, in rising, remarked upon the absence of all the Members of the Government, and said, that the Bill embodied a principle which the House had affirmed. Another measure upon the same subject had been sent up to the House of Lords, and was, it appeared, to be referred to a Select Committee. He should be glad if the House would consent to allow his Bill to go before a similar tribunal, having good reason to think it would bear the examination of a Committee of the House of Lords. In the present state of that House (there were only a few Members present), he thought that the best thing he could do—considering the determination manifested by a majority of the House to disestablish the Church in Ireland, and in other ways to curtail the property of the United Churches of England and Ireland — was simply to move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of his Bill be postponed until tomorrow.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he thought it unnecessary to make reference to statistics for the purpose of showing that, in the last few years, the affairs of many railway and joint-stock companies had been in a disastrous position—disastrous not only to the shareholders themselves, but to the country and the general interests of the public. That calamitous state of things had directly resulted from the system of management under which the companies were formed?—a system which was vicious in itself and in many cases most disgracefully carried out. It was therefore, he thought, absolutely necessary that Parliament should interpose to prevent, if possible, the recurrences of such evils. The case was one of great urgency. The amount of capital either compromised or lost by the collapse of the companies' system of management was perfectly gigantic. He believed it exceeded the measure of the great monumental debt of this country, and was the largest expression of figures which perhaps the human mind could comprehend. Parliament had of late been much condemned for having abandoned this vast amount of property to the will and pleasure of private individuals, and for having taken no care of the interests of the shareholders. That, however, he thought was not a just statement of the case; for, up to almost the present moment, neither the shareholders nor a large proportion of the public seemed to desire that protection. Since 1845, all the measures on the subject submitted to the House, either by private individuals or by the companies themselves, seemed to have called forth a feeling that any interference on the part of that House with the management of the affairs of such companies would be considered an affront and an injury to the shareholders themselves. He remembered Mr. Hudson, who for some years acted as spokesman in that House for many of those railway companies, declaring that such attempts at legislation were unconstitutional, and that it was the right of Englishmen to manage their own affairs and in their own manner. In consequence of that feeling and such remonstrances, those companies had been left pretty free from any legislative restraint up to a recent period. In the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, and in the Companies Act of 1862, as well as in the Railway Acts Bill of last Session, there were clauses inserted for regulating the management of the financial affairs of the companies; and if the provisions of those Acts had been fully carried out they would have been spared many of the calamities which they had had since to deplore. Those provisions were illusory, and were never enforced, because they took the form of mere mandatory directions, which were generally treated with either neglect or defiance. Parliament should never speak, but to command, and should never command unless it was able to enforce its behests. A very great change had, however, recently come over the public mind, including directors and shareholders. They were now sadder but wiser men; and legislation on the subject was now universally called for. The only question therefore was, what arrangements should be adopted by which malversation in those matters could be for the future prevented; and what should be done to restore to those important companies that confidence under the loss of which they were at present suffering? A Mr. Wrigley, at a recent meeting at Manchester, had proposed a plan by which the directors would be divided into two bodies—one to have the exclusive charge of the capital of the company; the other to be exclusively occupied with the management of the working of the line. But he thought no cutting and shuffling of the pack would alter the tint of the cards. He did not believe that any such plan would be effectual in preventing the directors and some of the shareholders combining together for the purpose of paying dividends to themselves and endeavouring to raise the market value of their property, by representations neither sanctioned by upright dealing nor by correct bookkeeping. It was not his intention to adopt any such plan, nor to advocate another one, which had been put forward also by a high authority—he did not advocate a system of Government audit, as that expression was generally understood. If the guarantee of the State were to be given to all such accounts presented to the Board of Trade, the various other companies engaged in mercantile and industrial pursuits would make similar claims upon the Government; and the consequence would be that the Board of Trade would find itself involved in vast, complicated, and overpowering interests. More than that, he thought it impossible that Government auditors could certify to the correctness of the accounts laid before them without communicating to them the sanction of Government authority, and he was afraid that the effect of such a plan would be to get rid of that individual responsibility which, in matters of this kind, was of much importance. The plan he ventured to propose by the present Bill was one which had been adopted by the Government itself in a measure now before the other branch of the Legislature. His object was to effectually carry out the provisions of the Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, and the Companies Act of 1862, so far as they related to the regulation and exhibition of the accounts. He proposed that the chairman and two directors of each company, together with the accountant, should, upon the occasion of the company's meetings, draw up and sign a full and faithful balance sheet of the assets and liabilities of the company, and that such balance sheet, together with the accounts from which it was deduced, should be filed with the Board of Trade, and with the Registrar of Public Companies; and, in order to render those accounts intelligible, he proposed that, with the accounts, there should be drawn up and filed the report of the engineers of each company as to the condition of the permanent way and the rolling stock of the company. In order to prevent any manipulation or cooking of the accounts, he proposed that they should all be made out according to a particular form prescribed by the Board of Trade. No dividend would be payable until all these requirements were fulfilled. In addition, he proposed to enact that all the officers of the company, signing documents of a deceptive or a fraudulent character, should be liable to fine and imprisonment. Two important objects would be gained by making it compulsory on companies to make out their accounts in a prescribed form. In the first place, there would be no dressing them up in order to make things pleasant, or to suit the interests of the company itself; and, in the next place, there would be no payment out of borrowed money, and no money could be paid without passing through the books of the company. In addition to this, by compelling all companies to adopt the same form of accounts, the public and the shareholders would derive great advantage from being able to form some estimate of the respective value of the shares of the companies. He had now stated the leading features of his Bill which he had taken up at the request of others, and which, if adopted, he believed would go far to prevent a recurrence of those evils under which several companies, as well as the public generally, were suffering, and which had produced so great a depression. He might be wrong in his views, but he had taken every pains by study and inquiry to form a right conclusion upon the subject. He had been desirous to see this measure brought forward with the sanction and authority of the Government; but as his hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade had declined to take the conduct of the measure, he felt it his duty to assume the responsibility of submitting it himself to the House. He trusted the House would feel that he had a claim on its support.

said, he would offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill, the principle of which was similar to that of the measure introduced into the House last year. The position this year was, however, somewhat different. The Government had, already introduced a Bill into the other House of Parliament for the regulation of railways, and in that Bill they had largely availed themselves of the provisions of his right hon. Friend's measure. There were, however, a few salient points upon which the Government had taken a view different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. One point was, the Government had confined themselves to railway companies exclusively. He thought that in any tentative measure of that kind, it would be wise for the House to try the experiment upon a certain number of companies before embarking in the serious operation of legislating for all the limited companies in the country. There was a difference in principle between railway companies and ordinary limited companies. Very few of the latter had compulsory powers granted them by Parliament — a characteristic which alone would warrant Parliamentary interference in the internal concerns of railway companies. There were many thousands of limited companies in the country, and the form of accounts suitable to one description of company would be quite unsuitable to another, so that it would be next to impossible to prescribe a form that would apply to all. And a variety of other considerations showed how necessary it would be to limit the operation of a Bill like that before the House, at least for the present, and until opinion had been tested by experience. In the Act of 1862 there was a particular form recommended to joint-stock companies. By that Act it was provided that upon a requisition signed by two-fifths of the shareholders of any joint-stock company, an application might be made for a Government inspection of the accounts of the company. But that power had only in one instance been taken advantage of, and in that instance the time for an inspection was past, for the company was being wound up in Chancery. This showed how difficult it was to move shareholders to take advantage of arrangements which the Legislature provided for their protection. It seemed to him that the only perfect measure of the kind which it was possible to bring forward would be one rendering Government audit of railway accounts compulsory; but he had last year stated, in reference to his right hon. Friend's Bill, several objections to such a course. He believed it would paralyze the watchfulness of the individual shareholder, and thus be fatal to the prosperity of joint-stock undertakings; the business of the Legislature was to give every facility to shareholders for protecting themselves, and not to bring about a state of things in which shareholders whenever they met with difficulty would go citing to the Government for assistance. It had been stated over and over again that it was quite impossible to control directors by Acts of Parliament; that, if they were determined to cook the accounts, as it was called, they would do so. And even painful cases of fraud had at times been disclosed, the recurrence of which no foresight on the part of the Legislature could make impossible. But whose fault was that? The Courts of the country were open for the prosecution of persons who were guilty of such crimes. The shareholders individually were to blame in not choosing competent and trustworthy men. Persons were selected for the office of director too carelessly, and, in many cases, on account of their social standing and other circumstances, which in no way necessarily qualified them for their office. Gentlemen were constantly elected to the office of director simply because they were Members of Parliament, and supposed rightly or wrongly to have certain influence, which might on occasion be valuable; and in many respects shareholders permitted their affairs to be managed in a way which would bring a private concern to the verge of bankruptcy in a very short time. Shareholders then would act wisely if they asked the Legislature for no more than perfect freedom of action and perfect publicity with regard to the affairs of the company. Let the accounts be kept in an intelligible way, and the shareholders be afforded every facility for sifting them to the bottom. No form of account was prescribed by the Bill of his right hon. Friend; power only was given to the Board of Trade to prescribe a form. The Government had in the Schedule of their Bill set forth a very carefully prepared form, which might be modified with the consent of a company, to suit particular cases. This he believed, was more agreeable to the wishes of the railway companies. It was, he believed, sufficiently elastic to meet the varying circumstances of the different railways; and, at the same time, sufficiently precise to enable any shareholder of ordinary intelligence to compare one year's accounts with another year's, and those of one company with those of another. This would prove of the greatest advantage. He should be very loth to allow auditors to interfere with the policy of a company, on which the success of au undertaking really depended. That was a matter purely for the shareholders, who had every facility for controlling it under measures recently passed. The right hon. Member wished the reports of companies to be sent to the Board of Trade; but he did not tell them what the Board of Trade was to do with them. The probability was that those reports would be put into pigeon holes and there they would remain, unless some shareholder should apply to inspect them, which would rarely happen. The Government, on the contrary, thought it would be better to require a printed copy of the report to be furnished to each shareholder on his application, and that he should have the power of inspecting the books of the company at its office. The Bill of last year provided that the accounts should be certified by the auditor, and that unless he did so the dividend could not be paid. He (Mr. Cave) did not, however, agree that the auditor should declare the dividend, that being more or less a matter of policy, and not to be decided merely upon the state of the half-year's accounts. On this point as well as upon some other matters of detail, the two Bills differed. He thought it would be better to postpone the next stage of the Bill until the Government measure came down from the House of Lords in order that they might be both considered at the same time.

said, he had little confidence in Parliamentary efforts to reform joint-stock company management. Everything that had hitherto been done to provide facilities for the shareholders to detect fraud or irregularity in their companies had been systematically neglected. And this had not arisen so much from want of light or knowledge as from wilful shutting of eyes. The extraordinary fascination of a large rate of interest was stronger than the wisest counsel; and nothing but bitter experience seemed to teach investors the truth of the Duke of Wellington's maxim, that high interest meant bad security. The shareholders might be taken to the salutary springs of economy, but it would be impossible to make them drink. He remembered a paragraph in the money article of The Times in 1863 which, quoting from memory, he believed ran in this way—

"Another ruinous financial collapse is due in the year '67, and we have every reason to believe the preliminaries are already adjusted."

This prophecy was verified; and he believed persons of sound judgment could always predict with tolerable certainty the consequences of reckless investing. The evil has arisen from the wish of investors "to eat their cake and have their cake." By their very nature, railways are monopolies; and the best plan would have been to recognize the fact at the beginning, and treat them accordingly. But this has not been done. Still, he approved the proposal to give every possible publicity to companies' accounts, and would not oppose the Bill.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the subject had occupied the attention of the Legislature during the past thirty years, and had been reported on by Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and by Royal Commissions, in every case to the effect that ratepayers should have some control over the expenditure of County Boards. This opinion had been supported by many statesmen of acknowledged wisdom. Sir Robert Peel stated that—

"He should admit, what he was prepared to admit, that the representative system should to a certain extent be adopted in the administration of the county funds."

The Earl of Derby in 1848, speaking on the Petty Sessions Bill, said—

"In the county with which he was connected the county rate had risen from £77,000 in 1823, to £175,000 in 1848, and it did seem an anomaly that such a sum should be assessed by the local magistrates without the control of the ratepayers."

If this were his Lordship's opinion in 1848, with a county revenue of £175,000, how much more strong should it be now, when, in 1865, the expenditure had increased to £251,754, and when the valuation had increased from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000? Sir James Graham had expressed his opinion—

"That some check founded on popular election, and consisting of ratepayers acting with the magistrates, was now necessary and ought to be established."

And the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—

"Wished it to be understood that he had never expressed an opinion against the ratepayers having a control over the expenditure, if a right system could be chalked out."

And upon another occasion—

"He begged to state that he did not object to the principle of establishing popular control over county expenditure."

The present Secretary of State for War did not object to this principle, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had upon more than one occasion promised to support it. Lord Palmerston, when First Minister of the Crown, had promised—

"That, at the beginning of the next Session, Her Majesty's Government would propose to Parliament such measures as they might think fit, founded on the principle of popular representation as regards the administration of county affairs."

But Lord Palmerston's promise is unfulfilled, and the county rate is the only tax of all our fiscal arrangements which is levied and expended without the consent of the ratepayer or his representative. And the anomaly was sufficiently apparent to all who had studied the question to render further argument or illustration unnecessary. It had been said that the landowners paid the county rate, though indirectly, and that the magistrates being large landowners had the sole right to control its expenditure. Sir James Graham in 1856 demolished the fallacy; his words are—

"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 sale 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."—[3 Hansard, cix. 826.]

The large landowner may be represented by the justices at quarter sessions, but the small freeholders are not in the commission of the peace; they are a numerous class, and freehold land and building societies have added to their number. The properties they possess may in the aggregate be equal to the properties of the justices, and yet they have no voice in the levying and expenditure of the county rate. What has raised the assessment for the county rates from £65,000,000 in 1860, to £77,000,000 in 1868, but the improvement and increase of the smaller properties? Then there is the tenant occupier. It is said the landlord pays the rate; that when the tenant takes the farm or the house, he knows the amount of the rate, and pays a rent minus the rate. This proposition might have some force if the rate was invariable, but it changes from year to year. In Cornwall the amount levied for the county rate was—

	£	s.	d.		£	s.	d.
1864	17,156	17	8	per cent	1	17	10
1865	18,843	5	11	per cent	2	1	7
1866	25,059	13	5	per cent	2	15	3
County of Derby—
1863–4	15,883	2	5	per cent	1	7	1
1864–5	14,490	12	5	per cent	1	5	4
1865–6	16,053	8	8	per cent	1	7	5
County of Lancaster—
1863	119,753	0	0	per cent	1	14	8
1864	111,979	0	0	per cent	1	12	5
1865	135,097	0	0	per cent	1	19	1
County of Northampton—
1864	9,957	10	7	per cent	1	1	10½
1865	11,834	6	10	per cent	1	6	0½
1866	12,802	13	5	per cent	1	8	1½

These examples show that the rate increases, and in some few counties diminishes. Does the landlord deduct the increase of rating or charge the diminution of rate to the tenant? If not, then he can pay indirectly only a portion of the rate, and the tenant is entitled to some control over the portion of the rate he pays. Where the tenant has taken a lease, he must, from the annual increase in the rate, be a direct contributor to the county rate, and yet as the law now stands he has no share in its management. The remedy he proposed was simply that suggested by a Select Committee, which had reported on the subject. His Bill would be permissive. The majority of the Boards of Guardians in a county would, under his Bill, in the first place, decide whether they would prefer that the Act should take effect in their county, and when a majority of the parishes had concluded in favour of it the county magistrates would be required to endorse their decision. The Boards of Guardians would then proceed each to elect a representative from among their number, and the justices would elect a like Dumber from among themselves. The assembly thus consisting of one-half of county magistrates and one-half of elected Members from the Boards of Guardians, would form the County Financial Board. The qualification for a seat would be a fixed £50 occupation, either in ownership or tenancy, and it would not be necessary that the representative should be a justice. Its members to go out of office annually, but capable of re-election. The duties of the Board to be strictly financial, not judicial, and consist in controlling the county finance; it would regulate the charges for the police of the county; the raising of rates to defray the expenses of building,; hiring of stations, lock-up-houses, and would have the power, with the concurrence of the county magistrates, of suggesting to the Secretary of State an increase or diminution in the number of the police in each county; and the chief constable of the county to attend its meetings. It would have power to determine the salaries and superannuations of the officers of gaols, and of all questions arising as to the structure, but would have no control over the internal arrangements of the prison; but its members would have power to visit the gaols. In case of difference arising between the Board and the county magistrates in the matter of salaries, the appeal to lie to the Secretary of State. With regard to lunatic asylums the Board to have the control of all expenses attending the structure, but all power as to the internal regulations to remain with the county magistrates and the committee of visitors; its members to have the power of visiting the asylum, except in cases where it would be detrimental to a lunatic, and in case of disagreement appeal to the Secretary of State; and all powers given to the justices by the 15 & 10 Vict., c. 81, would be given to the County Financial Boards constituted under the Bill; and an audit on the principle suggested by the Select Committee would be held under it. He fully believed that the county funds were generally administered by the magistrates with great care and judgment; but the system failed to give satisfaction to the great body of the ratepayers, who very naturally thought they were entitled to some control over this expenditure. The question was the more important on account of the increasing amount raised annually by county rates. In 1793 that amount was only £184,000, whereas in 1866 it had reached £2,415,000. The proposal to associate persons elected by the Boards of Guardians with the justices might, perhaps, encounter objection; but it should be remembered that those Boards already exercised important functions with regard to county rates. Whatever views might be held as to the machinery he proposed, the present irresponsible administration was an admitted anomaly, and he believed the adoption of the principle of representation would be hailed with great satisfaction by the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he hoped the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee. His own experience led him to believe that much discontent existed with regard to the manner in which county matters were managed; not that blame was imputed to the justices, but that the system was held to be faulty. Nine-tenths of the ratepayers had no control over the application of the rates. It sometimes happened that after a farmer had taken a lease at a certain rental, extraordinary outlay on prisons, lunatic asylums, or police stations led to a serious increase in the county rate, and the farmer was thus saddled with much heavier burdens than he had calculated upon. He did not say that such outlay was unwisely incurred; but when it was sanctioned by an irresponsible body complaints naturally arose. Very huge powers were possessed by the visiting justices of lunatic asylums; they could double the staff or the salaries, and even the magistrates in Quarter Sessions often could not interfere. For his own part, he devoted much labour and care to county expenditure, and he believed; his fellow-justices did the same; but it was impossible to convince the ratepayers that they were not entitled to a voice in that expenditure. While approving the principle of the Bill, and thanking the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) for having introduced it, he thought it would require considerable revision; and in case it were referred to a Select Committee, he hoped some Irish Members would be placed upon the Committee, for they would be able to give valuable information as to the grand jury system, which was far superior to any machinery existing in this country.

said, he did not deny the right of ratepayers to some control over county expenditure; but he thought it was not correct to say that, at present, they had no control whatever. The items, though not the details, of that expenditure were fixed by Acts of Parliament, and in the passing of those Acts the ratepayers had a voice. The county rate in his own county for current expenditure was only 4d. in the pound on the rateable value, and he believed that, when some Returns which had been moved for were presented, it would be found that whereas the poor rates reached from 3s. to 6s., and the highway rates 1s. 10d. or 2s., county rates did not often exceed 6d. in the pound. The amount being thus small, and no fault being found with the working of the present system, he doubted whether it was desirable to take action further than by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. In its present shape, it would lead to constant collisions between the Financial Boards and the Finance Committees of the Quarter Sessions, for it appeared to place the Financial Boards in a position superior to that of the Quarter Sessions. It transferred the constabulary powers to the Boards, and it required the chief constables to attend their meetings. Being accustomed to attend certain committee meetings of the justices, they would be puzzled to know which masters to obey. Moreover, the salaries of prison officers were to be fixed by the justices and Boards, and, in the case of disagreements, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Such disagreements would be very unfortunate. The Bill, too, omitted to provide for representative powers in other than financial matters. Now, on such questions as the adoption of the Highway Act, which was carried in his own county, notwithstanding that seventy petitioners out of seventy four objected to it, representative powers were as much required as with regard to financial matters.

said, that if the present system were changed he should prefer a purely elective Board to one of a hybrid character, composed partly of justices and partly of Poor Law Guardians. As ex officio members, magistrates would have less influence at the Board than if they were elected by the ratepayers. The management of gaols and asylums by the justices was efficient, and, considering the results, economical, whereas the administration of the Poor Laws by guardians was infamous and costly, and this did not offer much encouragement for making the change proposed. As to the transfer of the police management to the Financial Boards, in his county it had recently been thought advisable, on account of the number of Fenians employed in mines, to enlarge the constabulary force in as quiet a manner as possible; but Boards would be tempted to pay exclusive regard to economy, to the neglect of other considerations. He believed the present system, though an anomalous one, worked well. The Bill, if it became law, would introduce far greater anomalies.

said, that, while of opinion that much of the feeling which had been shown of late years on this subject was due to misconception, he admitted that that feeling was entitled to consideration. As had been already pointed out, a great number of items of county expenditure depended on Acts of Parliament, the justices having control only over the details. The expenditure on gaols, lunatic asylums, and police, for instance, was imposed by statute, and the only question was, whether in any case magistrates sanctioned excessive expenditure. Now, he believed that, in the main, great judgment and economy were displayed, and in the county with which he was acquainted the Finance Committee devoted an enormous amount of labour and time to their task, checking the expenditure as efficiently as any other machinery which could be devised. He could see no advantage in referring the present Bill to a Select Committee. In the first place, it was a permissive one, and he thought such legislation should be discouraged. That House was at least as capable, as were the guardians of the poor, of arriving at a conclusion as to whether any change ought to be introduced into the system of managing the affairs of counties; and if such a change was to be made it was, in his opinion, desirable that it should be introduced by the direct authority of that House. Moreover, the Bill was what he might term a Japanese, or dual one, for the clauses relating to gaols, asylums, and police would bring about an immediate dead-lock between the justices and the Board. It was true that the hon. Member for Bodmin. (Mr. Wyld) did not propose that the Financial Board should interfere with the officers of gaols or of the police in the discharge of their duties; but those officers would be dependent upon the Boards for their salaries; and it was impossible that those who had the control of the purse-strings should not interfere with and exercise an influence over the officials. Upon the whole, he was convinced that the Bill in its present shape would not be productive of benefit to the counties, nor would it carry out the purpose of the hon. Member for Bodmin. He believed there had been no inquiry into the subject since 1853 when a Bill brought in by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) was referred to a Committee. That fifteen years should have elapsed without any measure having been, introduced, or, at all events, without any discussion on the question, seemed to show that the conclusions or that Committee had not commended themselves to the acceptance of Parliament. During the last two years. Chambers of Agriculture had been established in various parts of the country, and had shown considerable interest in the question, In the interests, therefore, of the county magistrates, who were to a certain extent attacked, he thought an inquiry should be made. He objected, however, to referring to a Committee a Bill which required entire re-modelling in order to make it acceptable, and which, proposed a Board not constituted in accordance with any recognized principle, its members being chosen, not by the ratepayers, but by guardians who had been elected for another purpose, and it being left to the majority of Boards of Guardians to decide whether thay adopted the change or not. The hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Kendall) had suggested that Irish Members should be placed on the Committee; but Irish and Scotch Members would be only embarrassed by the details of the present Bill; and the Committee would be better able to decide whether the complaints which were commonly preferred were well founded — whether much would be gained by a considerable change, and whether that change should be in the direction of the Irish or Scotch system, if no particular measure were before them. He should be prepared to move as an Amendment to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present mode of conducting the financial Arrangements of the Counties in England and Wales, and whether any alteration ought to be made either in the persons by whom or in the manner in which such arrangements are now conducted."

He should prefer, therefore, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole question, so that their Report might lay down principles on which any Government might frame a measure more consonant with the interests of the ratepayers and more acceptable to the House. Another reason for this course was the fact that the hon. Member for Thirsk (Sir William Gallwey) had given notice of a second Bill on this subject.

said, he had understood the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) to desire the adoption of the representative principle, the machinery by which it was effected being a matter of detail. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) had pointed out weighty objections to the machinery of this Bill; and he doubted whether it would be possible to reconcile the functions of the justices and those of the proposed Board. He thought it would be much better to send the whole question to a Select Committee than to have a Select Committee on the Bill itself. The result of sending this Bill, with its 140 clauses, to a Select Committee would be that all legislation on the matter would be postponed till another Bill was framed; because he thought the opinion of the Committee would be that the measure now before the House was impracticable. It might be said that it was important to have the principle of the Bill affirmed by reading it a second time. He doubted, however, whether one word would be said against the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, he believed that the tone of the discussion on the second reading would be equivalent to an affirmation of the principle of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was afraid that, at present, the finance business of counties was got through in a rather hurried manner at Quarter Sessions; and, as it could no longer be said that the rate was levied on land exclusively—far the larger portion being raised from non-agricultural property, such as mines, docks, houses, railways, &c., which were frequently unrepresented by the justices—the time had come when a change should be made. The best manner of effecting this change would be a proper subject of inquiry before a Select Committee.

said, the feeling out-of-doors was strongly in favour of inquiry into this subject, as the number of petitions presented every year in reference to it proved. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in thinking that it might be more satisfactory to the body of the ratepayers to give them a direct representation in the body to which the county finances were intrusted; but there were difficulties in the matter which this Bill did not meet, while it would give rise to other difficulties. He thought that under this Bill they would not get responsible persons to be visitors of gaols and lunatic asylums. It certainly seemed to have been drawn with great care; but how could the prisons and lunatic asylums be managed by persons not conversant with those places? [A laugh.] He did not mean persons who had been confined in prisons or lunatic asylums, but persons like himself, who, as county magistrates, had been in the habit of visiting such institutions. Those who had been members of the visiting Boards knew how often it occurred that strange things arose which required action on the moment. The manner in which the Bill proposed to limit the powers of the visitors of lunatic asylums to an expenditure of £10, under extraordinary circumstances, showed how difficult it was to deal with their management in a Bill. The great principle of the Bill was to create a dual government; but it was already seen that such a government might come to a dead lock; and if it did there would be a reference to the Secretary of State, and that would be a most expensive matter. He did not think that the finances of counties would, under ibis Bill, be more economically managed than at present; and he believed that the proposal of his right hon. Friend ought to be adopted if they desired to arrive at a proper conclusion upon the matter.

said, he wished to point out that assessment committees in counties were most useful bodies; and that under the Bill there would be great difficulty in obtaining the assistance of practical men on those committees. He did not object to the principle of the Bill, but he thought that the course suggested by the Secretary of State was the one to be pursued.

said, he took a very strong interest in this subject, because he felt that taxation and representation ought to go together. He brought, this subject before the House some fifteen years ago, and it was not well received. Since that time it had slept, but it now found general approval. The best mode of procedure would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for nobody disputed the principle of it.

said, he thought that County Boards should be elective, but that they should consist of few members, as that would be more conducive to economy—the great object of the Bill. He differed from his right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce). He thought that, as a rule, the finance business of counties was not conducted in a hurried manner. But he believed the difference could be accounted for in this way, that his right hon. Friend was chiefly connected with a manufacturing; county, while the county with which he (Mr. Clive) was connected was purely agricultural. He objected to many of the details of the Bill, and he believed one advantage in sending it to a Select Committee would be, that it would be rendered much shorter.

said, he was glad that so much unanimity was shown in the House in favour of the old constitutional principle that taxation and representation should go together. Allowing the Courts of Quarter Sessions to levy a rate was as objectionable in principle, as it would be to allow the House of Lords to tax the country. As to the dual principle, he would state, as far as his own experience went, that the magistrates and elected members worked very harmoniously together. They were told, as an argument against his Bill, that the landlord paid all the rates. That might be very good in theory, but it certainly was not entirely so in practice; for if 50 per cent were deducted from the poor rates the landlords might soon come to claim the advantage of it; yet if 1d. or 2d. were saved upon the county rate it would assuredly go into the tenants' own pocket. At the same time, he did not doubt but that the magistrates very generally managed the county expenditure with great economy; he knew they did so in Norfolk, and he believed their management would contrast favourably with that of town councils and other borough expenditure. But, on principle, the elective system ought to be introduced. Believing that permissive legislation was the worst of legislation, he objected to the Bill because it was permissive. Some of the details of the Bill were objectionable, and a few of them were actually mischievous. He therefore thought the hon. Member for Bodmin would do well to act on the suggestion of the Home Secretary; and in the name of the farmers of England he thanked the hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill.

said, he also was glad to see so decided an agreement in the principle of the Bill. He hoped his hon. Friend would accept the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He knew that in doing so his hon. Friend would be making a great sacrifice, now that a general assent was given to the principle of his Bill. But he hoped his hon. Friend would see that in this way he was more likely to attain the object he had in view; for it was now plain that no Bill would pass through Parliament this year; and if the question were ever to be properly settled it must be taken up by the Government of the country. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), though he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not represent an agricultural constituency, he represented a borough which, not having a separate Quarter Sessions, was rated by the county magistrates; and he was of opinion that the time had come when they must apply self-government, as regarded local affairs, to counties as well as to boroughs. For his part, he would rather deal even with the mistakes of elected bodies than with the most common sense arrangements issued from the Home Office; because in the former case the feelings of the people would be with the Board. He trusted the result of this debate would be, not only to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, but that various other questions in connection with it would receive full consideration. He did not believe that, by any change that might be made, they would get a better or more economical expenditure than they had from the county magistrates. He believed that under an elective system they would have the same men to regulate these affairs, but with more power than before, because they would be backed by the support of the people.

said, that so far as his own experience or observation went, the privilege of county magistrates to look; after the county expenditure might be looked upon in the light of a damnosa hereditas. The duty was troublesome and onerous. As to the complaints made against the system, he agreed with those who represented it as a sentimental grievance. The noble Lord (Lord Henley) had stated the case with great clearness and fairness. The difficulty experienced was not that the magistrates spent too much, but rather that they could not be induced to spend what they ought to do, especially in the matter of prosecutions. Besides, most of the county expenditure was statutory, and not in the control of the magistrates; and he believed the utmost saving that could be effected would not amount to more than 2d. in the pound. The whole question was one of the administration of details. What was wanted was to satisfy any feeling existing in the country on the subject, and at the same time to preserve an effective machinery for business. He would recommend that a limited number of elected members should be added to the board of magistrates, where their advice and assistance would be given with great advantage. This Bill, containing 140 clauses, was not calculated, in his opinion, to effect the object in view. He hoped the hon. Member who introduced the Bill would be satisfied with the expression of opinion which had been evoked, and would act in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of State. There was no desire on the part of the magistrates of this country to conceal anything from the ratepayers, their only wish being to secure celerity in the transaction of public business.

said, he understood that the last Speaker was opposed to the principle of the Bill. [Mr. SCOURFIELD: No.] The recommendation of the Secretary of State, that the general subject should be investigated by a Select Committee, was but a courteous way of shelving the Bill altogether. No question had ever been so frequently discussed, and under so many forms, as the present. The grievance had been spoken of as a sentimental one, but he was sure it was a practical grievance as well. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, and allow this Bill to go before a Select Committee.

approving the principle of the Bill, and not desiring the subject to be shelved, hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Bill and that the House would unanimously assent to the proposal of the Government. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce), that the business at Quarter Sessions was usually transacted hurriedly. In the county with which he was connected, at all events, the greatest possible attention was paid to the county business and expenditure. He was likewise unable to concur in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that other property than land paid the greater portion of the rates. He hoped, indeed, that such a state of things would soon exist, but he feared that it did not at present. "The wish was father to the thought." In the counties with which he was acquainted the land and houses bore all the large and daily increasing burdens borne by parochial and county rates. It had been said by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), that the dual principle had been found to work well wherever it was applied. But though it might do so in the case of Boards of Guardians, Cattle Plague Boards, Highway Boards and the like, it might not do so in the case to which it was now sought to apply it. It must be remembered that while the ratepayers were for the most part irresponsible persons, the magistrates were responsible for the peace of the county, for the safe custody of prisoners, and for the care of lunatics, as well as for the buildings; and they must see that the proper amount of money was spent for those purposes.

said, there were two points which he considered to be highly objectionable in the Bill. The first was the permissive clause, and the second was the placing the representation in the hands of those who were themselves representatives of others. The elections, he thought, ought in every case to be directly made by those who were interested in the question. He therefore thought it wiser that the hon. Member should withdraw his Bill on the understanding that the whole subject should be taken up by a Committee. But he should feel bound to support the hon. Member if he proceeded to a division.

said, he did not deny the expediency of forming Financial Boards, but he wished to say that, whether the power of arranging county finances remained, as at present, in the hands of the magistrates, or whether a large ratepaying element were introduced, the influence and power of the local authorities would be exercised to little purpose so long as the Government were permitted to interfere with the magistrates, as in the case of the inspection of gaols. He had been led to make these observations in consequence of a very objectionable course which was taken in the western district of Suffolk, which he had the honour to represent, and which course had led to a lengthened memorial from the magistrates to the Home Secretary. That memorial might perhaps be under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment. He ventured to hope that the remarks which had fallen from several hon. Members in the course of this discussion might have some influence in inducing the right hon. Gentleman to weigh the matter well before he came to any decision upon it.

said, that though he gave his assent to the proposal before the House, he did so most unwillingly, and he regretted the course that had been taken. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had informed him the other day that he could not consent to refer his Bill to a Select Committee, because it had not been printed. He (Sir William Gallwey) could not disguise from himself the fact that the House might almost be said to be a body of magistrates, and they seemed to think that a question affecting the interests of ratepayers might be postponed for any length of time. There was a strong feeling out of doors, among those who were deeply interested in the matter, that it ought to be dealt with as soon as possible. He was unable to discern any reason why the Select Committee should not make his and his hon. Friend's Bill the basis of its investigations.

interposed, and remarked that this was not the time for the hon. Member to discuss the question of the Bill going to a Select Committee. That could only be considered when the Bill had been read a second time.

said that was undoubtedly so, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department had already stated the course he meant to take with regard to his Motion when it came forward. However, for the purpose of the present argument, he would simply assume that the Secretary of State might decide that the principle of a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Now, what valid reasons would there be against adopting such a course? If the Committee had something substantial to consider there would be a much greater chance of attaining the objects in view than if it had merely to decide upon an abstract question of principle, which, indeed, had been already discussed before more than one Committee. It had been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the landlords, either themselves or by their tenants, contributed very largely to the rates of the county; but he entirely denied that landlords paid anything vicariously by their tenants. Would any man say that the rents of farms had been lowered in consequence of the payment of rates by the tenants under the Union Chargeability Act? Indeed, if the tenants did not pay rates, why were they called upon to fill the office of guardian?

said, he thought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wyld) was entitled to have the principle of the Bill verified in the ordinary way. If that were done it might then be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would divide the House, in which event he should certainly follow him into the Lobby. It appeared to him that the Government were simply trifling with the question. The Leaders on either side of the House were wont to give advice to independent Members, and why should not the latter occasionally give advice to their Leaders? For his own part, he did not care either for his Leader or his party. He had independent opinions of his own, and always expressed them; and in the present instance he clearly thought the House ought to divide on the second reading. He had never been a magistrate, and had no desire to be one as long as magistrates were unpaid. The magistrates might generally do their business pretty well; though he confessed that, looking at certain recent appointments, they were not exactly the sort of persons he should like to trust. At all events, the ratepayers naturally wished to have some control over the application of their own money. What was the use of introducing Bills if those who had charge of them did not divide upon them. He should support the second reading, if it were only to show the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that they should not take everything into their hands. They wished to take everything and to give nothing. Adverting to the useless debates which had lately consumed the time of the House, the hon. and learned Member remarked that, unless they made more rapid progress with the business, it would be impossible to have a dissolution for two or three years.

said, he hoped the House would not attribute any weight whatever to the remarks just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had but just entered the House, and, consequently, had not heard the discussion.

remarked, that he had been in the House for an hour and a quarter.

said, he thought it an unfortunate thing that the unanimity of the House should be disturbed by remarks like those which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was agreed on all hands that the Bill was good in principle, but that it was not in working trim, and therefore the proposition made by the Government had been almost unanimously acceded to.

said, that in order to give his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an opportunity of again addressing the House, he would formally move for the appointment of a Select Committee.

said, that in 1853 a Bill, similar to the present, was referred to a Select Committee, but nothing resulted from it. He now proposed that an inquiry should be made into the whole subject, in order that the Government might have the information necessary to enable them to bring forward a satisfactory measure.

said, there had been a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill, though several Members had pointed out that some of the details were faulty — an objection always made when a measure was introduced by a private Member. He was quite willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that the details might be amended. He confessed, that the proposal of the Secretary of State was somewhat disappointing to him. He was, however, willing to assent to the proposition of the Government if it was to be understood that, on the Resolutions of the Committee being reported to the House, the Government would undertake the duty of bringing in a Bill. He added that the question was one which the Government ought to take in hand; it affected most important interests; and the present state of things was felt by a large, wealthy, and influential body to be a grievance. A measure of this kind ought never to be in the hands of a private Member. The promoters of this Bill would be delighted to afford the Government every assistance.

said, he could not possibly pledge himself and the Government as to what should be done. He presumed the Committee would inquire into the subject, and, when they had reported, the Government would be able to consider the question thoroughly. The views of the Committee and those of the Government might not be in accordance, or the Committee might be in direct opposition to the hon. Member.

was dissatisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary, and insisted upon a division.

said, that in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, he wished to state its provisions and to explain the principles on which it was based. Many persons had asked, "What has the House of Commons to do with the Irish Peerage?" forgetting that it was constituted and regulated by an Act of which they had heard much during the last few weeks—namely, the Act of Union; and no alteration of the existing arrangements could be made without an Act of Parliament. There was nothing in the objection that this Bill ought to have been introduced into the House of Lords in the first instance. The Act of Union was brought forward first in the Houses of Commons of England and Ireland, and passed through them before it went to the Upper Houses. The first object of the Bill was to prevent the creation of any more Irish Peers. At the time of the Union the Irish Peerage was placed in the same position as the Scotch Peerage at the time of the Union in this respect, that instead of all Irish Peers having seats in the other House, it was arranged that the Irish Peerage should be represented by the election of a number of Peers. There was, however, this differonce—that at the time of the Union with Scotland, the creation of any more Scotch Peers was prevented, while at the time of the Union with Ireland the right to create Irish Peers was preserved to a certain limited extent. The power of the Crown to create Irish Peers was forced upon the Irish House of Lords by the Duke of Portland. The objections urged against this power by the then Irish Peers were so strong that Lord Cornwallis wrote to the Duke of Portland expressing fears lest the Act of Union should be imperilled, and suggesting the compromise which was ultimately adopted. That was that the Crown should be at liberty to create one Peer for every three Peerages that might become extinct, and that when the number of Peers was reduced to 100, the Crown might create as many as it pleased to keep the number up at 100. It was popularly believed that the number must be kept up at 100; but the maintenance of that number was discretionary, and not compulsory. He hoped the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland would ultimately be united with the Peerage of England. At the time of the Union with Scotland there were 154 Peers of Scotland. Since then 76 Peerages had expired, and, deducting those that had been made British Peerages, there remained 36 Scotch Peers, of whom 16 were representative Peers, leaving only a small residue without seats in the Upper House. At the time of the Union with Ireland there were 228 Irish Peerages, of which 60 had become extinct, leaving a remainder of 168, of which about 80 had been made British Peerages. He believed there were now 111 pure Peers of Ireland, and only 28 being representative Peers, 83 had no seats. Since the Act of Union 18 Peers had been created. To prevent any further creations was the first object of the Bill. If any Irishman was worthy of being created a Peer, he was worthy of the full rights of the Peerage and of a seat in the House of Lords. The Irish Peer occupied an extraordinary position. He had only the right of voting for one of the 23 representative Peers, and he was deprived of the ordinary privileges of citizenship, because he could not take part in the financial business of his country, and he could not be a Member of the House of Commons for any place in Ireland, though he might represent an English constituency. Therefore, unless he could secure election in England it was impossible for him to discharge any of the ordinary duties of his position. For these reasons the Irish Peerage ought not to be maintained, and to limit its continuance he proposed to prevent any new creations. He did not propose to interfere with promotion in the Irish Peerage, but he did propose to make some alterations in the present system of representative Peers. The representative Irish Peers were at present elected for life; but in Scotland the representative Peers were elected for one Parliament. Although an Irish representative Peer might succeed to a British Peerage, he still remained a representative Peer; and a case had occurred in which a representative Peer was for nearly two years in a lunatic asylum, there being no power to elect another until his death. No Scotch Peer who succeeded to a British Peerage could remain a representative Peer. If a representative Peerage of Ireland were to remain, as it must until the whole Irish Peerage became extinct or was absorbed in the British Peerage, it ought to be made truly representative as it was in Scotland; and he, therefore, proposed, without interfering with the existing rights of life Peers, that all elections after the passing of the Bill should be for a Parliament only; that any representative Peer becoming a British Peer by creation or succession, should, ipso facto, cease to be a representative Peer; and that if any representative Peer become mentally incapacitated, his seat should be declared vacant. He also proposed that a representative Peer might resign his position if he chose to do so. At present an elected Peer could not resign, but must hold office for life, even although he might be elected against his will. He further proposed that in the election of representative Peers cumulative voting should be introduced, so as to secure the representation of the minority. He would enable any Peer to give to one candidate as many votes as there were vacancies. At present the minority was wholly unrepresented, and it was impossible that that injustice could be remedied, as it was said to be in the House of Commons, by the Member for one constituency representing the minority in another. At present, he believed the election to the Irish Peerage was a mere matter of nomination, and the late Prime Minister appointed all the Irish Peers. [The Earl of MAYO: No.] Whether that were so or not, no one could be elected unless he professed those extreme Radical opinions which found favour on the Treasury Bench, and a moderate Conservative like those that sat at this side of the House had not the slightest chance of being elected. If this proposal of cumulative voting were adopted with respect to the Irish Peerage, he hoped it would be applied to the Scotch Peerage. A Scotch Peer could not sit for any place in England, Scotland, or Ireland; and if he did not belong to the dominant party he had no chance of being elected a representative Peer. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Mayo) could hardly favour the continued creation of Irish Peers, which was only forced upon the Irish Peers at the time of the Union, that the Crown might have an additional means of conferring favour upon English supporters; for if the noble Earl could not find a seat in England or Scotland he would be excluded from public life, could take no part in the public business of his country, and would be compelled to vegetate upon his property. Prevent the further creation of Peers and in time the Irish Peerage would become extinct, naturally, as well as by the creation of British Peers, and in this way the Peerages of the three kingdoms would become amalgamated. Even if the House of Lords were increased by the number of the Scotch and Irish Peers (which he did not propose by this Bill) it would not be a large body compared with others. There were 466 Peers, including the recent creations; deducting Irish and Scotch representative Peers, Peers of the blood Royal, and Bishops, the whole British Peerage consisted of 385 persons; and the House of Commons consisted of 658 Members, whom it was proposed to increase to 666. It was a curious fact that there remained only 97 Peerages that were created before the accession of George III. Even if a large addition were made to the House of Lords, it was unlikely that it would be cumbersome or too large for the transaction of public business. The number of representative Peers ought to be increased, and if the Bill reached the House of Lords, it would be competent for their Lordships to introduce a clause increasing their number, and he hoped they would.

opposed the Motion. The Bill was an attempt to interfere with Her Majesty's Prerogative, and a violation of the agreement made between the two countries at the time of the Union. The same proposal was made by his hon. and learned Friend last Session, though then in the form of a Resolution instead of a Bill. He had not heard from his hon. and learned Friend—either on that occasion or on this—any sufficient reason for the change. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to amalgamate the English and Irish Peerages, but the two Peerages were totally distinct. Many of the Irish Peers owned no land in this country, and had no ties connecting them with England; and he did not see why they should become English Peers. On the other hand, there were many distinguished Irishmen who had a claim to the Peerage of their own country, but none whatever to the Peerage of this country. Though some of the objections urged by the hon. and learned Baronet to the present state of things with regard to the Irish Peerage were sound and ought to be considered by the Government, he (Colonel French) did not think that this endeavour to abolish the Irish Peerage would meet with approval in Ireland, and he was surprised to find an Irishman proposing such a measure. He hoped the Government would give no support or encouragement to the Bill, and he moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

said, the House ought to hear from the Speaker whether a Bill of this sort, which directly limited the Prerogative of the Crown, could be entertained without the assent of the Crown.

said, he was about to ask the same question. He believed that the practice was settled, and that, though this Bill might go up to the last stage without receiving the Royal assent, it could not go beyond that stage. He did not think it was a measure that was at all pressing in its character; and could not undertake to advise Her Majesty's assent to its progress. Considering, therefore, the great pressure of other and more important business, he appealed to the hon. and learned Baronet not to proceed with it.

rose to order—

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that, according to the practice of Parliament, a measure to limit the Prerogative of the Crown could not pass a third reading, unless the consent of the Crown had first been obtained.

said, that if the Government had determined not to advise Her Majesty to assent to this measure, it was useless to proceed to a division. He had been more anxious to bring the matter forward than to press the second reading; and, hoping that in the new Parliament it would meet with more success, he would for the present withdraw it.

moved the insertion of a clause providing that the Act should not apply to cases in which the freeholder had successfully instituted proceedings and carried out necessary repairs. He believed that the Bill required far greater consideration by competent persons than it had yet received, and that in its present form it would not work. New Clause (Act not to apply to cases in which freeholder has successfully instituted proceedings and carries out necessary repairs,)—(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)—brought up, and read the first time.

said, that when the Bill was last before the House, the Government promised to examine its provisions and satisfy themselves whether it would work satisfactorily. He would be glad to know from the Attorney General, whether that examination had been made, and if so, what was the result?

said, that having spent some time in the examination of the Bill, he had come to the conclusion that its provisions were unworkable. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to explain, by reference to the interpretation clause and other clauses, the difficulties which would arise with regard to the terms "lessee" and "owner" when—

ruled, that the question at present being, whether this particular clause should pass, a general argument could hardly be allowed upon that question.

moved the adjournment of the debate in order that the preliminary question might be considered, whether in its present form this Bill should be allowed to pass? There was an understanding when the Bill was last before the House, that the Government would make inquiry and satisfy themselves whether the Bill would work. The Attorney General ought to be put in order, for the purpose of making that explanation.

seconded the Motion for adjourning the debate. He thought it a loss of time to discuss the Bill as it stood.

, referring to the clause moved by the hon. Baronet, said, that in the present state of the Bill it only made the confusion in the Bill worse confounded.

said, this Bill had passed through a Select Committee, and on two occasions had occupied the attention of the House at great length. During the whole of this time not the slightest intimation was given that there would by-and-by be such an explosion of legal difficulties. At this stage of the Bill he thought it would be idle to revise and re-consider the whole scope of the clauses. Therefore having done all in his power to carry the Bill, he must now lay upon the Government the responsibility of rejecting it. The Bill had been before the House for weeks, and he must ask the Government to consider, whether it was to the interest of the community that a large portion of the Session should have been wasted upon the measure, in consequence of their Legal Advisers discovering, at the last moment, invincible objections to it. He was astonished at this sudden change of tactics on the part of the Government; but if the Attorney General would confer with the framers of the Bill, the legal and technical objections which he had raised might yet be overcome.

said, that when this Bill was last discussed the understanding on the part of the Government was that the Law Advisers of the Crown should be requested to consider the particular question then raised. The Attorney General had endeavoured to state the result of that consideration to-day. The pledge given by the Government had therefore been strictly carried out. The Government were really anxious that a Bill of this public importance should pass into law; but of course it could only be on the understanding that it was properly framed to effect the object it had in view. He would suggest that the debate should be adjourned, not with the object of defeating a Bill in which the Government felt an interest, but in order that the Attorney General might confer with the framers of the measure and try to amend it.

said, the Bill was a hastily drawn one, which would be likely to do harm instead of good. He bogged leave to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that in justice to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he must state it was an entire misconception to suppose that he was hostile to the Bill. At a late hour last night he had had a conference with his hon. and learned Friend, who expressed himself friendly to the general principle of the measure, but raised considerable objections to points of detail. If anyone imagined that it was possible to accomplish the object in view by the use of language which was not legally and technically correct he would find himself very much mistaken. He had said on many occasions that there were objections of a very grave nature to be overcome. Some of those objections had been removed, but others still remained. He thought that the originators of the Bill were under an obligation to the First Law Officer of the Crown for the attention he had given to the subject, because the result would be that a more perfect measure would be passed. He hoped that some delay might be allowed in order that the efforts of those who had interested themselves in the measure might not be attended with disappointment.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) had misapprehended the object of the Attorney General, who did not wish to defeat the Bill, but only took exception to its machinery. It was most important for the proper working of the measure that its machinery should be as perfect as possible.

said, he would beg to remind the House that, very early in the discussions on the Bill, he had pointed out that it was full of technical obscurities affecting the rights of real property, and that it would be absolutely necessary that the clauses which dealt with that subject should be very carefully revised by some competent conveyancer. He thought the Government had only done their duty in the course which they had taken.

said, he had no doubt that the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works had strictly redeemed his pledge, and that the Attorney General had correctly stated the defects of the Bill as regarded freeholders and successive leaseholders. He hoped that in any conference which might take place something more than the strict law of the question would be considered, and that policy would be also taken into account. His own opinion was that persons who had allowed their property to get into a state which was detrimental to the health of the population were not entitled to the same consideration as those who had not been guilty of such laches.

said, that the difficulties connected with the question were so great that if attention was confined to technicalities it would be impossible to pass any Bill at all on the subject. The measure was one to which the people of the country were looking forward with great interest.

said, that whatever the views of the Government were, the metropolis was, in the main, opposed to the Bill. Not that any indifference was felt to the improvement of the dwellings of artizans, but it was thought that this Bill would not effect the object, in view. The parishes had no confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was charged with carrying out the Bill, and they did not see why the City of London should be excepted from its operation. He could tell the House that, at the present moment, there was a notorious bill discounter who was buying up, on speculation, those houses with which the Bill would have to deal, in order to sell them again. Unless not only legal but substantial alterations were made in the Bill he should vote against it.

said, he thought it unfortunate that the objections now raised by the Attorney General had not been made at an earlier period, before so much time was bestowed on the consideration of the details of the Bill. He felt bound to say in defence of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) that he was over-ruled in Committee on the point of allowing the parishes to carry out the Bill. The reason why the City was excepted was because in the City the works required had been done, and no less than £84,000 had been spent on the dwellings of the poor. He challenged the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) to point out any district in the metropolis which had done the same. He would say boldly that the parishes were not as competent to deal with the subject as the City; for the parish authorities had been only ten years in existence, while the City authorities had existed for hundreds of years. He hoped if the Bill was to be re-considered its principle would be taken as settled.

said, he agreed with those who thought that the policy of the Bill should be assumed. The main object was the improvement of the sanitary condition of the poor, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tidfil (Mr. Bruce) in thinking that men who had neglected their property to the injury of the public health were not deserving of the consideration to which others were entitled. He had observed that though the hon. Members for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) and the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had never directly opposed the Bill, they had taken every opportunity of throwing cold water upon it. [Mr. HARVEY LEWIS: No, no!]

denied that the hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that he had thrown cold water on the Bill.

entreated hon. Gentlemen to enter into this question in a large and conciliatory spirit. The town clerk of Liverpool, who had been examined before the Select Committee, had stated that the Bill would be of inestimable advantage to that great city. He knew several other great towns to which it would be of the greatest benefit.

said, he thought that the recommendation that more time should be given for the consideration of one or two clauses was very reasonable. The hon. Member who had brought in the Bill knew that he (Mr. Henley) had done what he could to get the measure through. But the subject was very difficult, and it must be recollected that this year the Bill had not met with any unreasonable delay, but had gone through its stages very quickly. It should also be borne in mind that, with any measure which touched property, it was far better to take time so as to put the clauses into shape than to run the risk of the Bill foundering in "another place" on a matter of that kind. The hon. Gentleman knew what trouble the Select Committee had with the subject, and how one scheme after another was put by; and he would be well advised to allow these clauses to be well considered, so that there might be no difficulty afterwards in the working of the Bill. It would be ten times more likely to do good if they did not offend the prejudices of people who might be affected by the measure. It was easier to lead people than to drive them; and if they saw that their interests had not been neglected they would be much more likely to give their assistance in carrying out the Bill.