§ Lord George Somerset
would not then oppose the Bill, but would propose an alteration in Committee.
§ Mr. Cripps
thought the partial manner in which property was now rated, required to be remedied, and he should support the Bill.
§ Mr. Rigby Wason
was afraid, if the Bill were to pass, it would give rise to much dissatisfaction, particularly on account of the expense of a new valuation.
Mr. Gilbert Heathcote
hoped the House would cause the Bill to be extensively circulated before passing it.
§ Mr. Wakley
opposed the motion. The sole object of the Bill was to place the rating of the country under the control of the Poor-Law Commissioners at Somerset House (who evidently were the originators of it), instead of that of the ratepayers themselves. Had there been any petitions for such a measure, he would have most willingly entertained it, but as the voice of the people was not raised in its favour, he felt called upon to resist it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
§ Mr. Baines
thought, that the hon. Member who attributed the measure to the Poor-Law Commissioners, ought to have ascertained whether those Poor-Law Commissioners were in existence when the present measure was first introduced. It so happened they were not. In his opinion there would be great advantage in an equalization of the rates; it would give greater precision to the Returns periodically required upon the subject of rating, and also enable Parliament to legislate upon the subject with far greater correctness than hitherto.
§ Captain Pechell
I approved of the Bill, 608 but expressed a hope that care would be taken to prevent the Poor-Law Commissioners from interfering too much in its operation.
§ Mr. Thomas Duncombe
agreed with his hon. Colleague in thinking that the Bill was calculated to give a dangerous degree of power to the Poor-Law Commissioners, and would therefore join with him in opposing it.
§ Mr. Wakley
was willing to withdraw his amendment, if the hon. Mover would introduce a clause rendering a new valuation unnecessary.
§ Mr. Poulett Scrope
said, if the Bill was allowed to go into Committee, he would be willing there to consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
§ The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 41; Noes 13—Majority in favour of the Bill 28.
|Aglionby, H. A.||O'Connell, J.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Pease, J.|
|Blackburne, I.||Pechell, Captain|
|Bowring, Dr.||Pendarves, E. W. W.|
|Brotherton, J.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Buckingham, J. S.||Potter, R.|
|Chichester, J. P. B.||Poulter, J. S.|
|Chichester, A.||Pryme, G.|
|Cripps, J.||Scholefield, J.|
|Duncombe, Thomas||Stanley, E. J.|
|Entwisle, J.||Stuart, V.|
|Gully, J.||Thompson, Colonel|
|Hall, B.||Tulk, C. A.|
|Knatchbull, Sir E.||Vere, Sir C. B.|
|Knight, H. G.||Warburton, H.|
|Lennox, Lord George||Wilbraham, G.|
|M'Leod, R.||Wodehouse, E.|
|Mangles, J.||Wood, Mr. Alderman|
|Marsland, H.||Wyse, T.|
|Maule, Hon. Fox||TELLERS.|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Scrope, Poulett|
|Musgrave, Sir R.||Baines, Edward|
|Bewes, T.||Sheldon, E. R. C.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Tooke, W.|
|Fielden, J.||Vivian, J. T.|
|Hector, C. J.||Walter, J.|
|Hindley, C.||Ward, H. G.|
|Lister, E. C.||TELLERS.|
|Roche, D.||Wason, Rigby|
|Rundle, J.||Wakley, Thomas|