§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to enable the four joint parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, St. George, Bloomsbury, and St. Margaret, and St. John's, Westminster, to adopt what was known as Hobhouse's Act. What he asked was that these four great parishes should be placed on the same footing with other parishes throughout the country, and have the privilege of electing those who administered the parochial funds.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he must oppose the second reading of this Bill, which, though introduced as a public measure, was confined to four metropolitan parishes. The proper course would have been to introduce Private Bills applicable to the case of each parish, thus making the parties interested responsible for the expense, instead of throwing it upon the public. Having been foiled in a Court of Law, the promoters of this Bill now came before Parliament to carry out their object, greatly to the disadvantage of the dissentient portions of the united parishes. He should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, the Bill before the House had been made a Public Bill because its object was to amend a Public Act. These four parishes had been omitted by a mistake from Hobhouse's Act, which gave the ratepayers the right to vote for vestrymen, and all that was now asked was that they should be enabled to avail themselves of that Act.
§ MR. HENLEY
thought the only mode of dealing with these parishes was by local Bills applicable to the case of each. It was hardly possible to do justice to all the interests concerned by a common Act.
§ MR. HUME
hoped a remedy of some kind would be applied to this case. Nu- 816 merous complaints had been made to him as to the condition of these parishes; and, whether by a Public Bill, or in some other way, he trusted the grievance complained of would be removed. He considered this Bill unobjectionable, because it only proposed to include four metropolitan parishes within the provisions of a Public Act, from which they had by mistake been excluded. Therefore, the objection that the remedy sought for ought to be obtained by a Private Bill was totally inapplicable.
§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he thought that the best course would be for the united parishes to adjust their differences, and then proceed by Private Bill. He would therefore suggest the propriety of withdrawing this Bill.
§ MR. BROTHERTON
thought these metropolitan parishes ought not to be allowed to attain the objects of a Private Bill without paying the expense of such a measure. He could not see why they should receive an advantage which was denied to all other bodies.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 86: Majority 60.
§ Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Bill put off for three months.