§ MR. MUNTZ moved the Second Reading of the Birmingham Borough Exemption from County Rates (No. 2) Bill.
§ Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
954§ LORD BROOKE moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The object of this Bill was to exempt the town of Birmingham from contributing to the county rates, on the plea that Birmingham had recently erected a borough gaol and lunatic asylum of its own, and therefore ought no longer to be called upon to pay anything for the support of the county gaol and lunatic asylum. Now, although Birmingham had its own gaol, the prisoners that were sent from that town to the assizes would still be a burden upon the county rate; and, as Birmingham would therefore still continue to derive benefit from the county gaol and asylum, it would be unfair to exempt it from paying to the county rates.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
§ MR. SCHOLEFIELDsupported the Bill, and said that the quota which Birmingham used to pay, before its own gaol and lunatic asylum were built, towards the county rate, was one-third of the entire rate, and as the expense of the new county gaol and lunatic asylum at Warwick was estimated at 150,000l., unless this Bill was passed, Birmingham would have to pay 50,000l. of this sum for what she did not want, having provided herself with a gaol and lunatic asylum at an expense of upwards of 100,000l. As for Birmingham deriving any advantage from the county gaol, in connexion with assize prisoners, the promoters of this Bill were prepared to pay so much per head for every prisoner they sent to the county gaol, but objected to pay the county rate in the same way as they had done before they had any gaol or asylum of their own.
§ SIR G. GREYthought Birmingham had unquestionably an equitable claim now not to be called upon for the same amount of contribution for building a county gaol and lunatic asylum as might have been claimed from it before it had any gaol or lunatic asylum of its own. The Bill before the House proceeded on the assumption that, as the law at present stood, Birmingham could be called upon to contribute to the county rates; but he believed that in Lancashire and Leicestershire the law did not bear out that assumption as to the liability of boroughs so circumstanced as Birmingham was, to the county rate. There was a legal question as to the liability of such boroughs, upon which he 955 would not express any opinion; but parties concerned in this Bill ought to raise the legal question in the courts of law before they came to the House for a remedy; and if the courts decided that the law as it stood at present gave the county a claim upon the borough, then it would not be a private Bill that would be necessary, but a general Bill, applying over the whole country, which ought to be brought in by the Government. He would, therefore, advise the House not to allow this Bill to be read a second time.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet's advice were to be followed, the effect would be to involve the parties in litigation, and Birmingham would have to pay its quota of 50,000l. for the new county gaol and lunatic asylum before a general Bill, applying to the whole kingdom, could be introduced. So that if they were to wait for the general Bill, the injustice now attempted to be prevented would be done, and no compensation could afterwards be obtained if a wrong had been committed towards Birmingham. He must therefore support the second reading of this Bill, unless the right hon. the Home Secretary would allow it to be made a public Bill, and permit it to go before a Select Committee upstairs, in which case he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) to withdraw the present Bill.
§ MR. MUNTZ, in reply, said, the county magistrates had admitted the equity of the people of Birmingham's claim to be exempt from the county rate; all they objected to was—the Bill ought to be a general Bill instead of a private one. But his objection to a general Bill was, that all the mischief would be done before they obtained it. Birmingham would not get back its money, and, besides, it was desirable that a resort to litigation should be prevented. He must, therefore, persist in attempting to carry this measure.
§ SIR G. GREYexplained that he did not admit that there was any great doubt as to the state of the law as it at present stood; but as to what the construction of the law was, he could not express any opinion. All he maintained was, that the House ought not to sanction a Bill to alter the law, until it was first shown by a decision of the courts that the claim upon Birmingham to contribute was well founded.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 62: Majority 8.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Birch, Sir T. B. | Locke, J. |
| Blair, S. | Lushington, C. |
| Blake, M. J. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Blewitt, R. J. | M'Cullagh, W. T. |
| Bremridge, R. | M'Gregor, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Mullings, J. R. |
| Brown, H. | Nugent, Sir P. |
| Brown, W. | O'Brien, T. |
| Campbell, hon. W. F. | O'Connell, J. |
| Cobden, R. | Osborne, R. |
| Crawford, W. S. | Pattison, J. |
| Cubitt, W. | Pilkington, J. |
| Divett, E. | Power, N. |
| Duncan, G. | Reynolds, J. |
| Ellice, E. | Rice, E. R. |
| Ellis, J. | Rufford, F. |
| Ewart, W. | Scholefield, W. |
| Forster, M. | Scrope, G. P. |
| Fox, W. J. | Sidney, Ald. |
| French, F. | Stansfield, W. R. C. |
| Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Glyn, G. C. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Grace, O. D. J. | Stuart, Lord D. |
| Greenall, G. | Tenison, E. K. |
| Greene, J. | Thompson, Col. |
| Gwyn, H. | Thornely, T. |
| Harris, R. | Villiers, hon. C. |
| Hastie, A. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Hastie, A. | Williams, J. |
| Heald, J. | Willyams, H. |
| Heywood, J. | Wilson, M. |
| Heyworth, L. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Humphrey, Ald. | Wyld, J. |
| Lacy, H. C. | |
| Langston, J. H. | TELLERS. |
| Lawless, hon. C. | Muntz, G. F. |
| Lewisham, Visct. | Spooner, R. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Adderley, C. B. | Heneage, G. H. W. |
| Alexander, N. | Henley, J. W. |
| Archdall, Capt. M. | Herries, rt. hon. J. C. |
| Arundel and Surrey, Earl of | Hill, Lord M. |
| Hodgson, W. N. | |
| Bagot, hon. W. | Hope, Sir J. |
| Bankes, G. | Howard, Lord E. |
| Beresford, W. | Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. |
| Berkeley, C. L. G. | Legh, G. C. |
| Boldero, H. G. | Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. |
| Brackley, Visct. | Lewis, G. C. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Lockhart, W. |
| Buck, L. W. | Lowther, H. |
| Buxton, Sir E. N. | Mackenzie, W. F. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Mahon, Visct. |
| Disraeli, B. | Maitland, T. |
| Dod, J. W. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Duncan, Visct. | Miles, W. |
| Duncombe, hon. A. | Moody, C. A. |
| Duncuft, J. | Packe, C. W. |
| Du Pre, C. G. | Patten, J. W. |
| Edwards, H. | Philips, Sir G. R. |
| Emlyn, Visct. | Pugh, D. |
| Farrer, J. | Repton, G. W. J. |
| Forbes, W. | Russell, F. C. H. |
| Forester, hon. G. C. W. | Shirley, E. J. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. |
| Granby, Marq. of | Sotheron, T. H. S. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Vyse, R. H. R. H. |
| Grogan, E. | Wall, C. B. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Wortley, rt. hon. J. | S. Young, Sir J. |
| TELLERS. | |
| Brooke, Lord | Douglas, Sir C. |
§ Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.