precincts of small towns as it would on the ratepayers generally of those towns; while the agricultural classes, by their position, could not participate in any of the advantages of the Bill. Nothing could be more obnoxious than that to the feelings of the landed interest, and, therefore, he most oppose the second reading.

was much surprised at the opposition offered to this Bill, because, in the first place, the measure was entirely permissive; and, secondly, the rate was limited to one halfpenny in the pound. The manner in which the money could be applied was restricted to the erection of or paying rent for a building for holding a public library and a museum. No power was given to lay out the funds in the purchase of books, specimens, or pictures: all these were left to depend on the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants. In the popular boroughs of the country, this was a very popular measure. In the borough with which he was connected (Salford), the town council, acting as the representatives of all the ratepayers, had come forward with the greatest alacrity to provide a building for a public library and museum. The private gifts of the inhabitants had already stocked the museum to a considerable extent; and there had been voluntary contributions made of between 5,000 and 6,000 volumes to the library (which was attended by hundreds every night) in less than six months. He contended that this Bill would provide the cheapest police that could possibly be established; and what was the use of education for the people, unless they were enabled to consult valuable works which they could not purchase for themselves? It was the duty of the House to promote all that had a tendency to bring the higher and the humbler classes together; but this could not be done unless the people had the assistance of those above them.

considered that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had satisfactorily proved that it was necessary for the advantage of the people to pass the present Bill, for he had shown that in the large borough which he represented there had been, as in all the other boroughs of the country, a liberal disposition on the part of the wealthy and those in a better station of life to provide the rational means of improvement and enjoyment for their poorer fellow-citizens. But the hon. Gentleman said this Bill would establish a library, and provide chairs, tables, and everything necessary for the enjoyment of a library by a rate; but that it would not enforce the purchase of books from the rates as well. Now he (Mr. Goulburn), as an innocent man, certainly had thought that books always formed part of what was necessary for the enjoyment of a library. He differed also with the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary with regard to their having already sanctioned the principle of this Bill by adopting the existing Museums Bill. He did not think this Bill would exactly impose a tax on the landed classes: but he feared it would tend to make the poorer inhabitants of boroughs pay extensively for enjoyments of those who were better off than themselves. Because, no doubt, it would be found that a rate of halfpenny in the pound in a small borough would go a very little way after the erection of public buildings for libraries and museums had been completed; and instead of providing those valuable books of reference which the hon. Gentleman thought ought to be placed in a library of this description (and in this he perfectly agreed with him), all that the funds would be able to provide would be the daily and weekly newspapers, and the library would thus become a mere newsroom which only those well-to-do people who had plenty of leisure, and could run into learn the news about the time when the post had just arrived, would be able to avail themselves of, although the poorer ratepayers, who would either have no time for reading, and might live at a considerable distance from the spot, and who yet had to bear their full share of the expense, would be totally deprived of all the advantages of the library which their better circumstanced fellow-townsmen alone enjoyed. That he never could think a just or fair imposition of burdens. But, again, suppose the town council had a small sum to spare for the purchase of books—who was to have the power of selection? Should there be an unrestricted presentation of all those publications daily emanating from the press, which certainly were not calculated to promote the preservation of either public order or public morals? Or was there to be a supervision of the different works to be introduced, thereby establishing a kind of censorship for these public libraries? As long as they were supported by voluntary contributions, no difficulty of this kind could arise; but, for the reasons he had assigned, he thought this Bill to institute public libraries from the borough rates, to which all classes would have to pay equally, whether they derived any benefit or not, a highly unjust and objectionable measure, and therefore he must oppose its second reading.

said, his objection to this Bill rested on a very narrow and limited ground. If it had proposed to give power to town councils on an application to the Treasury from two-thirds or three-fourths of the inhabitants of a town, to be allowed to adopt the principle of the Bill, to tax the general body of the ratepayers for the establishment of libraries and museums, he would not have had so much objection to this measure. But he found fault with it because it would enable any town council desirous of carrying out the views of any small section of the inhabitants to tax the general body of the ratepayers for an institution that might soon degenerate into a mere political club, for which only a few of those who were compelled to contribute for its support had any sympathy. However noble the diffusion of knowledge might be, they should not forget that a halfpenny in the pound, although it might seem to be a very small rate, was really a serious addition to the burden of taxation when it became an annual charge on the poorer classes of the ratepayers. Had the Bill been really permissive, as was alleged, he would not have opposed it; but it proposed to clothe town councils with imperative powers; and therefore he would support the Amendment.

said, the House ought, of course, to take care what powers it conferred. He entirely approved of the object of the Bill, though he differed from the hon. Member for Dumfries as to the best mode of obtaining it. Had he read the Bill he-fore that day, he would have suggested to the hon. Member the adoption of a principle similar to that which was applicable to the lighting of towns. Were the Bill adopted, he saw no reason why the Daily News and the Times should not he provided in the library. Reading led to reflection, and the public benefit was thus generally promoted. In the United States there were ten thousand libraries, and this country would do well in that respect to imitate America. He should vote for the second reading, and his further concurrence would be dependent on a provision requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the ratepayers.

said, any one who had road the evidence would see how great the desire was on the part of the middling and lower classes, especially in boroughs, for access to libraries, and the means of acquiring useful information; and he should much regret that some means of gratifying that desire should not be adopted. There were two questions before the House:—1st, whether the law which gave to town councils the power of making an assessment for the purpose of museums should extend to libraries; and, secondly, whether it should also extend to boroughs not at present included in the Act. With regard to the first question, he thought that libraries were at least as useful as museums; and, in reply to the second, he thought that provisions might be introduced in Committee amply to protect the ratepayers, especially if confined to boroughs with not less than a certain amount of population.

was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department assent to the second reading of this Bill after his continued opposition to the repeal of what was erroneously called the law of mortmain. Why were not schools, hospitals, and churches, to receive the same benefit as the proposed Bill gave to libraries and museums? Whenever he (Lord J. Manners) had attempted to obtain the repeal of that Act, he was told that he was either a Papist or a Jesuit. To be sure, the Bill was introduced by a representative from Scotland, and another from Ireland, neither country being subject to that law; but, when the right hon. Baronet gave it his sanction, he thought it was about to be passed through the House without the consideration it deserved. As far as the great principle of the Bill was concerned, no one was more anxious to support it than himself; for his experience of towns led him to wish that in every town not only public museums but public libraries were established; at the same time, the public did view with great suspicion any measure that tended to increase the amount of local taxation. He admitted that the Bill would not tell upon the landed gentry, but it would impose an additional tax upon the agricultural labourers, whose wages had been decreased to the extent of 2s. or 3s. a week by recent legislation. He had himself been desirous to introduce a Bill for providing greens and places of amusement for the public; and he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government might not think it desirable to bring in a measure which might combine within itself all the valuable suggestions which they had heard in the course of the debate.

said, he was not about to accept the invitation of the noble Lord to discuss the policy of the Government taking up the whole question, for he thought it better for the House to confine themselves at present to the single point brought before them by the hon. Mover. He was inclined to take the same view as the hon. Member for Montrose. It would be most useful if in every good-sized town a well composed library was established, to which all the inhabitants had free access. Every one who had experience in country towns must know that there was a great want of access to good books. That was the case with regard to boroughs; but in some parishes much improvement had been effected by the establishment of local libraries. He agreed that it was of much greater importance that there should be a good library than a museum. Nothing, he believed, could be more visionary than the fear that these libraries would be filled with novels and the worst description of publications—bad and useless as literature—or that they would be mere receptacles for newspapers. Why should such distrust be entertained of the discretion of the town councils, who, he conceived, could be as safely trusted with the management of this as of other matters placed under their control. The question was of considerable importance, and one in which all classes were interested; and he confessed he did not think these libraries could lead to those consequences which some hon. Gentlemen who opposed the measure appeared to apprehend. For his own part he wished for the extension of instruction, and that the facilities for the enjoyment of good books were more general, and he believed that the establishment of libraries of this kind would have a good effect in promoting education. The Bill, as it now stood, required, he admitted, very important alteration; but he advised the House to pass the second reading, and those alterations could be considered in Committee. To the principle, however, he gave his cordial approbation. His opinion was, that the libraries should be lending libraries, or their usefulness might be much impeded. He should regret if a measure of this kind should not receive the sanction of the House so far as to pass the second reading.

said, his objection to the Bill was, that it gave the town council the power of taxation without consent. Some of the boroughs were of small extent in themselves, but included an immense extent of land, with a scattered and distant population, all of whom might be taxed for the support of an institution they could not possibly use. Moreover, there was something like a false pretence in the Bill; for although the maximum rate was said to be only a halfpenny in the pound, he observed that, by the third clause, it was enacted, that, for the purchase of land—rather an expensive part of the proceedings—it should be lawful for the town council, from time to time, with the approval of the Treasury, to borrow money at interest. But the security for that loan was not to be upon the halfpenny rate, but upon the borough rates. Thus the town council would have the power of borrowing, for the purchase of land and the building of the library, and they would likewise have the power of charging the cost by an addition to the borough rate. Neither he nor those who sat with him had the least objection to the instruction of the people, but they had an objection to taxation being imposed without the consent of parties who were to pay; and he hoped to hear the assurance of the hon. Mover, that he would introduce a clause by which the concurrence of three-fourths of the ratepayers should be obtained before the town council should have the power of imposing a rate.

said, there was evidently great accordance on both sides of the House with regard to the object of the Bill, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not on account of certain objections, which might be removed, re fuse to read it a second time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge seemed to take an entirely erroneous view of the halfpenny rate, which was only intended to apply to the building and furnishing of the library the books being supplied by voluntary contributions. There must be a large concurrence of opinion before any step would be taken. The town council would not borrow 5,000l. to build a library unless they felt satisfied that the wealthier inhabitants would furnish books. He admitted that the borrowing of money on the security of the borough rates would be objectionable; but he thought that if the borrowing were limited to the security of the borough rates, there was not likely to be any excessive expenditure. He would be ashamed of himself and of the House if he supposed that it would be necessary to say a word in favour of the object of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed particularly afraid that the ratepayers would read the Daily News. He (Mr. Bright) was quite sure that nothing would tend more to the preservation of order than the diffusion of the greatest amount of intelligence, and the prevalence of the most complete and open discussion, amongst all classes; and for that reason he rejoiced that the taxes on knowledge were to be discussed on an early day. He would give his support to the second reading, but on the understanding that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Rochester be added to the Bill.

observed, that as books, which seemed to be not only the best but most necessary furniture for a library, were left to the chances of voluntary or charitable contributions, the expenses of building and furnishing, for which it was proposed to make a rate, might be supplied from the same source. It would be of no use to establish public libraries if the Ten Hours Bill was not carried out, and factory labourers were prevented availing themselves of such institutions; and he doubted if the measure was really calculated to effect the object which both sides of the House wished to carry out, of providing good libraries well stored with useful books. There was no clause in the Bill stating how the library was to be conducted. The effect would be that farmers and out-residents in a borough who could not use the library would be taxed for its support; he also objected to the principle of taxing a whole community for objects by which only a few would be benefited; and by the institution of lectures hereafter he almost feared that these libraries might be converted into normal schools of agitation. He also anticipated the probability that hereafter there would be a call for increased rates, and that it would be urged that another halfpenny in the pound would not be too much.

thought, that the objections urged against the Bill might be dealt with in Committee. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester and others as to the admissibility of giving the ratepayers the option of establishing libraries, &c.; but that was a point of detail. They had now only to deal with the principle to which the House seemed to assent. The hon. Member who spoke last said they should not tax large communities for the benefit of the few. But these libraries were to be established upon the lending system, and if that system were fairly carried out, the hon. Gentleman's objection was at once met. Where libraries had been established on that principle, they had been found highly beneficial to the working classes. Besides, it was not taxing to the extent represented by the hon. Member, because by encouraging habits which kept the working man from the public-house, they lessened the incentives to a dissolute life, and, consequently, to idleness and crime; which cost the country much more than all the libraries they could build under this Bill.

must express his dissent from the proposition that they were all agreed as to the principle of this Bill. That it would be desirable to have good public libraries in all towns, all must admit; but that was not the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill was taxation without the consent of the persons to be taxed. According to the principle of the hon. Member for Manchester, this Bill would be totally inefficient for all the purposes for which it was to be introduced; for the hon. Gentleman said, that by passing it they did no more than enable town councils to erect the buildings and to purchase furniture. Why, unless they were possessed of libraries and museums, what town councils would be justified in erecting buildings in anticipation that charitable persons would afterwards present them with books and curiosities? It was evident that the Bill was intended for ulterior objects, by which powers would be given for the purchase of books, and perhaps also for the fitting up of lecture-rooms. He hoped the House would consider well before they applied to institutions of this nature the principles of public management, and compulsory rating instead of the voluntary and self-supporting principle, which he believed to be the life and essence, and the cause of the utility, of such institutions. He questioned whether what they were about to do would increase the love of knowledge amongst those who never entered upon the subject voluntarily, and he was most apprehensive that the moment the compulsory principle was introduced, a positive check would be imposed upon the voluntary self-supporting desire for knowledge which at present existed amongst the people. On these grounds, most truly desirous to see learning extended, and valuing as much as possible good public libraries; yet, as he intended to take his stand against the substitution of the compulsory for the voluntary principle in all matters of education, and viewing this measure in connexion with others on the same subject, he should certainly divide against it.

contended that the real principle of this Bill was not the establishment of public libraries. The only power given to the town council under it was to raise a tax for the purpose of constructing empty rooms, which might, indeed, have the potentiality of receiving books; but the books, if any, would have to be paid for, not from the halfpenny, but from the borough rates. The machinery was clearly adapted, not merely for the purpose of procuring books, but also of creating lecture rooms, which might give rise to an unhealthy agitation. Under these circumstances he thought it his duty not to consent to the second reading.

observed that, in the expectation of this Bill passing, twelve gentlemen had come forward with a subscription of 100l. in order to establish a public library. He believed that in all towns the Bill would prove of the greatest utility, by the improvement in the morality of the public to which it would lead. He should, therefore, have the greatest pleasure in supporting it.

was of a similar opinion. He also regarded it in the light of an economic question, believing that the improved condition of the people, which it was certain to bring about, would have the effect of immediately diminishing those rates to which the county was subjected on account of crime. He also, in support of this view, referred to an experiment which had been made in a certain manufactory—namely, that of taking twelve women from the educated and twelve from the ordinary class, and setting them to work in the same department, when it was found that the educated twelve produced 30 per cent more work than the others.

thought the object of the measure and the new principle which it introduced were very little known in the country. He thought that a Bill of this nature, which proposed additional taxation, should arise out of some spontaneous movement on the part of the people in its favour. He objected to the Bill, because it would tend to check the efforts of private enterprise in support of mechanics' institutions and the like. He thought, too, that municipal corporations had usually sufficient work on hand without having this additional duty imposed on them,

would also vote against the second reading of the Bill, believing that it was going to do by Act of Parliament what would be more efficiently done by private enterprise. In the boroughs of Ayr and Kilmarnock, and in almost every other borough in Scotland, there were excellent libraries established without any help whatever from that House. He also objected to the Bill, because it would increase the rates of Scotland.

, in reply, said that the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that this was merely a permissive Bill. He would not at that late hour go into all the objections which had been urged against it, but would only say that existing libraries had been formed on the Museums Act, on the principle of which he had framed the present Bill. The objections urged could not be removed by a short discussion. He would give his careful consideration to all those objections, and endeavour, if possible, to meet them, and render the Bill more popular; but he could not pledge himself to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire.

wished to know from the hon. Gentleman whether he would pledge himself to introduce, in Committee, the clause suggested by the hon. Member for Rochester, that before a town council exercised its powers under this Bill, there should be a requisition to them on the subject from a majority of the ratepayers?

had no objection to give that pledge, so far as the principle was concerned; but the precise form of the clause would require to be well considered.

hoped his hon. Friend would reconsider this matter and give a more definite answer, because this point was too important to be left uncertain. He was as anxious as the hon. Member to promote the object in view, but he could not subscribe to the Bill in its present shape.

was not in the House when the hon. Member for Rochester spoke, and was not till this moment aware that he had thrown out a suggestion that there should be some check on the part of the ratepayers upon the improper exercise of the powers of the town councils—a suggestion of which he (Sir G. Grey) highly approved. He understood that his hon. Friend was willing to introduce some such check, and that he only hesitated to pledge himself as to the precise nature of it. He must say that he thought it unreasonable to call upon him to say at that moment what the precise check should be. He thought it sufficient that he promised to submit the point to the consideration of the Committee. In the meantime the question before the House was the principle of the Bill, and not its details, and, in the hope that some check of the kind suggested would be introduced in Committee, he should cordially support the second reading.

observed that the hon. Member for Dumfries had told them he had well considered the question before he had brought forward the Bill, and therefore it must be supposed that this clause had been inserted for good reasons. They must therefore take the Bill as it stood at present. The principle of the Bill was taxation by the municipal council, without the consent of the ratepayers. Upon that principle he should oppose the Bill, unless a specific pledge was given for the insertion of a clause to make the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers necessary.