Commons Sitting of 18 February 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Copyright Amendment.
2° County Rates; Public Houses (Scotland); Enfranchisement of Copyholds; Commons In-closure.

COUNTY RATES.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that the object of the measure of which he now moved the Second Reading was, to consolidate the existing laws relative to the County Rates, and to introduce some Amendments. Under this Bill not a single shilling could be raised which was not already imposed under the Acts of Parliament now in force; nor would any person be subjected to any liability to which he was not already subject. It was absolutely necessary that the law should be rendered consistent with itself. It might be known to many Members that the 55th Geo. III. c. 51, under which rates were levied, caused great dissatisfaction in consequence of the inequalities and irregularities which took place in the working of that Act, and there was a very general complaint that many parishes were not rated in due proportion. They were indebted to the late Member for Kinsale (Mr. Hawes) for the proposal of a Special Committee which was appointed on this subject. After a long investigation, and eight different reports, in the county of Surrey, the result was to convince the magistrates that they were not bound to receive from the various parishes the accounts, as they returned them, of the rateable value of the property of the parish, but that they had the power of investigating what was the rateable value. The consequence was, that in the county of Surrey the basis for the rates was increased from 2,000,000 l. to 2,200,000 l.; in other words, the county rental liable to poor-rates upon which the county rate was assessed had been understated to that amount. These proceedings having become public, they attracted the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for South Devonshire (Sir J. Y. Buller), whose assistance he had in promoting the present measure; and he introduced a Bill which had for its object the appointment of a committee of magistrates, who were to decide what was the rateable value of the property in each parish. The committee was to consist of eleven members, or not loss than five, and three were requisite to constitute a quorum. That Act he pro-
706
posed to amend, and in its amended state: to re-enact. The 55th Geo. III. had this defect, that having ascertained the rateable value of the property in each parish in a county, it gave an appeal in the event of a grievance, but without stating the number of days' notice which should be given. The 56th Geo. III. stated the length of notice, but omitted to state the party to whom it was to be given; and the 57th Geo. III. stated very inartificially the party to whom notice should be given. The framer of the Act intended not only to remedy that defect, but to remove an other evil. By the Act 55 Geo. III. c. 51, the magistrates at session might give relief in the event of an appeal, but it was stipulated that the cost should in no case fall upon the county stock. I This was considered very unjust; but, intending to repeal the provision, the framer recited an Act in which there was no such clause, and the consequence is, the provision still remains in force. The hon. Member for South Devonshire, by his Bill, gave an appeal, but confined it to the next session after the rate should be allowed, and no appeal after that, except against the assessment—not against the basis upon which the rate was assessed; and therefore the next rate or assessment would be made on the former standard, against which no relief could be obtained, and the parish, should there be twenty rates, was compelled to incur the expense of twenty times appealing against twenty rates, and yet remain liable to be rated upon the same amount of rateable value, because after that basis had been confirmed, no power of correcting it existed, but by going again through the original form, and establishing a new basis. These were some of the inconveniences which he intended to remove by the present Bill. In the Acts to be consolidated, the terms county rate, basis, and assessment, were used as identical, although they related to distinct parts of the object to be attained: for instance, the basis was the several amounts of the rateable value in each parish, the aggregate of which would be the county rental. The county rate is the sum multiplied by the number of pounds in the basis or county rental, which will give the sum to be raised for the county expenditure; thus, suppose the expenditure to be provided for should be 8,300 l., and the county rental, that is, the aggregate of the rateable value in the county to be two millions—the rate to be declared would be

707
one penny in the pound sterling; and, lastly, the assessment would he the proportion to fall upon each parish according to its rental; and assuming parish A to stand in the basis as having a rateable rental of 8,000 l., it would be assessed to pay 8,000 pennies, or 33 l. 6s. 8d. One object of this Bill of consolidation would be to keep these parts of the transaction distinct, but placed in their natural order. He proposed, therefore, that a basis should be formed on the machinery of his hon. Friend's Act, the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 39. The parishes will be rated in a certain proportion, and one month would be given to them to deliver any objections to that proportion. The committee to be restrained from reporting to the session within the month, and they are only to report after the objections have been argued and decided. When the sessions have framed a basis, there will be an appeal, not only to the next session, but at any time when the varying value of property shall render relief just. Besides this, it is proposed that there should be constituted a committee, to be called the County-rate Committee, appointed by the magistrates year by year, and changed from time to time, as it may appear right. The committee should have the power to investigate the claims of any parish to be relieved in consequence of the altered state of the parishes; but no determination upon their part should be binding until reported to the magistrates in sessions. He was bound to call the attention of the House to the fact that he proposed, with a view to an equal rating, material changes in the mode of estimating the relative value of property in the several parishes. He especially directed the attention of the House to the 6th clause. At present the county rate was assessed upon such property as was liable to be assessed for the relief of the poor by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. It was enacted, that in the first place should be ascertained the gross estimated rent, the rent at which the property might be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, repaying all rates and taxes—and from that estimated rent should be deducted the annual average cost of repair and insurance, and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain such rent, and then the remainder would constitute the rateable value. That provision of deducting for repair and insurance, he hoped to prevail upon the House to alter: it was, in fact, the great source of the inequality which so many of
708
the acts of the Legislature had sought to remedy. The deduction was not necessary to the interest of any parish, if every parish was rated by the same rule; but in some parishes 10 per cent was deducted for repairs, in others 25 per cent, and some have deducted so much as 50 per cent, and have made deductions upon the rent of land even where there were no farm buildings. So long as they permitted these deductions, rating could not be made upon any uniform principle. His object was, therefore, to establish a principle applicable alike to every parish: it was a question between each parish individually and all the other parishes, and not between counties and the parishes within. The hon. Member then gave illustrations in argument to show that it was immaterial upon what sum a parish was assessed, whether above or below the real value of the property rateable, provided that all the other parishes were made subject to the same rate of proportion.
MR. BOUVERIEwould not, on the part of the Government, oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he confessed that he had strong misgivings as to the beneficial operation of it. The measure appeared to him to be liable to several objections. A preliminary one was this: while the Bill professed to consolidate the law, it only consolidated a portion of it, leaving many important points untouched. The Acts of Parliament relating to assessment were very complicated, and it was desirable that they should be carefully considered; but he did not think it desirable to consolidate some and leave others untouched, for that would create greater confusion than before. There were other details in the Bill to which he objected. Its main feature was to alter the phraseology of the law of assessment, which would make it unfamiliar to those who were in the habit of dealing with it as it at present stood. The Bill also proposed to make a great alteration in the principle upon which rating is at present based. In the measure brought in by an hon. Member, for assessing the poor-rate, an attempt was made to get at the net annual value, making deductions for repairs and insurances. He did not mean to say there were not difficulties in achieving this, but he did mean to say that the principle was the correct one. Unless the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Freshfield) was prepared to show that all property was subject to a fixed charge, his argument as to the variations of the de-

709
ductions was worth nothing. For different kinds of property different amounts of deduction should be permitted, and it would work great injustice to say, "You shall only be allowed so much, no matter what is your real expenditure." Onekind of property might require only a deduction of ½ per cent, another a deduction of 10 per cent.
MR. H. HOPEtendered his thanks to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Freshfield) for the labour he had bestowed upon this Bill. The method of arriving at the net annual valuation of property was one which had an especial reference to the new Reform Bill. The elective franchise was to be based upon the net value. He know no means of obtaining a just estimate of that net value, unless by a very troublesome and expensive process, namely, appeals upon assessments. He did not know whether, when the proper time arrived, the Government would consider the question; but this he knew, that the Reform Bill could not be established on the present basis by which assessments were made. He trusted that his hon. Friend would give them some means not only of arriving at the gross annual valuation, but also the means of testing the proper reduction or; the net annual value.
MR. HUMEwas pleased that this discussion had taken place, not because this Bill could be made more valuable for the purposes for which it was intended, but because it had served to show a difficulty which would attend the working of the Reform Bill, if not attended to in time. In the assessments for the poor-rate, allowances were made for repairs, but in the income tax no such thing was done. He could point to parishes where the same valuable land was assessed at two widely different rates. The noble Lord at the head of the Government would find it impossible to have a fair representation on the rateable value unless there was a general valuation of the whole country by the same individual. It appeared to him that the Government ought to ask the hon. Gentleman to suspend his Bill, and then bring in a general Bill by which all the parishes would be rated equally.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that the present law required that the valuation for poor-rates should be equal as between different tenants in the same parish, and that the valuation for the county rates should be equal as between the different parishes in the county. For estimating the county rate the machinery
710
was tolerably good; but with respect to the poor-rate valuations, it was certainly true that there often existed a great inequality. Great good would be effected if a stricter supervision of the different parochial assessments was introduced. He objected to the principle which his hon. Friend (Mr. Freshfield) now proposed, that of establishing a different basis for the county rate and the poor-rate. If they once admitted that principle, it would be impossible to have the same assessment for the county rate and the poor-rate. Every county and every parish would then be necessarily put to the expense of having a double assessment for these two rates. There was nothing to prevent the machinery of the present, law being improved, but he did not think that any further power given to the magistrates would add to the strength of the present law.
MR. HENLEYthought the difficulties which had been raised in the course of the debate were of so formidable a nature that his hon. Friend (Mr. Freshfield) must be a courageous man if he should attempt to encounter them. It seemed to him that the Reformers of England had a very discouraging prospect held out to them by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who said that no rateable value for the franchise could be had until all the property in the kingdom had been valued by the same persons. If that were so, it would be impossible to have an equal rate, even in one county, for by the time the party had gone through the whole county he would have to begin again, such would have been the variation in value of property by buildings and other improvements in the meanwhile. The only thing they could hope to reach was an approximation of value. They could not get anything like an equality, and therefore they must be content if now and then there were some apparent inequalities. He had had something to do with the making of county rates in his time, and he knew there were descriptions of property which required very large deductions; and he could not conceive any principle so unjust as to take cottages in towns let at high rents as the measure of value on which the assessment was to be made, and to put on the same footing with them land on which hardly any buildings were erected. All he could say was that he thought the time of the House was wasted in discussing such a measure.
MR. HUMEexplained that what he

711
wanted was, not that local parties alone should assess the value, but that they should do it in connection with an officer of the Crown, acting ill accordance with certain rules by which the valuation might be made as equal as possible.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he felt no alarm or nervous affections in consequence of the hon. Member's caution. The Bill was one of the most simple in operation, and he anticipated no difficulty or serious obstruction to its passing through the House.
Bill read 2°.

PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. FORBES MACKENZIEmoved that the Bill be read a Second Time, and that it should be afterwards referred to a Select Committee. He felt perfectly satisfied that if it were referred to a Select Committee, the result would be a Bill which would please all parties.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. HUMEsaid, that this Bill was opposed generally by the people of Scotland. He was extremely unwilling to take up the time of the House, but he hoped they would excuse him whilst he stated shortly why he objected to the Bill. He objected to it on principle, because it was supposed by the promoters that by limiting public-house licences the tendency to excessive drinking, which he was sorry to say had been too common in Scotland of late years, would be discouraged. He was as anxious as any individual connected with that part of the Kingdom could be that a remedy should be found, if possible, for the excessive drinking habits which obtained there; but he believed this Bill would only add to the difficulties in the way of preventing the evil, because it would give to a few persons only the power of granting licences, which they might exercise with partiality or caprice; and that proceeding would only add to the evil. He might inform the House that the Scotch Members had a meeting yesterday to consider the provisions of the Bill. Twenty-eight members were in attendance, of whom not one approved of the measure. The hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) himself only approved of one clause. All agreed on one point, that it was the duty of Members connected with Scotland to ascertain, if possible, the extent of that demoralising vice of drunkenness, and to contrive the best means of removing
712
it. With that view the meeting unanimously agreed that a Committee should be appointed on the subject, and that they ought to have the authority and countenance of the Government in some way or other, in order to obtain a full and fair, and not a partial, inquiry. A division took place in the meeting on the point whether they ought to reject the Bill, and recommend the appointment of a Committee, not fettered by any of the clauses of the Bill, but open to the examination of witnesses in a perfectly full and fair way. That proposition met with considerable support; but on a division whether the Bill should be proposed to be read a second time or not, he (Mr. Hume) was bound to say that twelve voted in favour of it—those twelve, however, differing among themselves as regarded the merits of the Bill—and sixteen for rejecting the second reading, and in favour of an independent Committee. He thought it was important to state to the House one or two facts which he hoped would regulate the votes of hon. Members on the question now before them. The Bill proposed to appoint a Committee of Justices of the Peace, and to invest them with the power of granting licences; and that was done with the view of reducing the number of licences for the sale of spirits. He had obtained certain returns bearing on this question from two or three places in Scotland. For the last eight or ten years a Committee had been in existence in Edinburgh, who were exceedingly anxious to put down the vice of drunkenness, and through whose exertions the number of spirit licences had been considerably reduced. It appeared that the number of licences in that city in 1830 were 872, and in 1851 they were 516, showing a reduction of 356 in that period. In the county of Edinburgh the number of spirit licences in 1830 was 706, and in 1850 it was reduced to 449, making a total of 613 licences less in the city and county in 1851 than in 1830. He would now ask if, in consequence of that reduction of licences, there had been any commensurate benefit? None; the vice of drunkenness had been continued. The parties addicted to it had been driven into holes and corners to gratify their propensity, and in that and various other ways the vice of drunkenness had been carried on, and continued to increase. What benefit, therefore, could accrue from a proposition which aimed at a reduction of the licences all over the country? In Renfrewshire the spirit li-

713
cences in 1828 amounted to 1,203, and in 1850 to 877, showing a decrease of 326; and yet the vice of which they complained had increased more perhaps in that county than in any other in Scotland, although it was but fair to say that it was attributed to the number of Irish labourers that had been introduced. Looking at those facts, he submitted, the reduction of licences would not have the effect which was expected of putting an end to drunkenness. In Sutherlandshire and Ross-shire he was told the trial had also been made, and had been equally unsuccessful. Now, let him ask the House, with those results before them, whether they were not in condition to avail themselves of the benefits of the different systems which prevailed in England? In the city of London there was no limitation in the licensing of beershops except as respected the situation of the premises where the beer was proposed to be sold. He (Mr. Hume) looked back with great satisfaction to the improvement which had taken place in this metropolis in the habits of the people. They no longer saw the streets crowded with drunken people as was the case about 1830, and as is the case now in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Twenty or thirty years ago to such a height had the vice of drunkenness reached, that no man could pass a spirit shop in London without seeing numbers of wretched creatures at the door waiting for some one to treat them to a glass of gin, or reeling away drunk. In 1831 the number of persons taken into custody by the police for being drunk was 41,736, of whom, in round numbers, 22,000 were males, and 18,000 females. Since that period considerable alteration had taken place. A great number of places of public amusement and recreation had been opened, and the monopoly in the sale of spirits and beer had been discontinued. What had been the effect? Why, an actual reduction of the number persons taken into custody for drunkenness for be found that in the course of the last year the number of such persons was only 23,6000, or, in round numbers, 13,000 males and 10,000 females. In other words, while the population of the metropolis in the twenty years from 1831 to 1851 had increased 542,000, the decrease in the number of drunken persons in it amounted to no loss than 18,000. Again, in 1831, the number of disorderly persons taken into custody in the metropolis amounted to 10,000, 7,000 males and 3,000 females;
714
and in 1851 this number was reduced to 6,000. By allowing the unrestricted sale of beer in London, drunkenness had decreased one-half; while under the other system the vice had been on the increase in Scotland. He would therefore ask the House to reject the Bill, and to appoint a Committee instead, to inquire into the causes of the increase of drunkenness in Scotland, and of the decrease of it in England. He would offer himself as a witness before that Committee, and he thought he should be able to prove that the system adopted in Scotland was likely to increase instead of decreasing the vice. He would not at that moment go into the question of the education of the people; but he would say, that by the liberal conduct adopted in London, in opening public places of recreation for the people, such as the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the parks, they now had it in their power to spend their leisure in a safe and pleasurable way, instead of in public-houses. He admitted that there never was a man more desirous of improving the morals of the community than Lord Kinnaird, whose Bill this was commonly called; but he (Mr. Hume) submitted at the same time, with all due deference to the promoters, that they were taking a wrong course. They might reduce the number of public-houses in Scotland; but unless some other places of recreation were given to the people, experience showed that drunkenness would not be decreased. He would now say that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did all his power to comply with a request made by him (Mr. Hume) on behalf of the people with regard to the throwing open of the Tower and our great cathedrals and abbeys. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, then Under Secretary for the Home Department, was the organ of communication between him and the noble Lord, and he congratulated them both on the success of the measures they then adopted, by which, as they now saw, drunkenness had been so much decreased. Let them, therefore, pursue such a course as would enable them to gain information as to the means of carrying out the same system in Scotland. He would now recommend the withdrawal of the Bill, with the view of having a Committee appointed to inquire into the question of drunkenness in Scotland, its causes, and the best means of repressing them. He was one of those who, thirty-five years ago, foretold that

715
the making more stringent laws against public-houses would fail, unless more facilities for rational recreation were given to the people. He was of opinion now, that if the malt duty was taken off, it would have the best effect in improving the morals of the people both in England and Scotland. He wished to see the people of Scotland return to their ancient habits of industry, sobriety, and economy—which good qualities, he was sorry to say, were effaced among many of them—and with that view he would move the postponement of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIGsaid, the Bill at present was only a mere skeleton compared with what its promoters hoped it would be after receiving the consideration of the Select Committee to whom it was proposed to submit it. By the appointment of that Committee, moreover, he thought the very end which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had in view would be attained. There was a much greater likelihood of some good result if they went into the Committee with a Bill prepared for their consideration, than if they went without one. He hoped that some English Member would be appointed to serve on the proposed Committee, for, after what had been said about the drunkenness of Scotchmen, he was afraid that the House might suppose that even the hon. representatives of Scotland were not free from the taint.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he regretted as much as his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) that they had so much drinking in Scotland; but at the same time he probably had as much knowledge of Scotchmen as any Member in that House, and he was prepared to deny that the drinking habits of Scotland were at all on the increase. He believed that the consumption of spirits in Scotland had largely diminished, and that the habits of the Scotch people were very much improving in that respect. In 1816 the spirit licenses in Glasgow were as many as 1,651, being one out of every seventy-four in the population, which at that time amounted to 120,000; while in the present year, when the population was nearly treble, the number was 2,030, being in the ratio of one to 164. The object of the Bill was to throw the power of licensing into the hands of certain persons who
716
were very likely to do it for improper purposes. He only wished to disabuse the House of the notion that drunkenness had increased among his countrymen, which was not the case. He wished the subject to be dealt with by a Committee comprising English and Irish as well as Scotch Members.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, it appeared to him that the propositions on each side of the House did not differ very materially in their object. While his hon. Friend the Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) asked to send his Bill to a Select Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) proposed to negative the second reading of the Bill, and to refer the whole question to a Committee upstairs, upon the report of which Committee a Bill might hereafter be introduced. But he thought, as the hon. Member for Peeblesshire had placed his Bill before them, whether the proposition it embodied were in all respects such as to meet the case, it was but fair that the House should send that proposition for consideration to a Committee. There were many points in the Bill from which he differed as much as his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; but he felt assured that if the Bill were sent to a Committee upstairs, with power to call evidence, all that his hon. Friend wished would be obtained. He (Mr. F. Maule) wished that he could convince himself of the truth of the view taken of his countrymen by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. A. Hastie), with reference to the prevalence of this sad vice. He was not one who would say anything derogatory to the character of his own country; but he could not conceal from himself that in Scotland, with a population not amounting to 3,000,000, there was a consumption of raw spirits of not less than 6,000,000 gallons a year. So that upon a calculation it appeared that for every individual, from the man who was upon the very verge of the grave, down to the infant who had just entered life, there was an average consumption of spirits of near two gallons and a half per annum. It had been stated by his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Hastie) that the number of licensed public-houses in Glasgow for the sale of spirits had decreased from the rate of one to every 74 inhabitants to one in every 164; but surely this was a most frightful state of things. The idea that in a city containing 350,000 inhabitants there should be houses capable of deriving a profit from the sale of ardent spirits in the ratio of one in every

717
164 individuals of that population, young and old, was monstrous, and he could only hope that some remedy might be devised for such a state of things. English gentlemen had no idea of the enormous consumption of spirits in Scotland. He rather agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that if they could do nothing else in this matter than adopt the open system of granting licences by the Excise, it would be more preferable than the system which at present existed, which was that every grocer's shop was open for the sale of various other articles besides those of grocery. They sold bread, and they were allowed licences for the sale of spirits. Now, this had a double effect. If infringed upon the rights of the fair trader in the article of bread, because, while the honest baker sold his bread at the market price, the grocer undersold him. But how did he makeup the difference? Why, by selling at the same time that which was the bane of his countrymen—ardent spirits. It was to that system that he traced much of the demoralisation of his countrymen and of his country. It was in those grocers' shops that the servant girls first learned to taste spirits, and in which the youth of the country acquired their early taste for them; and, he said again, he would rather see the gin palaces of London established at the corner of every street in Glasgow and Edinburgh, than that this system of the sale of spirits at grocers' shops should be continued. If the sale of spirits were confined to public-houses, the lads and young women would be seen going into them, and a sense of shame would make them desist; or, if they resorted to them, the brand of infamy would be stamped upon them. Whereas at present they went surreptitiously into these grocers' shops, where they acquired a taste for raw spirits, which grew upon them, so that they went on from vice to vice, till it finally ended in their irretrievable ruin, he had been told by those who were old enough to know the fact, that the time was when beer was the general article of consumption with the people of Scotland; but he feared that if every facility were given for setting up beer shops it would fail, from the simple fact that the people would not resort to them to drink it. He thought it their duty to trace the means by which the consumption of spirits could be controlled; and if it could not be controlled, that it should at least be made more public than it was at present. The hon. Member for Montrose had very
718
properly stated that one great means of inducing the people in large cities to forego public-houses was to afford to them sources of public amusement, where they might spend some portion of their leisure. He did not believe that there was a finer public park in Europe than in Edinburgh, to which the people might resort; but if his hon. Friend really wished to give the people these useful resorts, he must not be too parsimonious with the public purse. The people of Scotland would be most happy to establish museums, and render them accessible to the public, provided means were afforded for that purpose. But, if they were required to furnish amusements for the people, it must be at the public expense. He would entreat the House, as they had arrived very nearly at one point in opinion, to let the Bill be lead a second time. By doing so they would commit themselves only to this principle, namely, that the consumption of spirits in Scotland was great, and ought to be diminished.
MR. OSWALDadmitted that the consumption of spirits in Scotland was very great, and ought to be diminished; but it was because he did not think that any legislative measure could effect the diminution desired, that he arose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. They were told in the preamble of the Bill that the number of public-houses in Scotland was excessive, and ought to be diminished. Now, if ever there was a case of putting the horse behind the cart it was this. The preamble alleged that, because drunkenness existed in Scotland, the public-houses in that country necessarily caused that drunkenness. They could not extinguish the love of ardent spirits by any act of that House; and he took the liberty of saying that this Bill was a piece of the purest humbug that he had seen in all his existence. Now, what did they propose to do by this Bill? They proposed to appoint a committee of justices of the peace, who were to put an end to the consumption of whisky in Scotland. English Members did not exactly know what justices of the peace were in Scotland. He had a great respect for that learned body (of which he was a member), but he must confess that they had very little business to do, except looking after poachers; they very seldom attended to any other business but that. It was a thing next to impossible to get a respectable working assemblage of justices of the peace at the quarter-sessions in Scotland.

719
He was speaking of Ayrshire. The result would be, that if the House passed this Bill, they would just establish a committee of jobbers who would act in the must arbitrary manner, and be constantly subject to the imputation of partiality, whether they acted rightly or wrongly. What had they done with the burghs? In Ayrshire there was something like five royal burghs, and they would be represented in the proposed committee in the proportion of about five to twenty. Was that fair? They were were very much mistaken if they thought the people in Scotland would submit to such a proposition. The appointment of the proposed committee would take away the very means by which the putting down of public-houses could be most effectually accomplished. A committee, such as was proposed, would deprive local experience of its due weight. The local knowledge of one justice of the peace would have no avail against the decision of ten other justices, who would be found to be entirely ignorant of the matters submitted to them. He would venture a prophecy on this matter—this Bill would not diminish the number of drunkards in Scotland by so much as one; its only effect would be to give a monopoly to the existing public-houses. If this Bill were passed, the licensing system in Scotland, which was already had enough, would become a gigantic and intolerable job, from beginning to end. One of the most ardent supporters of this Bill—the hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie)—admitted that he approved of only one clause in this Bill of twenty-six clauses. It would seem that the Bill was about to be referred to a Select Committee, with the view of its entire reconstruction; but was that the way in which the House of Commons ought to do business? Was the House going to delegate the whole of its functions to a Select Committee? He regretted the course which Her Majesty's Government had adopted with reference to this measure. He thought it was a matter of such importance that they ought to have taken it into their own hands. He extremely regretted that pressure of public business would deprive the people of Scotland of the active co-operation of the right hon. Member for Perth (Mr. P. Maule), whose talents, industry, and conciliatory conduct had gained for him the love and esteem of every Scotch Member in that House, of whatever shade of politics. He (Mr. Oswald) did not know whether he had said too much. Perhaps he had, but he had
720
been carried away by a feeling of patriotic enthusiasm. He had been many years in that House, and had seen many attempts of amateur or volunteer legislation, but they had all been unsuccessful. This, he believed, was an attempt of that character, and he therefore protested against it. If the Government thought this was a measure that ought to be supported, he was sorry they did not take it out of the hands of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peeblesshire. If they did not take it out of his hands, he (Mr. Oswald) wished the hon. Member for Peeblesshire had waited until he could have brought it in himself from the other (the Government) side of the House. Yesterday there was a meeting of twenty-eight Scotch Members, including the Lord Advocate and the hon. Member for Montrose, and a majority of sixteen to twelve was against the Bill. This was an effort to browbeat and humiliate the inhabitants of the large towns of Scotland.
MR. MACGREGORregretted that a single Member of the Government could be found to give his support to such a Bill as this, objectionable as it was in principle, and at variance with every sound commercial maxim. For his own part, he believed it would be utterly ineffectual as a remedy for the drunkenness which prevailed in Scotland, and that Parliament would never be able by legislation of that sort to make the people of Scotland less drunken or more moral than they now were. In his opinion, the only real mode of correcting the evil was to adopt a general system of education. Although a great deal had been said about the drunkenness which existed in Glasgow, he believed that by far the greater portion of it was to be found among the Irish in that town, or in-those other portions of Scotland where the operation of the poor-law had been carried out with the greatest oppression. Instead of this Bill, therefore, he would recommend the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the general moral condition of the Scottish people.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, his countrymen appeared to him to be placed in a most unfortunate predicament. For while every one allowed that a great, serious, and crying evil existed in Scotland, and that the demoralising and brutalising vice of drunkenness was increasing there; it was now urged that legislation—amateur or volunteer legislation, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Oswald) termed it—would be produc-

721
tive of no beneficial results. But it was not in that spirit that the House of Commons had taken up and legislated upon the hours of labours in factories and employment in coal mines. It was an indisputable fact that all the great and praiseworthy efforts which had of late years been made in Scotland for the spread of education and the social improvement of the people, had been rendered utterly abortive and powerless by the prevalence of this vice of drunkenness. That was a fact which might be regarded as pretty well established, upon consulting the returns which related to the convictions for serious offences in Scotland. Mr. Sheriff Alison had devoted considerable attention to this subject, and he (Mr. C. Bruce) had it upon that gentleman's authority, that in the year 1841 the educated criminals committed for serious crimes in Scotland amounted to 2,834, whilst the commitments of uneducated criminals numbered (696—the proportion of educated to uneducated criminals being in the ratio of four to one. If, therefore, they were to wait until the spread of education supplied the means of checking the evil, 'no feared they would have to wait a very long time. The House might rest assured that the increase of committals for serious crimes in Scotland had gone on in a much faster ratio than the increase of the population of that country; and the most competent authorities ascribed that increase to the demoralising habit of drunkenness. The commitments in 1824 amounted to 1802; in 1830 to 2,329; in 1840 to 3,872; and in 1848 to within a fraction of 5.000. But in that long interval the population had increased by some hundreds of thousands only. If the House resolved to go into such a general inquiry as that which was recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), of course the Committee would come down with a large blue book; but it would be treated as most of the blue books were treated in that House, it would be scarcely looked at, and any practical legislation upon the subject would be indefinitely postposed. All who were acquainted with the extent to which the vice of drunkenness was carried in Scotland would think his hon. Friend (Mr. F. Mackenzie) deserving of the gratitude and thanks of the country for giving this House the opportunity of going into Committee to consider of a practical and efficient remedy for the evil. Two-thirds of the crime and one-half the pauperism of
722
Glasgow had been attributed by Mr. Sheriff Alison to this one cause of drunkenness alone; and he (Mr. C. Bruce) emphatically denied that legislation would not be productive of good effects. He trusted, then, that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill, in order that it might go upstairs to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence upon the whole question. He had not the least doubt that the result of such a step would be, that a good Bill would come down to them.
MR. COWANregretted that the vice of drunkenness prevailed so greatly in Scotland, and among his own constituents. He would be willing to support any measure calculated to remedy this state of things; but after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, and notwithstanding the good motives and intentions of the promoters of the Bill, he could not bring himself to the belief that it was one calculated in the least degree to effect the object in view. He admitted that the congregation of low public-houses in Scotland had been a great evil to Scotland; at the same time he did not conceive that by authorising the justices to delegate to a small committee a summary power to diminish the number of licences, was the mode of remedying the evil. He would submit that it was better to grant licences than to encourage low unlicensed houses, to form, as it were, secret nests of little clubs of drunkards, as would unquestionably be the case if the regular public-houses were put down. Paradoxical as it might seem, In held that, as the means of the poorer classes were diminished, so did their indulgence in intoxicating liquor increase; for he apprehended that the state of the dregs of the population in our towns produced a kind of despair which prompted them to sacrifice everything for the gratification of their depraved appetites. In Edinburgh, forty years ago, New Year's day was kept as a day of dissipation and drunkenness; and on one occasion, in 1812, a frightful riot was got up on the 1st of January in that year by a knot of young men under the influence of ardent spirits, and in consequence of which three of them suffered on the scaffold. There was, however, a great difference now in the habits of the people. For several years past, New Year's day had been made a universal holyday, and he was glad to bear out what his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had

723
said as to the benefits resulting from giving inducements to the people to assemble together in order to visit places of interest and amusement. All the objects of attraction in Edinburgh had been visited by tens of thousands of working men with their wives and families, and not the slightest injury had resulted to any one of those places of recreation. He regretted that Government had not taken the subject of this Bill into their own hands.
SIR JOHN HOPEwould support the second reading of the Bill, though he believed nothing would come of it unless the Lord Advocate took charge of it in Committee.
The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, no one connected with Scotland could doubt that the Bill proposed to remedy, to a certain extent, a very great evil in that country. Whatever might have been the improvement in the morals of the Scotch people of late years—and it was great—it was, nevertheless, true that drunkenness was the crying and scandalous vice of the country. No man who was at all acquainted with the state of crime there, could fail to see that if the amount of drunkenness could be diminished even to a very small extent, the result would at once be apparent in the diminished amount of crime. And it was because he was unwilling to throw an obstacle in the way of any measure that was designed to effect a beneficial result, that he should vote for the second reading of the present Bill; though if he were asked to give his support the details, he must say that he would not undertake to do so. The subject was a very important one; and he preferred sending the Bill to a Committee upstairs, because he thought a more effectual measure would be thereby obtained than by referring the whole question to a general Committee of Inquiry. The Bill dealt only with the licensing system; and whilst he did not anticipate any benefit from a mere change of that system, he did hope much good from a thorough revision of it.
MR. ELLIOTobjected to the principle of the Bill, as well as to the details by which that principle was to be carried out. It was proposed by it to change the whole system of licensing, and to place the power of giving licences in the hands of justices selected by the Court of Quarter Sessions, who were to fix the exact number of public-houses in the county. This was an entirely arbitrary power; in point of fact, a man
724
who considered himself aggrieved by the decision of those magistrates had no appeal at all; and it would open the door to a system of favouritism and jobbing which would be most objectionable. There was not one Scotch Member to whom he had spoken who did not pronounce that the Bill was utterly impracticable. No one was more sensible than he was as to the evils of drunkenness; but he objected to this Bill because he believed it would be totally inefficient to remedy those evils.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, his intention was, if the Bill were read a second time, to move that it be then referred to a Select Committee, which should have power to send for persons, papers, and records. In that case the Bill would be kept before the House, might be altered in the Committee, and thus, when it came down to the House, they might hope to have legislation upon the subject in the course of the year. On the other hand, if they did not take that course, but appointed a Select Committee to institute a general inquiry, as had been recommended by some hon. Members, the only end would be the production of a fruitless report, and an indefinite postponement of legislation.
VISCOUNT MELGUNDbelieved that this scheme of legislation was wholly vicious in principle; and, far from curing the evils complained of, would only increase those which at present existed.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that not one of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the second reading, had adduced a single word of argument in support of the Bill. Several had said that they did not approve of the details of the measure, and yet they asked the House to affirm it by voting for the second reading.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 67: Majority 56.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS BILL.
Order for Second Reading, read.
MR. AGLIONBYmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. HODGSONwould suggest that the second reading should be postponed for a week. The provisions were of a complicated nature, and the Bill had been in the hands of Members only about twenty-four hours. He had been requested to send

725
down to the country copies of the Bill to individuals interested in copyhold tenure, and he wished to ascertain their opinions before the Bill was read a second time.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, it would be clearly his interest, as an independent Member having charge of a Bill for which he desired the support of the House, to give ample time for its examination; but in this cast he did not think the appeal for delay by the hon. Member who had just spoken was well founded. If this were a new measure, he would at once have acceded to the request of the hon. Member; but he had brought in the Bill last Session, and the Select Committee to which it was referred, directed him to report the Bill to the House, who allowed it to be circulated during the recess. He had, too given public notice that he should bring in the Bill on the first opportunity during the present Session, and, with the exception of one technical portion, he had not altered one single part of the Bill, but had abided by the instructions of the Committee. The measure was therefore as well known now as it would be two months hence, and he would ask the House, under these circumstances, whether it was right to put off the second reading for a whole week?. To do so would be to inflict a great hardship upon those hon. Gentlemen who had thought it their duty to come down to discuss the measure.
MR. HODGSONurged, that persons interested in the measure should have an opportunity of being heard against it by petition or otherwise.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, he must confess that he did not entirely understand the Bill, and thought it undesirable that such important interests as were involved should be dealt with so rapidly. When the hon. Member (Mr. Aglionby) spoke, of this measure having been brought in at the end of last Session, he must be perfectly well aware that Bills introduced at that period were rarely sufficiently well-considered by the country. In his own county (Lincolnshire) a great many varied interests would he affected by the Bill, and he should probably receive petitions to present against it. He hoped, therefore, it would be a general understanding that the House would adopt no hurried legislation on the subject, but that sufficient time would be afforded for fully considering the measure.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he was perfectly ready to explain the provisions of the Bill
726
if it were the wish of the House that he should do so. [Cries of "No," and "Yes."] When he he heard on the one side "yes," and on the other side "no," he would take the liberty of exercising his own judgment, and doing what he thought was fair. The principle of the Bill might be stated in two words; it was in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission on Real Property that sat in the year 1832. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the book in the library containing the Report of that Commission, they would see the reasons that induced them to recommend that Copyhold tenure should be abolished. A Committee had also been appointed to inquire into the subject, on the Motion of Lord Campbell, then Her Majesty's Attorney General, and that Committee gave its most serious consideration to every part of the question. That Committee almost unanimously agreed—and it was the late Sir Robert Peel's opinion—that a Bill should be passed for the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, and that after some time a measure for compulsory enfranchisement should be passed. Ten years had since passed, and the Legislature had not yet made the enfranchisement compulsory. He had brought in Bills during the last two years to compel the enfranchisement of copyholds. Those Bills were read a second time on each occasion, but they did not meet with the approval of certain hon. Members, and particularly those connected with manors. It was said that his measure was a one-sided measure—that it compelled the lord, and did not compel the tenant. He (Mr. Aglionby) answered that it was one thing to compel a man who exercised an oppressive tenure against a number of individuals to do a certain act on receiving compensation, and it was another thing to compel men who were satisfied to hold under that tenure to pay the lord of the manor for their enfranchisement. The House had last year referred both his Bills to a Select Committee, who excluded what they thought was objectionable, threw overboard his notion of onesided compulsion, and made it compulsory on certain terms on both parties to act under the measure. That was the principle of the present Bill, and if it was now read a second time it would be for the Committee to settle the details. The object was to enfranchise copyhold tenure in such a way as to give full compensation to the lord of the manor, to do justice to the tenant, and also do justice to the stewards

727
of manors. The question of compensation would be left to the Commission for Copyhold Enfranchisement, to whom also it was proposed to leave the carrying out of the compulsory enfranchisement.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDsaid, he had had this Bill so short a time before him, that he could not say he perfectly comprehended it. He was most anxious to see a Bill that would carry on the enfranchisement in an equitable manner both to the lord of the manor and tenant. He had opposed the Bill which had been brought forward on former occasions, and he felt inclined to oppose this on the same ground, that this was a one-sided measure, and that it was a compulsory measure that would act unequally and be unjust to the lords of manors; and in many instances it would be exceedingly oppressive to the tenants, who would be called on to pay sums of money which it might be inconvenient for them to pay. He had great doubts whether they could have a compulsory measure; but they ought to give greater facilities to both parties to come in voluntarily. But there was another objection to the Bill. He wished to see the copyhold tenure—the antiquated feudal tenure—abolished, because the real object of that tenure in former times had now passed away. But this Bill did not abolish copyhold tenure, because the enfranchisement was to entered on the court roll which was to be kept in existence. [Mr. AGLIONBY: That is not so.] He understood that it was so. It was to be converted into an annual rent-charge, which would be attended with all the inconvenience of the copyhold tenure, and, after all, it would not be anything like the fee-simple. His opinion was that if they meddled with it they should give the freehold at once, and that, above all, they should not require any record in the Copyhold Court, as this Bill would do. [Mr. AGLIONBY: No!] The hon. Member said "No." The hon. Member declared before that that he wished to keep the Copyhold Court as a Court of Registration; that he had supported a measure for the registration of deeds; and, that, having failed in that, his object was to make the Copyhold Courts serve to register deeds. It was for this reason that he was opposed to this Bill. He thought it was an unjust Bill, giving preference to the tenant over the rights of the lord of the manor; and that it would be an unjust measure, as retaining the old Copyhold Courts, with all their objections
728
and grievances. He thought that it would not give a freehold instead of a copyhold tenure, which was the thing to be desired. Another objectionable provision in the Bill was the giving compensation to stewards. Why, it was a stewards' Bill. He had a Copyhold Court, and he was obliged to pay an attorney every year for holding the Court. He considered this to be a grievance; but he was told that if he did not do it he might lose some of his rights. The attorney was amply paid for his work; but if there was an end of the work, did they mean to say that the attorney had a vested interest in that employment? He believed that when the Bill was fairly examined, it would be found that it was not worthy of support.
MR. HUMEhoped the Bill would pass. It was a mere matter of detail whether compensation should be granted to the stewards. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Strickland) that they were not entitled to compensation; but this could be settled in Committee. The principle of the Bill was, that it simplified tenure and lessened expense, and to that principle he was favourable.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the hon. Member for Preston (Sir G. Strickland) only dealt with the details of the Bill, and not the principle. In two counties for which he could speak, the greatest difficulty was found in uniting small farms, in consequence of the copyhold tenure. The House had already sanctioned the principle of the Bill; he hoped, therefore, it would be permitted to pass.
MR. MULLINGSwished to correct an erroneous impression of the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Strickland). The object of the Bill was really to make the whole of the copyhold property free, and the retention of the Courts was to make it apparent to the world that it was free. As to the compensation to stewards, the proposition merely was, that on the execution of a deed of enfranchisement they should have one set of copyhold fees only, including the deed of enfranchisement. As far as the Bill went, he believed it to be a very good Bill.
Bill read 2°.

COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BRIGHT(in the absence of Mr. Mr. Gibson), moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that when hon. Members remembered the great extent to which this Bill differed from its predecessor, they would not be surprised to hear that he felt it his duty to meet the Bill at this stage with the most decided opposition. Measures of this hind were, in his judgment, an attempt to introduce into the financial arrangements of counties principles that were not adapted to them. Without calling in question the connexion that ought to exist between taxation and representation, he was prepared to assort that that rule, although generally applicable to all countries with free institutions, did not apply at all to county affairs, or only in a degree which was very limited, and it would not be wise in Parliament, for the sake of adopting a theoretical advantage, to tamper with arrangements which had long worked beneficially to the country, and which had never worked more beneficially than at the present time. The financial affairs of the counties were now confessedly conducted with greater publicity, a closer economy, and a more scrupulous regard for the general interests of the public, than at any former period. In spite of these views and these facts, he should, however, have not opposed the second reading of the Bill had it been presented to them in the shape in which it came from the Committee last year, because the House had so far recognised the principle of the Bill as to send it to a Select Committee for further consideration. In that case he would have reserved his objections for discussion in Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) bad not brought in his Bill in that shape, or even in the shape in which it was submitted to the House at the commencement of last Session. He must call attention to the extraordinary course taken by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill, Two Sessions ago, when the right hon. Gentleman first brought in this measure, it was referred to a Select Committee, which was empowered to take evidence. That Committee, of which he (Sir J. Pakington) was a member, devoted itself to a most laborious inquiry into the whole subject. That Committee was selected by the right hon. Gentleman himself. It was a Committee to the composition of which they who were unfavourable to the principle of the Bill
730
objected. But this Committee, so selected raid so constituted, rejected the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and recommended to the House, in a series of resolutions, a number of improvements which ought to be introduced. Notwithstanding that decision of the Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of last Session, brought in the same Bill. It was again referred to a Select Committee, but not for inquiry, but a Committee on the Bill itself. On that Committee sat some of the most distinguished Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) was a member of that Committee, and he was most indefatigable in his attendance and attention to its duties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), whose absence from the House at that moment he (Sir J. Pakington) much regretted, was also on the Committee, and likewise gave great attention to this Bill. It was presided over with exemplary patience by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Baines); and after a lengthened investigation, which lasted the whole Session, the Bill was returned to the House with many improvements. It was then too late to pass it; and it was to be expected that when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) brought in the Bill this Session, it would have taken the shape in which the Committee had left it. He (Sir J. Pakington) did not approve of the Bill even in that shape: it appeared to him, that in their anxiety to avoid certain inconveniences, the Committee had fallen into others equally, if not more, objectionable, creating, for instance, double and concurrent jurisdictions, which must prove extremely injurious; and he doubted much whether be could have supported that Bill. But what was the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman now? It appeared to him to be one most disrespectful to that House, for the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill differing not merely in unimportant details, but in those which were most essential, and which formed the very foundation of the enactment. Without going into minor matters, he would just name one most essential difference. In all the former measures introduced into this House on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that these intended county financial boards should consist, one-half of persons elected by the ratepayers,

731
and the other half of magistrates of the county; but in the Bill now before the House the magistrates were thrown out altogether, and would no longer form even a part of that body which directed the whole expenditure of the county, unless indeed they were elected by the ratepayers, who thus had the option whether any magistrate should be on the board or not. This was a change in the principle of the Bill so essential and important as to justify him (Sir J. Pakington) in giving the Bill his most strenuous opposition. He could not believe that Her Majesty's Government could give their assent to the Bill as it was. He asked the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether he was prepared to sanction a measure which destroyed altogether the jurisdiction of the magistracy in the government of the gaols, the management of the police force, the care of the lunatic asylums, and in many other branches of the internal administration of this country, in which the magistrates had hitherto performed so important and so useful a part? Was the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) prepared, in the present state of the police of this country, which made it most essential that the magistrates should retain the powers invested in them by so many Acts of Parliament, to adopt a measure such as this? Was the right hon. Baronet prepared at this moment to take from them the management of the gaols, than which there was no subject more important, or one on which public opinion was less informed or matured? Was the House prepared to take the gaols entirely out of the hands of the justices, and leave the system to be pursued in them to a board such as that proposed in this Bill? This was a matter, in truth, far too important to be left to volunteer legislation. The Bill dealt with institutions of great antiquity; it dealt with the conduct of affairs of the last importance to this country; it dealt with a long series of Acts of Parliament placed on the Statute-book; and it enacted what would be in effect a complete revolution of the affairs of our counties. Such great interests ought to be dealt with only by the Government—after the most careful consideration, and on the responsibility of a Cabinet. He should move, therefore, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. HODGSONseconded the Amendment.
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. ROBERT PALMERsaid, that having supported the second reading of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of last Session, and having punctually attended the meetings of the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, he had been prepared to support the second reading of that measure. He had been prevented by circumstances from attending in his place since the first night of the Session, but came up to town in order to support the second reading to-day. But what was his surprise to find that the principle of the Bill was altogether altered, and was based upon another principle. He did not by any means object to the principle that those persons who contributed to the county rate should have a voice in the expenditure. Last year the Bill provided that the ratepayers, through the Boards of Guardians, should nominate one person from each Board to be a member of the county financial boards, and that the county magistrates in quarter-sessions should nominate an equal number of their body to sit at the Board. He was doubtful whether any particular advantages would be gained by the ratepayers by this arrangement; but he did not object to it. He now found a Bill of a totally different nature, by which it was left entirely to the Boards of Guardians to say whether a single magistrate, however large his property, or however great his influence in the county, should be a member of the board charged with the administration and expenditure of the county rates. To such a measure he (Mr. R. Palmer) could not agree, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt fairly with the House, or with the Committee of last year, in thus altering the principle of his Bill. He (Mr. R. Palmer) had endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of the ratepayers of his county (Berkshire) relative to the Bill of last year; and last August he sent a copy of the Bill to the chairman of every Board of Guardians in the county, with a printed letter explanatory of the objects of the Bill, and requesting that it might be taken into consideration by the Board. Several months elapsed, and he received no reply to his communication, which did not look as if the Boards were very eager for such a measure. His letter was afterwards printed

733
in the county paper, and then he received four communications from Boards of Guardians. The first, from the Board of Cook-ham Union, and signed by the clerk, communicated a resolution of the Board to the effect that the expenditure of the county was conducted in the most economical and satisfactory manner, and that, in their opinion, the Bill was unnecessary. The next was from Abingdon, the Guardians of which Union resolved that they did not consider there was any necessity for the application of the Bill to the county of Berkshire. The next communication was a private letter from the chairman of the Newbury Board of Guardians, who stated that the Board had met and arrived at no conclusion regarding the Bill. There was only one union out of the twelve to which he had written, that had returned a reply favourable to the Bill. The Board of Guardians of the Wantage Union avowed their belief that the object of the Bill was just and the principle good; but, at the same time, they thought the object of such a measure would be defeated if ex officio guardians were allowed to sit at the county hoard. Thus only one Board of Guardians out of twelve expressed an opinion in favour of the Bill. He was consequently prepared to vote against the second reading of the present Bill; and, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) found himself in a minority, he, had only himself to blame for not having dealt more fairly with the House.
MR. MILNER GIBSONthought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down went a little too far when he assumed that, because certain of the Unions in his county were silent, they were opposed to the measure. He had quite as good a right to say that silence might imply consent. Anxious as he was to see the ratepayers exercising some control over the county expenditure, he could not go so far as the Board of Guardians of the Wantage Onion, who declared that the county magistrates ought not even to be eligible to sit as members of the financial boards.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, the Wantage Guardians thought that the Poor Law Guardians ought not to have the power of electing a person who was a magistrate.
MR. MILNER GIBSON, on the contrary, was in favour of allowing the guardians to elect magistrates if they thought proper. He (Mr. M. Gibson) proposed to constitute the county boards by what ap-
734
peared to him to be a proper mode, namely, to give the ratepayers power to select such persons, be they magistrates or not, as seemed to be best qualified to act as a financial board for controlling the assessment and expenditure of the county rates. With regard to the charge of unfairness on his part towards the Committee, he thought hon. Members were going too far in making that assertion, because he felt he was entitled, when bringing in the Bill, to have the provisions in accordance with his opinions. While he adhered to the principle of the measure, he felt he was entitled to bring the matter of detail in the way before the House that he thought the House ought to deal with it, leaving it to the House in Committee to deal with those matters as it thought proper. He admitted the Bill, as originally proposed, was so constituted, that of the members of these financial boards one half were to be magistrates, and the other half were not to be magistrates; but in going through the Select Committee very great alterations were made in the powers vested in these boards. The Committee ruled that the regulation of gaols, the appointment of officers, and all other matters not strictly financial, should be left intact to the magistrates; and it being no longer necessary that a certain proportion of magistrates should be associated with the elected members, the Bill was purposely altered, leaving the ratepayers to elect magistrates if they pleased, but not compelling them to take magistrates, as it was not intended to trench in any way on the judicial duties of the magistracy. The Bill proposed that the financial hoard should fix the amount of salaries which the officers should receive, leaving to the magistrates to appoint those officers, and to make the regulations necessary in the gaols; and this, he contended, was in accordance with the principle laid down by the Committee, that these boards should be strictly financial, and not in the smallest degree interfere with the judicial duties of the magistrates. With regard to the alterations respecting the constabulary made in the Bill since it came out of the Committee, it was first proposed that the financial boards should decide whether the rural police should he adopted or not; and as to the appointment of the chief constable, the Committee in the first instance decided that the financial boards should have that power, because it was said town councils in boroughs had

735
that power, and the object of the Bill was to adhere as far as possible to the same principles as those which were recognised in boroughs. A division took place in the Committee on the question, and it was decided by a majority that that was a sound mode of proceeding. Afterwards, and at the end of the inquiry, the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department thought proper to come down and reverse that decision. The proposal for vesting the management of the rural police in these boards was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Commission, who was the chairman of the Committee, and gave his casting vote in its favour. He (Mr. M. Gibson) thought that first decision of the Committee was the correct one, and he had not felt bound to alter the Bill in accordance with the second decision. He was not aware that there were any other alterations. The Bill, contained many clauses, relating to matters of detail of considerable importance, which were originated in the Committee, and for many of those suggestions the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). The hon. Member for Droitwich had reflected upon him (Mr. M. Gibson) for being a volunteer legislator. He (Mr. M. Gibson) admitted that it would have been very desirable if the Government had taken the subject into their own hands. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was the first volunteer, or rather the pioneer in the matter; and he observed that in all improvements, before they were ripened to such a point as would induce the Government to take them up, the initiative must be the work of volunteers. There would never be any progress if no one would bring forward measures until the Government were prepared to submit them to the House; and no one set a greater example of volunteer legislation than the hon. Member for Droitwich himself, who, at this early period of the Session, had already one, if not two, Bills on the paper for consideration. The principle of this Bill having been twice assented to by the House, he thought the Government ought to have felt it their duty to have taken it up. He conceived that when the House of Commons had deliberately sanctioned a principle, it became the duty of the Executive Government to carry that principle into practical legislation. For his own part, he should be most glad to surrender this measure
736
into the hands of Government, if they would give some promise that they were ready to take it up. He was sorry, however, that the hon. Member for Droitwich and the Gentlemen who sat opposite should have made this a party question. He was surprised when he read the hon. Member's notice on the paper, that he should move the second reading of the Bill that day six months; and he thought he had a much better right to charge the hon. Gentleman with unfairness, than the hon. Gentleman had to charge him with unfairness, because after labouring to amend this Bill in so many ways, and devoting so much attention to the subject, to attempt to negative the Bill, when it was obvious the details could be altered in Committee; was, in his opinion, taking a course somewhat of a party character. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that he did not desire to found his arguments on any better authorities than he derived from that side of the House. What said the Earl of Derby himself? Speaking on the second reading of the Petty Sessions Bill, he said—
"That he thought, with his noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, the great and rapid increase of county rates well deserved their Lordships' attention. In the county with which he was connected, the county rate had risen from 77,000 l. in 1823, to 175,000 l. 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."
What did he find in a petition from the farmers of Buckinghamshire, the constituents of another distinguished Member on their side of the House? The petition stated that the petitioners represented a Union of forty parishes, mostly agricultural; that they were principally occupiers of land, and in that capacity contributed to the poor-rates, over which, as ratepayers, they possessed a right of administration and control; that they also contributed largely to the county rates; and, without impugning the proper application of those rates, they respectfully urged that the principle of supervision in the case of the poor-rates should be extended to the county rates; that the county expenditure was increasing, and, being one of the most important branches of internal administration, the occupiers of land ought to be represented in the management of those funds. His only object in the constitution of financial boards, was to carry out that principle, so that magistrates, farmers, and ratepayers, might co-operate together. He did not desire to create any

737
bad feeling among different classes; he wished to give the ratepayers the power of choosing, among all classes in the county, whether magistrates or not, fit and proper business men to control the expenditure of the county rates. That was the simple principle of the Bill, and he hoped the House would not—in throwing it out on the second reading—affirm that magistrates were to be vested with the irresponsible control of these large sums, but that it was fitting that legislation should take place for the purpose of giving the ratepayers that control which they were entitled constitutionally to possess.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not coincide in the censure which had been cast on his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) for presenting for consideration a Bill which embodied his own views and opinions; at the same time, looking at the important differences between this Bill and the Bill on the same subject last Session, he thought it would have been better if, in moving for leave to introduce the Bill, his right hon. Friend had stated the outline of his proposed measure. But while he gave full liberty to his right hon. Friend to propose what Bill he pleased—dissenting, as his right hon. Friend did, from the decision of a majority of the Committee appointed last year—those who on a former occasion advocated the principle of admitting representation in the control of county expenditure were not the least bound to support him, without previously considering what were the recommendations of the Committee, and the details as well as the principle of the Bill submitted to the House. While he (Sir G. Grey) stated last year that, although no great evils could be said to exist in the administration of the county rates, and although the amount of those rates was gradually diminishing, he was unable to deny that in principle there should be a representation in the constitution of financial boards, to whom should be entrusted the administration and control of county expenditure; he also felt the subject was a most complicated one, and he only consented to a second reading of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, on which he volunteered to give what assistance he could in amending its provisions. The House agreed to the second reading, and the Bill went to a Select Committee. He was bound to say he never belonged to a Committee which gave more close atten-
738
tion to business, or discussed the matter before them in a fairer spirit; but his right hon. Friend had hardly stated correctly what were the proceedings of that Committee. There were some important distinctions, not only between the Bill originally proposed and that returned to the House, but between the original Bill and the Bill now introduced. The boards, as first proposed by his right hon. Friend, were to consist partly of magistrates and partly of members of Boards of Guardians, each Board electing one member. The Committee made no alteration in that respect, but they thought it inexpedient to retain the ineligibility of magistrates to be elected by the Boards of Guardians. His right hon. Friend now proposed that the magistrates should all be excluded. The Boards were wholly to be elected, and the magistrates were not only to be excluded from the right to form a portion of the Board, but from taking any share of the election of members by the Boards of Guardians. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to agree to that exclusion. He could not assent to a Bill containing such an exclusion. [Mr. M. GIBSON: That could be altered in Committee, He would deal with that presently. Then, again, it was proposed that the whole powers of the magistrates in the county constabulary should be transferred to these financial boards. The Committee discussed that matter very fully, and, on a close division, decided to that effect; but then the right hon. Gentleman said, he (Sir G. Grey) came down and took upon himself to reverse that decision. In the first place, he had no such power. The Committee paid close attention to the provisions of the Bill, and as they proceeded conviction was forced on the minds of a majority of the Committee that the original decision was wrong. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), whom he regretted not to see in his place, avowed the change in his opinion on that point, and invited the Committee to reconsider the question. The Committee adopted in their final determination the view which he (Sir G. Grey) entertained, that it would be most unadvisable, inexpedient, and dangerous to the public peace, to deprive the magistrates of all control in the appointment of the chief constable, and in the arrangements con-rooted with the constabulary. It was said this power existed in boroughs, but the Committee felt that there was a great difference between the two cases; that the

739
area was much larger in a county than in a borough, the ratepayers were more scattered, and the magistrates in particular districts were responsible for the preservation of the peace. He could not then assent to a Bill which would deprive the magistrates of all voice in the appointment of police officers, or in fixing the amount of salary for which they could procure the service of persons competent to discharge those duties. The same objection partially applied to gaols, inasmuch as the Bill proposed to leave the management and appointment of officers in the hands of the magistrates, but to give the financial boards unrestricted power over the amount of salaries. Last year clauses were prepared by which the financial boards would have a voice in fixing the amount of salaries, as well as the magistrates, and, in case of disagreement, reference would be made to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman had rejected all those clauses, and practically, while he kept the word of promise to the ear, he broke it to the hope, for it was evident that if the financial board should have the unrestricted power of fixing salaries, they would practically possess the power of appointing the recipients of them. The right hon. Gentleman had not acceded to the suggestions of the Committee with respect to lunatic asylums; and with regard to Clause 45, the general powers thereby transferred were far more than the Committee thought expedient. Those were the leading points; and if the Bill stood in its present shape, he could not give his assent to it. The right hon. Gentleman said, the principle of the Bill being admitted, the details could be considered in Committee of the whole House. Looking at the complicated nature of the details and the numerous Acts of Parliament connected with the subject, he thought a Select Committee was the proper body by whom these details could be considered. They had had a Select Committee, to which he had given his assistance to the best of his ability, and he was not prepared to assent to a second reading in order to go over precisely the same grounds, and without any result. If there was any reasonable hope that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to such Amendments as would embody the modified principle to which he (Sir G. Grey) gave his assent last year, and the application of which the Committee endeavoured to reconcile with the existing law, he should be prepared to vote in favour of the second reading. But
740
if those Amendments were to be considered in Committee of the whole House, and objected to by the promoters of the Bill, the only result would be to consume a great deal of time very uselessly; and, therefore, whilst adhering to the opinion expressed last year with regard to the principle of that Bill, he was not prepared to assent to the second reading of the Bill now before the House.
MR. BRIGHThad not heard anything to prove that a good Bill might not be made out of the Bill submitted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson); and he thought the differences between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the promoters of the Bill, might be easily compromised. For instance, the right hon. Secretary of State might move clauses which he moved in Committee upstairs; and, assuming they were accepted, and no other objection existed, the Bill could pass into law. The right hon. the Secretary of State said he offered his assistance. No doubt he offered his assistance to overthrow the Bill. It was perfectly notorious that throughout the whole transaction the right hon. Gentleman had exerted his great influence in Committee for the purpose of making this Bill as little like that the promoters wished as possible. There were some changes to which they could not agree, and they had therefore induced his right hon. Friend to bring the Bill before the House in the shape in which they now found it. With the discussion that day, and the course taken by the right hon. the Secretary of State, the Bill would not be read a second time. It was no great consequence whether it was passed in this or in the next Session, but the Bill would be passed before long, for he was satisfied there was a growing requirement among the ratepayers to have some control of county expenditure. They were told the rates were diminishing; but they had increased up to the time when the agitation commenced, and had only diminished in consequence of public attention being called to the question. Probably the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) was not aware that there were more than a hmndred parishes in which the county rate was far in excess of the poor-rate; and when the ratepayers paid those assessments they thought they had some power of control in the Boards of Guardians, whereas more than one-half was handed over to the magistrates to be expended,

741
contrary to the constitution, entirely without the control of those upon whom the assessment was made. The ratepayers would not, however, continue to pay 1,250,000 l. annually, without any supervision, without making some complaint to that House, and insisting that a measure of this kind should be passed. He trusted no man would hope again to receive any succour from the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he was certain—and he spoke after observing his speeches and his conduct—had been a concealed opponent of this measure—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—he would not say a concealed, but almost an open opponent of the measure. He thought it would have been better if, instead of playing with the measure, trifling with it, encouraging and discouraging it, the right hon. Gentleman had opposed it. However, no one out of the House relied on the Government for any support with regard to it.
MR. DEEDES, as a Member of the Committee, was bound to state publicly that it was utterly impossible for a more impartial part to have been taken by any one than was taken by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the right hon. President of the Poor Law Commission. He maintained that there were material alterations in the Bill, in principle, and not merely in detail, since it was returned to the House by the Committee last year. He dislaimed being actuated by any party motive whatever. The promoters of the Bill had departed from the usual practice of the House; and if the labours of Committees were to receive such treatment, the sooner they gave up referring matters to Select Committees the better would it be for the conduct of public business.
MR. HUMEsaid, it was to be regretted that the ratepayers of the country at large should suffer through any want of tact in the Mover of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), after twice supporting the principle of the Bill, now turned round on the ratepayers, and refused their just claims. Let the Bill go into a Committee, and let the right hon. Gentleman then propose such alterations as he thought desirable. When be (Mr. Hume) first introduced this measure, the law adviser of the Ministry bad declared to the noble Lord at the head of the Government that it was a measure which ought to be taken up by the Government.
742
He hoped the right hon. Baronet would reconsider his determination, and allow the Bill to go into Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, this question was so difficult, and, at the same time, so little understood by the right hon. Member who had brought it forward, that if he had sincerely desired its settlement he would have availed himself of the assistance given by two Committees to which the question had been referred. The right hon. Member for Manchester had accused Gentlemen sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House of being influenced by party motives in dealing with this question, and the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague (Mr. Bright) had attacked the right hon. Home Secretary in a way that was not usual; but after what had passed it was not improbable people out of doors would think that the question had been brought forward rather with a view to getting up an agitation than procuring a settlement. A good deal had been said about representation; but after all what sort of representation did this Bill propose? Representation diluted through a Board of Guardians. If there must be an electoral body, let it be the ratepayers. Boards of Guardians were respectable bodies, well adapted to the purposes fur which they were formed; but he would not consent to convert them into electoral colleges. Under the present Bill, the magistrates would be saddled with all responsibility respecting gaols, while they would be deprived of all influence over the expenditure. They were to have no voice whatever in the question whether any improvement was to take place in a prison, or whether proper salaries were given to the men in whom they vested the duties of the prison. Could any Member of that House wish to see this question settled who brought in such a provision as this? It would be better to bring in a Bill at once to sweep away the magistrates altogether, and vest the duties in the ratepayers or the Boards of Guardians. It was the same with the lunatic asylums; and he was sure it was a principle which the House would not sanction. If it was really wished to settle this complicated question, the course taken last year should have been followed; but as it was, the only alternative that now presented itself was to vote against the second reading of the Bill. He 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

743
chalked out; but he held by the principle, that so long as the magistrates had their present important duties to perform, they ought to have a share in the management.
MR. BARROWsaid, he held the principle of the Bill to be this—that the ratepayers should have the control of the taxation which they paid; and he could not concur in the view, that because the control and payment of the officers of a county were vested in the parties proposed by the Bill, therefore the whole business of that county would be brought to a dead lock. That House fixed the salaries of the Ministers of the Crown; but did the business of the country stand still on that account? The object of the Bill was very much to remove a singular anomaly, for there was no other public rate in this country in which the ratepayers had not the power of regulating the expenditure. The principle was carried out to its fullest extent in boroughs, and no difficulty whatever was experienced. Then, why should it not work well in the counties? He begged to remind hon. Members that the Commission under which they acted, as administrators of the criminal law, gave them no control whatever over the county expenditure. He had the greatest respect for the magistrates—a body with whom he was himself connected, and that respect was shared in, he was sure, by the country at large; but he did not think that ratepayers were willing to entrust the administration of their finances except to persons elected by themselves, and in some way responsible to them, and such responsibility should be secured by the principle of re-election at stated periods. When he heard the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) admit the principle of the Bill, but object to some of the provisions, he confessed that he thought he should have been prepared at least with an outline of the measure he wished to sanction. It was said the large ratepayers would be excluded under this Bill; but, as in the election of Boards of Guardians, owners had a right to vote as well as occupiers, and as the guardian of a parish belonging to a single owner had a vote as powerful as that of the guardian who represented a large number of occupiers, there was no fear that property would not have sufficient influence in the selection of the proposed board. For these and other reasons he would vote for the second reading of the Bill.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, he must
744
protest against the doctrine laid down by the last speaker, that because a Member objected to a particular measure he was therefore obliged to introduce one himself. If legislation on this matter was required, there should be a strong feeling in the country as to what the nature of that legislation ought to be. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) first introduced this subject, printed letters and petitions were sent to every Board of Guardians in England, asking them to sanction the principle of a representative system in the management of county rates; but in Lincolnshire—of which he could speak—only two Boards of Guardians gave a qualified assent to the principle of the measure. He must say, that he did not think it would be right in that House to give its approbation to a measure so different from that agreed to by the Select Committee, and brought forward last Session; and therefore he would vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. WILSON PATTENagreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that it was to be regretted that the ratepayers should be disappointed of a measure of this kind because there was a difference of opinion as to some parts of the Bill. He could state that the feeling of the county from which he came was very strong upon the question, and in deference to that feeling he would vote for the second reading. But in doing so he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had incurred considerable responsibility in taking the course he had done. When he (Mr. W. Patten) first saw the present Bill, he was surprised beyond measure. The last time he saw his right hon. Friend at Manchester, it was understood that the same Bill as that of last year was to be introduced. He would vote for the second reading, in the hope that in Committee it might be restored to something like its former shape. It was his intention if the Bill should go into Committee to support the reintroduction of a clause that would combine the control of the magistrates with that of the ratepayers.
MR. HEYWOODregretted that the Bill did not contain the same clauses of compromise that it did last year between the magistrates and those to be elected by the Boards of Guardians. He did not see how the ratepayers generally could be satisfied with the Bill as it came from the Committee. He thought the House ought to consider that the greater part of them were magistrates, and in possession of

745
power, and that they ought rather to err on the side of mercy that otherwise. A clause was introduced by the Committee by which there should be a qualification similar to that of the magistrates before a person could be elected to the board. This would have the effect of excluding small ratepayers; besides which, it was proposed to give a large share of power to the Secretary of State. He thought, therefore, his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) could not have brought in such a measure as had been proposed by the Committee. They had already obtained poor-law reform and municipal reform; and the time could not be far distant when they were to have county-rate reform.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 130: Majority 67.

List of the Ayes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Melgund, Visct.

Alcock, T.

Milligan, R.

Barrow, W. H.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bass, M. T.

Morris, D.

Bell, J.

Mowatt, F.

Bonnet, P.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, F.

Brotherton, J.

Patten, J. W.

Child, S.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Clay, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Cobden, R.

Pilkington, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Power, Dr.

Crawford, W. S,

Robartes, T. J. A.

Dawes, E.

Salwey, Col.

Duncan, G.

Scholefield, W.

Ellis, J.

Scobell, Capt.

Evans, Sir De L.

Scully, F.

Forster, M.

Smith, J. B.

Fox, W. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

French, F.

Stuart, Lord D.

Glyn, G. C.

Sullivan, M.

Grenfell, C. P.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Thompson, Col.

Harris, R.

Thornely, T.

Headlam, T. E.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Henry, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Heywood, J.

Wilcox, B. M.

Hindley, C.

Williams, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Williams, W.

Howard, Sir R.

Willyams, H.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

King, hon. J. P. L.

Gibson, T. M.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Hume, J.

List of the Noes.

Adderley, C. B.

Bowles, Adm.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Bramston, T. W.

Baillie, H. J.

Buck, L. W.

Baines rt. hon. M. T.

Bunbury, E. H.

Barrington, Visct,

Charteris, hon. F.

Beresford, W.

Christopher, R. A.

Best, J.

Clifford, H. M.

Blair, S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Blandford, Marq. of

Cobbold, J. C.

Boldero, H. G.

Cocks, T. S.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Coles, H. B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Collins, T.

746

Compton, H. C.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Cubitt, Ald.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Davies, D. A. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Divett, E.

Matheson, A.

Dodd, G.

Meux, Sir H.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Moody, C. A.

Duncuft, J.

Morgan, O.

Du Pre, C. G.

Mullings, J. R.

East, Sir J. B.

Newport, Visct.

Edwards, H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Egerton, Sir P.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Packe, C. W.

Farrer, J.

Palmer, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Portal, M.

Foley, J. H. H.

Power, N.

Forbes, W.

Prime, R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Renton, J. C.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Ricardo, O.

Freestun, Col.

Richards, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Sandars, G.

Gilpin, Col.

Scott, hon. F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Seaham, Visct.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Seymer, H. K.

Goold, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gore, W. R. O.

Slaney, R. A.

Greene, T.

Smyth, J. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Spooner, R.

Grosvenor, Earl

Stafford, A.

Halford, Sir H.

Stanford, J. F.

Hallewell, E. G.

Stanley, E.

Harcourt, G. G.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Stuart, H.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Tollemache, J.

Henley, J. W.

Townley, R. G.

Herbert, H. A.

Tyler, Sir G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Verney, Sir H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Hope, Sir J.

Walter, J.

Hotham, Lord

Watkins, Col. L.

Howard, Lord E.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

Hughes, W. B.

West, F. R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wilson, J.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Langton, W. H. P. G.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Wyvill, M.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Lewis, G. C.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

TELLERS.

Lockhart, W.

Pakington, Sir J.

Long, W.

Deedes, W.

Words added;—Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to:—Bill put off for six months.
The House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.