Sitting of 11 June 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) (No. 2).
2°. Dog Stealing; County Rates.
Reported.—Sheffield Waterworks; Manchester and Birmingham Railway (Ashton Branch); Ashton, Stalybridge, and Liverpool Junction Railway (Ardwick and Guide Bridge Branches); Newport and Pontypool Railway; Lyme Regis Improvement, Market and Waterworks; Chester and Birkenhead Railway Extension; Lynn and Dereham Railway; London and Brighton Railway (Horsham Branch).
3°. and passed:—Newcastle and Berwick Railway; Manchester Improvement; Manchester Court of Record (No. 2); Bridgewater Navigation and Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. C. Bruce, from Members of the Presbytery of Elgin, against Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Loch, from Merchants, Shipowners, and others, Members of the Wick and Pultenham Chamber of Commerce, for Reduction of Tolls and Dues levied by Lighthouses.—From Kirkeaton and Holmfirth, for Inquiry into the Anatomy Act—By Mr. Bright, Mr. Busfeild, and Mr. Cowper, from a great number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—By Sir H. Halford, from Framework Knitters of Derby and Leicester, praying for Relief.—By Mr. F. R. Kelly, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Henley, from Guardians of several Poor Law Unions, against Parochial Settlement Bill.—By Sir H. Halford, Mr. Mitcalfe, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Stansfield, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. H. Drummond, from Kinnoul, for Alteration of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Philips, from Manchester, Salford, and other places, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Beer.—By Mr. Liddell, from Trustees of Nathaniel Lord Carew, late Bishop of Durham, against Salmon Fisheries Bill.

DOG STEALING BILL.
Mr. Liddellmoved the Second Reading of the Dog Stealing Bill, the object of which was to make dog stealing a misdemeanor, and to visit the second offence with transportation for seven years.
Mr. Humeobjected to several provisions of the Bill, as opening the door to great oppression. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Captain Berkeleysupported the Bill.
Mr. Warburtonopposed the Bill, as awarding punishments disproportioned to the offence, and as being inconsistent with the mild spirit of recent legislation.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he believed it was well known that dog stealing was carried on in this city to an enormous extent, and it was also known that the present Police Act was quite insufficient for its prevention. The possession of a dog was a possession recognised in law; and, although he was not prepared to support all the provisions of the present Bill, he felt that he should act consistently with his duty in giving his support to the second reading.
Mr. Watsonsaid, that, as the law stood at present, dog stealing could not be made the subject of an indictment for larceny; but it was punishable with fine, imprisonment and whipping, and surely that was enough to protect the pug-dogs of the old ladies of England.
Mr. B. Escottsaid, that the object of this Bill was to obliterate the wise distinctions made by the law of England, and to do so in the most cruel manner. He hoped there would be a division, and that the House would reject this ignorant and meddling attempt at legislation.
Sir G. Stricklandfelt opposed to the Bill. However, he thought that there were some clauses in it which aided the operations of the existing law.
The House divided on the Question that the Bill be now read a second time:—Ayes 67; Noes 23: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Forman, T. S.

Ainsworth, P.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Allix, J. P.

Fuller, A. E.

Astell, W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baillie, H. J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Barneby, J.

Godson, R.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Gore, M.

Beckett, W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Beresford, Major

Greene, T.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Grimsditch, T.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Hamilton, W. J.

Boldero, H. G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Borthwick, P.

Hawes, B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Heathcote, G. J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Henley, J. W.

Busfeild, W.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Cardwell, E.

Howard, P. H.

Clayton, R. R.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, right hon. Sir G.

James, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl

Courtenay, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mackenzie, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Mackinnon, W. A.

Darby, G.

Manners, Lord J.

Denison, E. B.

Marjoribanks, S.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mildmay, H. St, John

Egerton, W. T.

Miles, W.

386

Newry, Visct.

Vivian, J. H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Peel, J.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Pringle, A.

Yorke, H. R.

Protheroe, E.

Young, J.

Scott, hon. F.

TELLERS.

Smith, J. A.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Berkeley, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Baine, W.

Loch, J.

Brotherton, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

Dennistoun, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Divett, E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Dundas, D.

Ricardo, J. L.

Escott, B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Warburton, H.

Fielden, J.

Watson, W. H.

Forster, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Gibson, T. M.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Hume, J.

Irving, J.

Bright, J.

Bill read a second time.

THE COUNTY RATES BILL.
Sir J. Y. Buller, moving the Second Reading of the County Rates Bill, explained that the object of it was to enable magistrates in quarter sesssions to appoint committees from their own body to go from place to place, and to obtain information and returns, in order to equalize county rates. He avowed, that his measure was intended to make general the practice prevailing in Cumberland, and in some other counties. When the rates had been thus prepared, they were to be submitted to the quarter sessions for approval. The principle of rating was the same as in the Poor Law Act.
Mr. M. Gibsoncontended, that local taxation of this kind ought to be taken up by Government, and dealt with on a comprehensive scale. The Reports of Commissioners showed that the whole local taxation of the kingdom was in a most complicated state, and required to be simplified. The Bill before the House would do little or nothing towards the remedy of existing evils, and still left the whole power of rating in the hands of justices, who were themselves parties deeply interested. He complained also that the principle of rating was unjust, inasmuch as it made house and town property pay at least twice as much as land.
Mr. Darbydid not object to the Bill going into Committee, nor did he agree with the objections of the hon. Member for Manchester. In particular, he thought that what the hon. Member said about the

387
difference between the assessment of land and house property was altogether unfounded. The land was always assessed to its full value, while houses were allowed a considerable deduction for repairs. That was a general principle all over the country. At the same time he thought the Bill, from its cumbrous machinery, with regard to appeals, would give rise to an enormous expense. He admitted the great difficulties of the subject, and he should have been surprised if its promoters had been able wholly to overcome them. He would not, therefore, object to the Bill going into Committee, pro formâ, though he should probably object to some of its details at a future period.
Mr. Brothertonthought there ought to be a uniform system of rating adopted all over the country; but he did not object to this Bill going into Committee.
Mr. Henleyapproved generally of the measure, and thought its promoters were entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing it forward.
Mr. Humewished that a Bill of a more comprehensive nature should be brought forward; and by the Government. He had formerly brought a general measure on this question forward, and he was then told that it was the business of Government to deal with such large questions, and he was, therefore, obliged to withdraw it. He hoped the right hon. Baronet, when he had leisure, would turn his attention to this subject. When that took place, he trusted, some provision would be made for the ratepayers having some control over the funds which they contributed. He also wished that some provision should be made for auditing the accounts of the magistrates. At present they were the only parties in the kingdom whose accounts were unaudited by persons separate from themselves.
Sir. Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman was a hard taskmaster. On a late occasion the noble Lord the Member for London reproached the Government with discouraging legislation by private Members. Here was an attempt to legislate on a practical question by private Members; and the hon. Gentleman reproached the Government with not having taken the subject into their own bands. With regard to the present measure he did not consider it as professing to deal with the whole question of county rates; but still it was a measure which would benefit the counties to a considerable
388
extent. It was the nearest approximation that could be made to an equal system of rating, without having recourse to a new survey altogether. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the magistrates not being trustworthy managers of the funds. He believed, on the other hand, that under their care the rates were faithfully and carefully managed. Perfect publicity was given to every part of their transactions, and considerable scrutiny took place into their details. He would go on to say, that the magistrates were the persons who contributed most largely to those rates, and had the greatest interest in keeping down the expenditure. At the same time he must observe, that the whole subject of local taxation must shortly come before the House. The Report made on that subject by the Poor Law Commissioners was a most valuable one; and, looking to the facts brought out there—to the fact that in some places twenty-two different rates were levied—it was plain it would become the duty of the Government to look at the subject as a whole. He was satisfied, if that were the case, that a large saving would be effected. Still, he saw nothing in this Bill that would prevent that, and, therefore, he would support its second reading.
Mr. M. Gibsonsaid, as his objections were to the details, he would not oppose the second reading.
Bill read a second time.

SMOKE PROHIBITION.
House in Committee on the Smoke Prohibition Bill.
On the 1st Clause,
Mr. Hawessuggested that the 1st Clause relative to the appointment of inspectors, be postponed till the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Lincoln) with regard to nuisances in towns was laid before the House, as probably the same inspectors would do for both objects.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, if they postponed this clause, it was equivalent to postponing the Bill altogether. He proposed to appoint the inspectors, subject to the regulations contained in the noble Lord's Bill.
The Earl of Lincolndid not think that the measure he was about to propose regarding the health of towns, would at all facilitate the present measure, as that Bill was to be entirely of a permissive nature, leaving it with the local authorities whether they would adopt it or not. He thought, however, it would be better to omit this

389
clause, as the subsequent clauses gave power to any parties who felt aggrieved by the nuisances, to obtain a remedy, without having recourse to an inspector.
Mr. Aglionbythought an inspector would be of use; for, if no person were appointed to look after the matter, what was every body's business would be nobody's.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, the object he had in appointing inspectors was this:—Suppose a gentleman annoyed with smoke from his neighbour in the country, he might not like to prefer a complaint, but he could mention the matter to the inspector, who would at once take it up.
House counted out, and adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.