§ Upon the first clause,
Mr. Wilson Fatten
had resolutions to propose relative to the corporation of Manchester, which he wished to explain. A contest had been going on in Manchester with reference to the validity of the charter of incorporation, and he, although unconnected with the town, had been asked to arbitrate between the contending parties. He had consented to do so, when his attention was called to this bill, and it was suggested to him that the fairest mode would be, not to oppose the bill, but to get inserted in it clauses embodying the principle of his arbitration. In that way he had undertaken the clauses which he now wished to have inserted. In the first clause he should propose to confirm the charter of incorporation and the commission of the peace, and the grant of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions of the 1432 Peace; and that the costs of obtaining or opposing such grants should be paid by both sides. The other clauses would be to grant compensation to three officers, the coroner, the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the town of Manchester. The only argument he had heard against the compensation to the coroner was, that the corporation had advertised for a coroner, and he was coroner previous to the Corporation Act being applied. It was said, that he was therefore out of the pale. The hon. Member further observed, that the Gentleman for whom he was desirous of obtaining compensation, had held the office of clerk to the magistrates for thirty-five years—under magistrates of all parties and politics, and he would still have been in that office, had it not been for the granting of the new charter of incorporation to Manchester. He could say much, too, were it necessary to do so, of the good private character of that Gentleman. He had it also in his power to say, that lawyers of considerable eminence had given a very decided opinion, that though these cases might not come under the Corporation Act, yet that they comprised the strongest claim to compensation. He (Mr. Patten) was anxious to set himself right with the hon. Member for Manchester, whom he then saw before him, with respect to what had been said of his having unnecessarily put himself forward in this matter, and meddled with cases which did not come under his province to interfere with. The fact was, that he was one of those to whose arbitration it had been agreed to leave the subject, the council of the corporation, as he understood, having agreed, should the decision be favourable to the claim, to give compensation. Indeed, he had been at last asked by both parties to bring the question forward, and had consequently done so. He therefore trusted the House would consent to the clauses he had to propose. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the two following clauses:—And whereas, questions are pending as to the validity of the charter of incorporation granted to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Manchester, in pursuance of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or of some subsequent act, be it declared and enacted, that the said charter of incorporation, and also the commission of the peace, and grant of a separate court of quarter sessions of the peace, issued or granted to the said borough, and all acts and proceed- 1433 ings done or had in pursuance thereof, shall be deemed good and lawful from the time of such grant, acts, and proceedings, and that all costs and expenses which have been incurred before the passing of this act in and about the obtaining, establishing, or opposing any such grant, act, or proceeding, or in or about the holding of any inquest by any coroner within the said borough, or all costs already incurred, or to be hereafter incurred, in or about the prosecution, conveyance, or maintenance of any persons having committed any offences within the said borough by the said corporation, or person or persons whomsoever, shall be paid and discharged by the council of the said borough, and out of a rate to be made assessed, and levied for that purpose by the council of the said borough, in the nature of a borough-rate or otherwise, as the said council shall think fit, which rate may be recovered in the same manner as any borough-rate is recoverable under the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, or under any subsequent act framed for the amendment thereof, such costs and charges, without prejudice to any contract respecting the maintenance of prisoners, being ascertained and settled in each case by the recorder of tin borough.And whereas, by reason of a grant of a charter of incorporation to the borough of Manchester, the coroner for the county palatine of Lancaster, acting within the division of Manchester, the clerk of the peace for the said county palatine, and the clerk of the justices of the peace appointed under an act passed in the 53rd year of the reign of King George the 3rd, for the more effectual administration of the office of a justice of the peace, and to the other justices of the peace acting within the said division of Manchester, have been deprived of their fees and emoluments arising from their respective offices within the said borough, and it is expedient that compensation be therefore made to them in like manner as if they had been officers of a borough before the passing of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty, who were removed from their offices under the provisions of that act; be it therefore enacted, that the said coroner, and clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices shall be entitled to have an adequate compensation, to be assessed by the council, and paid out of the borough fund of the said borough, for the fees and emoluments of their several offices arising within such borough, and that all provisions of the said act of the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty relating to the claim of any corporate officer for compensation, on account of being removed from his office, and to the manner of securing and determining the amount of such compensation, shall apply, except as hereinafter provided, to the said coroners, clerk of the peace, and clerk to the justices; provided always, that the statement to be delivered to the town-clerk by each such officer shall set forth the amount of 1434 the fees and emoluments in respect whereof he shall claim compensation during five years next preceding the grant of the charter of incorporation to the borough respecting which such claim is made, and that, in estimating the amount of compensation, each of the said officers shall be deemed to have held his office for the term of his life.
§ Mr. M. Philips
disclaimed any imputation against the hon. Gentleman of having brought these cases forward on frivolous grounds, and that was not what he rose to complain of. What he complained of was, that the hon. Gentleman should have paid too much attention to communications which had been made to him subsequently to the periods to which he had referred. He had presented many petitions to that House against these claims, and the strongest which he had presented had been drawn up by a gentleman who was of decidedly conservative opinions. The case was now in this state—its opponents were absolutely asked to be bought off by a sum of money to be paid by the ratepayers of Manchester, in order to prevent the corporation question from going before the House of Lords. He could not speak in too strong terms of the petition which had been got up by the anti-corporators, out of all the signatures to which only 6,000 had been found to be genuine. He considered, then, that the ratepayers of the borough would be very forgetful of what was due to themselves if they were to be led into paying the money which they were called on to pay by the clauses brought forward by the hon. Member. The ratepayers had had immense expenses to encounter, and they were now called upon to make further sacrifices by the payment of money in quarters in which they were not bound to pay it. He had lately been at Manchester, and he had not met with a single individual who did not deprecate the idea of such clauses as those now proposed to be inserted in the bill before the House. The borough of Manchester would rather go on as it now did, and remain without a court of quarter sessions, and he must confess he had rather see that alteration than that it should petition Parliament in favour of those claims; and it was worthy of remark, that one of the gentlemen with whom the hon. Member had been in consultation upon the subject was a gentle-man who was himself personally interested in the question, and ought not, therefore, to have ventured to give the 1435 advice he had. Besides, it was notorious, that the gentleman who claimed compensation as town-clerk of Manchester had, some years ago, when a bill had been brought forward in that House, the object of which was to give stipendiary magistrates to that borough, tried his utmost to have his own name inserted as clerk to the magistrates for life. That attempt was, however, rejected at the time, but it certainly was one which ought to be mentioned, in connexion with the present efforts to compensate that gentleman, as an additional argument against the propriety of doing so. With regard to the bill of the hon. and learned Attorney-general, they might throw it out if they thought proper to do so, for there certainly could not be supposed to be any particular desire on the part of the ratepayers of Manchester to have thrown on their shoulders expenses which would be the consequence of the measure. But the ratepayers were honourable men, and had no wish to throw upon others the burdens to which they would themselves be exposed. They would discharge their duties like honest men, but, he was sure, they would never consent to be bullied into an arrangement to which they had no right to be expected to consent. The gentleman who had had the door shut against him as coroner had no one but himself to blame for the position in which he found himself, and he had done himself great injury by the course he had since taken, by holding double inquests, and pursuing a Vexatious course. If all parties in the position of those who made these claims, were to come forward and ask for compensation, it would be establishing a precedent for all other towns which might hereafter find it necessary, that they should have their courts held more frequently than they were under their present system. Besides, if it was so necessary, that these officers should be compensated, why was it that some few years ago, the deputy-constable of Manchester had not been compensated when he was obliged to give up his office from infirmity, and was left in a destitute state? With regard to the charter of the corporation of Manchester, the judges had decided it to be a good one, and it would be most unjust to a great community such as that of the town he had the honour to represent, to attempt to saddle them with the consequences of clauses like those now proposed, and with 1436 the introduction of which the rate-payers had nothing whatever to do. With respect to what had been elsewhere said of a compromise having been desired on their part upon the subject, all he could say was, that the greatest misrepresentations had gone abroad upon the matter, and the council and the rate-payers had never entertained any such desire. He hoped, therefore, these clauses would be withdrawn, or if not, that the committee would reject them.
§ Mr. W. Patten
observed, that whereas it had been said, that the corporation had had nothing to do with the recommendation of these clauses, it was a member of the corporation, and a rate-payer, who had called upon him at his Own house, upon the subject of them.
§ Mr. Mark Philips
asserted, that no member of the corporation had ever been authorised by that body to make any application to any one in favour of the objects of the hon. Gentleman's clauses.
said, that this was a public bill, and the object of it was to enable the borough, without having a gaol, to contract with the adjoining county for the maintenance of its prisoners. It gave the borough the power to do that, and to build one for itself if it thought proper to do so, providing for the rate which was to pay for it. But certain clauses were now proposed to be inserted in a public bill, which were intended only to apply to Manchester, and which would not apply to Birmingham, for instance, or to other places. He must, therefore, give such clauses his opposition. And he hoped the committee would let the bill pass in the shape in which he had introduced it, because it would thus allow the quarter sessions to proceed with the necessary business, and the counties of Lancaster and Warwick to be relieved from burdens from which they ought to be liberated.
trusted, that the House would not pass the bill without providing compensation for the officers who would have lost their places by the incorporation of Manchester, and thereby carry out the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. With regard to the charter itself, the opinion of the judges had certainly been given, but it had not been given on the main question connected with that subject, which, be the fault where it might, in that he expressed no opinion, had never been brought before them. Let the com- 1437 mittee suppose for a moment, that the case before them had been that of an office in any other town, and the holder of it had been deprived of it by the operation of the Municipal Reform Bill, would not the officer, in such case, be entitled to compensation? Would it not be injustice then, to deprive an officer of a borough of compensation under a bill which carried out the principle of that measure? When a charter was granted which took away his office, would they deprive him of the power of bringing his action to try his right and title to compensation for his loss? That House would never, he was sure, reconcile itself to such an act of injustice, when it had allowed compensation in cases which arose under the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. If the corporation had wanted to avoid compensating the coroner, they should have made him, at least, a tender of continuance in the office he held. But, because, for sooth, the coroner of Manchester would not consent to ask the new corporation of that borough to continue him in his office, therefore, he was to be deprived of it, and without compensation ! He trusted, however, that the House would not pass this bill without including compensation in its provisions. It was said there was a coroner for Bolton, and a coroner for Birmingham also, but was that any ground why the coroner for Manchester should not be compensated because the other coroners were not? If so, the Attorney-general was bound to bring in a bill to provide for their compensation also, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman, or some other Member should do so, he would certainly give it his support. The hon. and learned Member concluded by urging on the committee the propriety of making no exception as to the cases included in the proposed clauses.
§ Mr. C. Buller
said, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to be discussing anything but the clause really under consideration; and, with respect to that clause, he thought it the summit of human impudence. It was neither more nor less than an offer of compromise by the parties opposed to the corporation of Manchester, and went the length of saying, that if the whole of their expenses were paid, they would terminate all further litigation, and this notwithstanding they had been defeated at nisi prius, in the Queen's Bench, and before the Exchequer Chamber. He trusted, 1438 however, that the House would not sanction a proposition at the same time so impudent and preposterous.
denied that there had been any decision by the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer Chamber, in favour of the charter of the corporation of Manchester, because the Judges had, in point of fact, decided nothing.
said, that the matter had been fully argued, both by his hon. and learned Friend and himself before the Exchequer Chamber, and that although his hon. and learned Friend had raised a score of objections, they were all over-ruled by a majority of the judges present. The parties, it was true, might appeal to the House of Lords; but their doing so would be fruitless.
would not say what the House of Lords might or might not do, but this he would say, that although the matter had been argued in the Exchequer Chamber, owing to the form of the bill of exceptions to the ruling of the judge at nisi prius, the judges in the Exchequer Chamber declined to give any opinion.
§ Mr. W. Patten
withdrew the first clause, and proposed to take the sense of the House on the second or compensation clause.
§ Mr. Wakley
supported the claim of the coroner to compensation, and said, that if public officers, elected by the people for life, were to be deprived of their offices without redress of any kind, great injustice would be inflicted. If this were liberty, all he could say was, that the less they heard of it the better. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman who moved the clause, whether it would not be better to make distinct propositions of each case, and propose that of the coroner first.
§ Mr. W. Patten
said, he should be glad to adopt the suggestion, if he could do so, but he feared he could not.
§ Mr. M. Philips
said, that he was quite willing to entertain the case of the coroner, but with respect to the other cases, he would give them his strenuous opposition.
§ Mr. W. Patten
was perfectly ready to go seriatim through the case, and to commence with that of the coroner, provided the House allowed the clause to be read a second time.
§ Mr. Aglionby
knew nothing of the 1439 merits of the cases of these parties, but he thought the better way would be to introduce a general clause for compensation, and leave it to another tribunal to decide upon the claims of each party. This was the course adopted under the Corporation Reform Bill. At present, he was not in a situation to vote in either way.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, in several cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the Treasury decided that the old coroner was not entitled to compensation.
said, that this was not only the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, but likewise of the Court of Queen's Bench. Although coroners were elected by the people, still, if they became incapable of discharging the functions of their office by any means, the Lord Chancellor had power to appoint additional coroners to assist them, who would not only participate in their duties, but fees. This might, before long, be the case in the instance of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. With respect to the clause, it applied only to the coroner of Manchester, and he wished it to apply to all the other coroners likely to be affected by this bill.
§ Mr. Grimsditch
observed, that in those cases where additional coroners had been appointed, the magistrates were empowered to award compensation to the party sustaining loss by the arrangement.
§ Mr. Wakley
again supported the claim of the coroner of Manchester, and said, that even if the Lord Chancellor were to exercise his power of appointing other coroners in Middlesex, he would not trouble the House with any claim for compensation.
§ Mr. Gisborne
suggested, whether it would not be better to alter the clause in such a way as would enable them to take the sense of the committee on the individual claim of the coroner?
§ Mr. W. Patten
replied, that he was anxious to do so if he could, but he feared he could not, unless they allowed the clause to be read a second time.
§ Mr. Brotherton
said, that the hon. Gentleman might strike out from the clause 1440 everything except that which related to the coroner.
§ Mr. Gisborne
thought it would be better to drop the clause altogether, and bring it up in another form on the third reading of the bill.
§ Mr. W. Patten
said, he would endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, by making each claim a distinct clause.
said that, although he wished justice to be done to all parties, still he could not see why the coroners and officers of other boroughs whom the bill would effect, should not be placed in as good a situation as the coroner of Manchester.
§ Mr. W. Patten
had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, with respect to the clerk of the peace of Lancaster, his claim stood on peculiar grounds, and, therefore, he could not risk losing a vote in favour of it.
thought the better way would be to withdraw the clause, and propose one generally for compensation.
§ Mr. M. Philips
had no objection to the claim of the coroner, but he must oppose the claims of the other parties. He wished a division on the clause as it stood.
§ Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time, the committee divided:—Ayes 73, Noes 128: Majority 55.
|List of the AYES.|
|A'Court, Captain||Douglas, Sir C. E.|
|Bailey, J.||Drummond, H. H.|
|Basset, J.||Dugdale, W. S.|
|Blackburne, I.||Dungannon, Viscount|
|Bolling, W.||Eaton, R. J.|
|Botfield, B.||Egerton, W. T.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Egerton, Lord F.|
|Clive, hon. R. H.||Eliot, Lord|
|Codrington, C. W.||Ellis, J.|
|Dalrymple, Sir A.||Farnham, E. B.|
|Darby, G.||Fellowes, E.|
|Darlington, Earl of||Gladstone, J. N.|
|De Horsey, S. H.||Glynne, Sir S. R.|
|Godson, R.||Mordaunt, Sir J.|
|Goulburn, rt. hon. H.||Morgan, O.|
|Greene, T.||Norreys, Lord|
|Grimsditch, T.||Packe, C. W.|
|Hale, R. B.||Pakington, J. S.|
|Hamilton, Lord C.||Palmer, G.|
|Hawkes, T.||Parker, R. T.|
|Henniker, Lord||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Hodgson, R.||Praed, W. T.|
|Holmes, W.||Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.|
|Houstoun, G.||Richards, R.|
|Hughes, W. B.||Rushbrooke, Colonel|
|Hurt, F.||Shirley, E. J.|
|Ingestre, Viscount||Somerset, Lord G.|
|Ingham, R.||Sotheron, T. E.|
|Inglis, Sir R. H.||Stewart, J.|
|Kelly, F.||Thompson, Alderman|
|Kemble, H.||Villiers, Viscount|
|Knight, H. G.||Vivian, J. E.|
|Law, hon. C. E.||Waddington, H. S.|
|Lowther, J. H.||Wakley, T.|
|Lygon, hon. General||Wilbraham, hon. B.|
|Mackenzie, W. F.||TELLERS.|
|Marsland, T.||Cresswell, C.|
|Maunsell, T. P.||Patten, W.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Abercromby, hn. G. R.||Fitzroy, Lord C.|
|Adam, Admiral||Fleetwood, Sir P. H.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Fort, J.|
|Ainsworth, P.||Gisborne, T.|
|Alston, R.||Gordon, R.|
|Archbold, R.||Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.|
|Armstrong, A.||Handley, H.|
|Baring, rt. hon. F. T.||Hawes, B.|
|Barry, G. S.||Hawkins, J. H.|
|Beamish, F. B.||Hayter, W. G.|
|Bellew, R. M.||Heathcoat, J.|
|Berkeley, hon. H.||Hector, C. J.|
|Bewes, T.||Heron, Sir R.|
|Blake, W. J.||Hill, Lord A. M. C.|
|Blewitt, R. J.||Hindley, C.|
|Bowes, J.||Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.|
|Bridgeman, H.||Hobhouse, T. B.|
|Briscoe, J. I.||Hollond, R.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Horsman, E.|
|Brotherton, J.||Howard, P. H.|
|Bruges, W. H. L.||Howard, hon. C. W. G.|
|Buller, C||Hume, J.|
|Busfeild, W.||Hutt, W.|
|Campbell, Sir J.||Hutton, R.|
|Chalmers, P.||Jervis, J.|
|Clay, W.||Jervis, S.|
|Clements, Viscount||Langdale, hon. C.|
|Clive, E. B.||Marsland, H.|
|Collier, J.||Maule, hon. Fox|
|Cowper, hon. W. F.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Craig, W. G.||Morris, D.|
|Divett, E.||Morrison, J.|
|Duke, Sir J.||Muntz, G. F.|
|Dundas, C. W. D.||Noel, hon. C. G.|
|Elliot, hon. J. E.||O'Brien, C.|
|Ellice, E.||O'Corniell, J.|
|Evans, W.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Ewart, W.||Parker, J.|
|Fielden, J.||Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.|
|Fenton, J.||Pattison, J.|
|Pease, J.||Strutt, E.|
|Pechell, Captain||Talbot, C. R. M.|
|Philips, G. R.||Talfourd, Mr. Serg.|
|Phillpotts, J.||Tancred, H. W.|
|Pigot, rt. hon. D.||Thornely, T.|
|Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.||Townley, R. G.|
|Pryme, G.||Tufnell, H.|
|Rawdon, Col. J. D.||Villiers, hon. C. P.|
|Rice, hon. E. R.||Vivian, J. H.|
|Rich, H.||Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.|
|Rundle, J.||Walker, R.|
|Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.||Wallace, R.|
|Salwey, Colonel||Warburton, H.|
|Scholefield, J.||Ward, H. G.|
|Seale, Sir J. H.||White, A.|
|Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.||Wilbraham, G.|
|Smith, J. A.||Wilde, Sir T.|
|Smith, R. V.||Williams, W.|
|Somerville, Sir W. M.||Wood, C.|
|Stanley, hon. E. J.||Wood, G. W.|
|Stanley, hon. W. O.||Wyse, T.|
|Stansfield, W. R. C.||Yates, J. A.|
|Stuart, Lord J.||TELLERS.|
|Stuart, W. V.||Greg, R. H.|
|Stock, Mr. Sergeant||Philips, M.|
§ Clause rejected.
§ Sir C. Douglas moved the insertion of a clause providing compensation for the clerk of the peace of the county of Warwick, and for the coroner of the said county, sitting within the Hundred of Hemlingford.
said, that by voting for this clause for the compensation of coroners the House would only affirm, that coroners were entitled to compensation. Hon. Members would afterwards have an opportunity of considering the application of the clause to this particular case.
thought the hon. Member for Warwick, would best gain his object by withdrawing his clause for the present.
§ Sir C. Douglas
said, he would have the clause printed, with a view to its being brought up with the report.
§ Clause withdrawn.
§ Lord Francis Egerton
then moved the clause of which he had given notice, ex- 1443 empting the borough of Bolton from the operation of the bill. He knew he might be told that the bill did not go directly to confirm the Bolton Charter, but still it would have the effect of confirming it in an indirect manner. Several of the ratepayers had determined to litigate the question at the earliest possible opportunity, and this case was a perfectly different case, and a much stronger one than the case of Manchester, to which allusion had already been made, and they were apprehensive that they should by this bill be put in a worse situation than the one they at present occupied. They were desirous of bringing the question to trial, and did not wish to be deprived of the opportunity of trying the case by the indirect operation of this bill. In order that the House might understand distinctly the operation which the clause of the Attorney-general would have upon Bolton, it was necessary that he should explain, that at present the corporation was unable to levy a borough rate, because the township and the borough were not coterminous. Now the Attorney-general's clause would enable them to levy a borough-rate, and deprive those persons of the opportunity of trying the question of the charter, which they were anxious to do, should the rate be levied. Such were shortly the grounds on which he entreated the House to exempt the borough of Bolton from the operation of the bill. He would be glad to give any explanation that might be required, but at that late hour he did not wish to occupy the attention of the House longer than was necessary.
§ Clause read a first time. On the motion that it be read a second time.
said, he should be under the necessity of opposing the clause, as he considered that entirely to exempt Bolton from the operation of the bill would be highly objectionable. If it were sought by that bill to deprive the inhabitants of Bolton of the right to question the validity of the charter, such a proceeding would be manifestly unjust; but no such thing was attempted to be done. The inhabitants of Bolton would still have the power to take any steps they might think fit to question the validity of the charter. The consequence of exempting Bolton from the operation of the bill would be, that they would not be able to make any arrangement with the county of Lancaster for the custody and maintenance of their prisoners, and the county of Lancaster would suffer great injustice in consequence. 1444 To correct this inequality, it was necessary that the bill should apply to Bolton as well as to Manchester or Birmingham, and there was no reason assigned by the noble Lord to induce him to assent to the exemption.
§ Mr. Bolling
could assure the Attorney-general that Bolton was peculiarly situated; it was divided into three townships, Great Bolton, Little Bolton, and the northern part. Great Bolton being only within the borough, all the expense relating to that could be taken out of the poors'-rate. But with regard to the other portions, they were obliged to levy a second rate, which was objected to. The parties agreed to levy in a friendly manner, for the rate, in order to try the question; but after carrying the proceedings to a certain point, the corporation party had given up the contest. The bill would go to legalise the levying of rates other than those authorised by the Municipal Act, and on that ground he claimed the exemption sought. The Queen could grant a charter, but she could not grant the power of levying money. He did not oppose the charter per se, but they were desirous of trying whether they could be legally saddled with this rate; 5,000 rate-payers had petitioned not to be saddled with the useless expenditure for the gaol and quarter sessions, when they were within ten miles of Manchester, to the prison of which place their prisoners might be conveyed by railroad at a, shilling a head. Two years ago they had had a police force imposed on them by the noble Lord, which had cost 3,000l. in the last year, and 5,000 of the rate-payers now appealed to that House for protection against that bill.
§ Mr. Ainsworth
said, that the petition alluded to by his hon. Colleague had been got up under false pretences. The town had been placarded with bills stating that a gaol was to be built at the cost of 20,000l., and a new poor-house at the cost of another 20,000l.; of course, the rate-payers were anxious on the subject. The fact was, there was no intention to build either a poor-house or a gaol. The bill would however, give them the power of using the gaol to which his hon. Colleague had alluded, therefore if the bill passed they would be able to enter into an arrangement with the county on the subject. With respect to the charge of the police, Bolton was in the same situation as Birmingham. The corporation had appointed a police; their right to do so had been opposed; the old police had been kept up, and constant quar- 1445 rels between the two had been the consequence. His hon. Friend had alluded to the expenses of the corporation. But it was a fact that the corporation had effected a clear sawing of 500l. a year by the quarter session alone. They had formerly to send all their prisoners to Manchester. The argument of the Attorney-general was very just, that the county had at present to support all the borough prisoners, although the borough contributed nothing to the county rate. The hon. Member referred to the report of Captain Jebbs to show that a large majority of the householders had petitioned for the granting of a charter. There were 5,115 householders in favour of the corporation, and no more than 2,956 against it. There was, therefore, a much larger proportion of the inhabitants in favour of the corporation in Bolton than either in Manchester or Birmingham. Indeed, there seemed to be no other objection to the including Bolton in the bill than that there would be no one to compensate except the coroner. He hoped the House would not countenance the motion of the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire; or rather he hoped the noble Lord would see the propriety of withdrawing his motion.
§ Mr. Grimsditch
supported the motion of the noble Lord, and hoped the noble Lord would press the question to a division.
§ Mr. M. Philips
said, that he had been requested to oppose the proposition of the noble Lord. The expenditure of the borough would be diminished by the bill, in one item to the extent of reducing a charge of 18l to 3l. 15s. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
§ The Committee divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes 31: Noes 75; Majority 44.
|List of the AYES.|
|Bailey, J.||Hodgson, R.|
|Blackburne, I.||Holmes, W.|
|Broadley, H.||Hughes, W. B.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||Ingestre, Viscount.|
|Cresswell, C.||Knight, H. G.|
|Dalrymple, Sir A.||Mackenzie, W. F.|
|Darby, G.||Marsland, T.|
|Drummond, H. H.||Parker, R. T.|
|Dugdale, W. S.||Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.|
|Egerton, W. T.||Richards, R.|
|Egerton, Lord F.||Rushbrooke, Colonel|
|Gladstone, J. N.||Stewart, J.|
|Godson, R.||Waddington, H. S.|
|Goulburn, rt. hon. H||Wilbraham, hon. B.|
|Hale, R. B.||Boiling, W.|
|Hawkes, T.||Grimsditch, T.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Adam, Admiral||Jervis, J.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Marsland, H.|
|Archbold, R.||Maule, hon. F.|
|Armstrong, A.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Beamish, F. B.||Morris, D.|
|Berkeley, hon. H.||Muntz, G. F.|
|Blewitt, R. J.||O'Brien, C.|
|Bowes, J.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|Bridgeman, H.||Parker, J.|
|Brotherton, J.||Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.|
|Bruges, W.H. L.||Pease, J.|
|Busfield, W.||Pechell, Captain|
|Campbell, Sir J.||Pigot, rt. hon. D.|
|Chalmers, P,||Rundle, J.|
|Clay, W.||Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.|
|Craig, W. G.||Salwey, Colonel|
|Duke, Sir J.||Scholefield, J.|
|Dundas, C. W. D.||Sheil, right hon. R. L.|
|Evans, W.||Smith, J. A.|
|Fielden, J.||Stanley, hon. E. J.|
|Fenton, J.||Steuart, R.|
|Gisborne, T.||Stuart, Lord J.|
|Gordon, R.||Stuart, W. V.|
|Greg, R. H.||Strutt, E.|
|Hawes, B.||Tancred, H. W.|
|Hawkins, J. H.||Thornely, T.|
|Hayter, W. G.||Tufnell, H.|
|Heathcoat, J.||Wakley, T.|
|Heron, Sir R.||Walker, R.|
|Hobhouse, T. B.||Wallace, R.|
|Hollond, R.||Warhurton, H.|
|Horstnan, E.||Ward, H. G.|
|Howard, hon. E. G. G.||Wilde, Sir T.|
|Howard, P. H.||Wood, G. W.|
|Howard, hn. C.W.G.||Wyse, T.|
|Hume, J.||Yates, J. A.|
|Hutton, R.||Ainsworth, P.|
|Ingham, R.||Philips, M.|
§ The House resumed. Bill to be reported.