Sitting of 13 April 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Judges Exclusion.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS (SCOTLAND).
Order for Committee read.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he had to move an Instruction to the Committee relative to elections in burghs. By the Scotch Reform Act the time for taking the poll was confined to two days in counties, and one in boroughs. While the poll occupied two days, there was an obvious propriety in forbidding the poll to commence on a Saturday; but the time having been reduced to one day, there was no reason why it should not take place on that day.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, he thought the proposal was beyond the scope and title of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the effect of the Motion would be to give the Committee power, if they thought fit, to introduce boroughs. If they did so, of course the title of the Bill would be altered.
Motion agreed to.
Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to extend to Elections in Burghs the provisions for repealing so much of the Act 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 65, as enact that no poll shall be directed to begin on a Saturday; the provision that no poll shall begin on a Monday; and the provisions as to the order and manner of polling.
MR. DUNLOPthen moved the insertion of words to carry his proposal into effect.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. ELLIOTproposed, after the word "days," in line 13, to insert so much of the twenty-seventh section of the same Act as enacts that every voter shall poll at the polling places of the district within which the premises, or any part of them in respect of which he claims to vote, may be situate, except only where such polling places shall be in an island, distant more than ten miles from the main land of any county, in which case the voters not resident in such island may poll at the polling place for the district in which the county town is included; and also so much of the same section as enacts that polling places shall in no case be more in number than fifteen for any one county.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, he thought that if voters were allowed to poll out of the district in which their property was situated, the door would be opened to personation.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he did not propose to go even so far as the English law went; for he confined the permission to the district in which the elector resided. He thought that that would be found a sufficient remedy against the danger of preventing personation.
Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, he begged to move, as an Amendment to this clause, the omission of certain words which gave the Lord Advocate power on appeal to appoint polling places, and to propose that the appeal should be vested in the Sheriff's Registration Appeal Court.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words "with the consent of Her Majesty's Advocate for Scotland for the time being."
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, it was quite possible that the present Registration Appeal Courts might soon be done away with, and it would hardly be advisable to intrust to them powers of this kind.
MR. FERGUSlooked upon the Registration Appeal Court as a very unfit court to settle questions of this nature.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 53: Majority 11.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 3.
Clause 4, which directed the poll to be kept open only one day, and that there should be no polling on a Monday,
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not see why polling should not take place on Monday, or why there should be a different state of the law in Scotland from what existed in England.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEthought that if Monday were to be omitted as a polling day, it would sometimes have the effect of increasing unnecessarily the period of an election contest.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that if the poll commenced at eight o'clock on Monday morning, the Lord's day previous must be spent in making preparations, and even in travelling. This was no mere matter of feeling, but one of serious import, and he earnestly trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Elliot) would persevere with the clause.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would move that the provision be omitted.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the words "shall be directed to begin on Monday, or"
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, he must remind the Committee that in Scotland persons could not travel by railway on Sunday as they could in England.
MR. HUME: That is your own fault. The trains had been shut up on Sunday, but in such places as Glasgow, it would be better if they would try to put down drinking. They had a monomania on this subject in Scotland; but he maintained that railways were for the general benefit of the community, and ought not to be closed at the instance of individual bigots, to the exclusion of the rights of others.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 60; Noes 71: Majority 11.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

JUDGES' EXCLUSION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished shortly to state to the House the reasons why it appeared to him that there were good and valid objections to this Bill. However excellent might seem, in the abstract, the grounds on which the measure was recommended to the House, he thought that, on general principles, and in accordance with the liberal spirit of the constitution, they ought to throw the doors of that House as widely open as possible to all those who might be useful in assisting the House in its labours. The principle on which Parliament had acted for a great length of time was that of permitting the entrance into that House of persons belonging to different religious sects and professions, and of all persons competent to give the House information, and fitted to represent particular interests affected by the laws passed by the Legislature. There were undoubtedly grounds upon which the general principle should be departed from, and upon which persons should be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. There might be, for instance, per-

1081
sons holding official situations, the duties of which prevented them from attending the House, because they could not be in two places at the same time, and must, therefore, either neglect their duty in Parliament, or abstain from performing their duties elsewhere. Whenever that could be shown to apply, it was, no doubt, a sufficient ground of exclusion. There were persons also excluded who were supposed to be so much under the influence of the Crown, that, their presence not being necessary for the transaction of business, they might be looked upon as not being independent and self-willed Members in their discussions. It was, however, objectionable to extend the range of exclusion beyond what could be justified either by strong necessity or by any apparent advantage. A great number of persons holding judicial offices were certainly very properly disqualified, as their duties would be incompatible with attendance at that House; and it was clear that if there were any number of Members of such a description, they would not tend to increase the independent character of the House of Commons. But in regard to those particular offices there was only one which by this Bill was practically intended to be excluded; for though there were other offices named in the schedule, yet it was obvious that the persons holding them would have but little chance of being able to attend the House. The object of the Bill was, in point of fact, specially to exclude the Master of the Rolls. They had had a Master of the Rolls as a Member of the House of Commons for a great length of time. Many very eminent men filling that office had been, not only an ornament to the House, but had greatly assisted their debates. He was old enough to remember Sir William Grant, and others who had succeeded him, who, acting with dignity and independence, had brought to the discussions in that House all the aids of deep learning and of extensive information upon matters of high importance; with respect to which the generality of Members had not by their previous studies acquired that particular information which had been found of material use in the decision of many questions brought under their notice. He did not think that it had ever been imputed to persons holding the high office of Master of the Rolls that they had been swayed by improper political motives. They had always, so far as his knowledge and recollection went, preserved a perfect
1082
independence of character, and had only taken part in the debates of the House when by so doing they clearly thought that they were contributing to the purpose for which such debates were commenced. The House ought, therefore, to understand clearly whether it would be serving its own interest and that of the country by excluding from the House persons who might, from time to time, hold the office of Master of the Rolls. But if they took the broad principle that no person holding a judicial appointment should be allowed to sit in that House, then they must proceed further than was contemplated by this Bill. As far as he remembered, the strongest point urged by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham), when he moved for the introduction of the Bill—and certainly the point upon which he placed most reliance—was, that persons holding judicial offices were liable, if they had seats in that House, to be placed in a situation of being called upon to determine cases and questions involving the interests of their constituents. Then, if this were the ground of the pleasure, surely the House ought not to stop at the schedule which it contained. He (Viscount Palmerston) did not know, for instance, why the Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer should be allowed to retain a seat, nor why the Recorders of different boroughs should retain theirs, nor why Chairmen of Quarter Sessions should be allowed to sit in the House of Commons; because, more or less, the same principle which applied to the Master of the Rolls applied in certain cases to all these officers. For these reasons he begged the House to consider well the grounds upon which they were called to take the step proposed by this Bill. He asked them to consider whether they would not thereby be establishing a principle, the proper working out of which would carry them much further than, as he apprehended, any Gentleman was yet prepared to go; whether, under the hope or expectation of contributing to the independence of the House, and to its general utility, they would not rather be detracting from the dignity and character of Parliament, as derived from the weight of the persons sitting in it; and whether they would not, really, be going to a degree that would be manifestly absurd, by shutting men out of Parliament who were best qualified to engage in its debates. On these general grounds it appeared to him that the Bill was one which it was not desirable to pass; and having

1083
these convictions, he should, if a division were pressed, vote against the second reading.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill. He concurred in all that had been said by the noble Lord the Home Secretary as to the eminence of the distinguished lawyers who had sat in Parliament, such as Sir William Grant and others; but he contended that that House was bound to carry out its own principles. It had been his lot to be among the first to find fault with the system of some of the judicial officers in Ireland being enabled to sit in the House of Commons, for this plain reason—that during their absence in London the arrears of business in their respective courts accumulated so greatly as to give rise to much dissatisfaction. But a change was made; and he had the satisfaction of knowing that it had proved highly beneficial. The Judge of the Court of Admiralty had, upon the same principle, been prohibited from holding a seat in that House. Not long ago there were such arrears in the Court of Chancery that it was found necessary to appoint additional Judges in order to reduce them; and those additional Judges could not sit in the House of Commons. It was a Parliamentary principle that the House should be always full, and that Members should devote the whole of their time to the interests of their constituents. But how could the House be full, and how could Members so devote their time, if, during a great part of the day, they had high judicial duties to discharge? This was exactly the case with the Master of the Rolls. His judicial duties were totally incompatible with his Parliamentary duties. If he properly discharged his Parliamentary duties, he would have to be in the House, or upstairs on an election, or some other Committee, early and late; but he could not give such an attendance without neglecting the important functions which required his presence in the Court over which he presided. He must neglect either one duty or the other, for no man could be in two places at the same time. Still he greatly regretted that the present Master of the Rolls was not a Member of the House, for he bore a name which the House must remember with gratitude, because there might be expected from the son a continuation of those reforms in the law which the father had so earnestly laboured for in other times. But the
1084
House was bound to abide by its own principles; and if they had excluded the Judge of the Admiralty Court (Dr. Lushington), who was a most distinguished ornament to the House, because his judicial functions were incompatible with his Parliamentary duties, he could not see why the Master of the Rolls ought to be excepted. Not one of the judicial officers mentioned in the schedule to the Bill ought to have a seat in that House; and, indeed, he would go further, and contend that many others who exercised judicial functions in cities and in boroughs, if those functions required much of their time, ought to be equally excluded. But he found that many hon. and learned Gentlemen who held the office of Recorder had taken their regular turns of duty upstairs; consequently, in their case, the objection did not apply. In conclusion, he put it to the Government to say whether the principle upon which the House usually acted in such cases, ought not to be recognised in relation to the Master of the Rolls? The duties of that Judge were inconsistent with the perfect fulfilment of Parliamentary functions; for he was not like the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, who were officers of the Government, but an independent Judge. For these reasons he should support the second reading of the Bill.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had made some very admirable and sensible observations; but he could not but express his regret that so distinguished a member of Her Majesty's Government as the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) should have opposed the second reading of the Bill. There was something in the high and dignified position of the first of the Judges whose office was mentioned in the schedule (the Master of the Rolls in England) which made it altogether inconsistent that he should have to go through the scenes which it was occasionally the fortune of every one who aspired to a seat in the House of Commons to encounter at a contested election. It must be remembered that, with two exceptions only, the Master of the Rolls was the highest judicial officer in the Kingdom. Only the Lord High Chancellor of England and the Lord Chief Justice of England were superior to him in rank. It could not, therefore, but be felt that everything which fell from one so high and eminent in station ought to carry with it the weight of his commanding ju-

1085
dicial authority. He would put a case. Last night there was a question before the House on which most of the eminent lawyers who spoke, were clearly of opinion that a particular construction ought to be put upon a particular Act of Parliament. The House, however, in utter disregard of those opinions, voted, and voted too by a large majority, in favour of a different construction. Now, if the Master of the Rolls had had a seat in that House, and had been called upon to express an opinion on the question, and his opinion had been, as he (Sir F. Kelly) believed it would have been, in entire concurrence with that of the Attorney General, would it have been seemly that the opinion of the third judicial officer of the realm, clearly expressed in the House on a particular question, and which if given from the Bench would have been conclusive as to the civil rights of any individual, should be passed over and disregarded? But, were there no other arguments in favour of the exclusion of this high judicial officer, he should support it by reason of the scenes which too commonly occurred at contested elections. Dr. Lushington, to whom reference had been already made, sat for one of the most populous constituencies in the Kingdom—the Tower Hamlets; and the present Master of the Rolls had sat for Plymouth. Both of these Judges, he believed, had had to go from door to door, and from the highest to the lowest, asking for votes, just the same as any other Member who sought to be elected by any constituency in the Kingdom. They had had to meet answers, not the most courteous, civil, or just, from individuals to whose support they appealed; they had had to appear upon the hustings not only before those who might be described as "an enlightened constituency," but before some of the worst and most unscrupulous rabble that could be assembled in the Kingdom; they had been obliged to appear before such an auditory, to answer any questions and interrogatories that might there be put to them; and in fact they had had to go through the ordeal, with which most hon. Members were familiar, of a severely contested election. The Lord High Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the superior Judges in the Courts of Westminster Hall, the Vice-Chancellors—those who had been lately created by Act of Parliament—were all excluded from seats in the House of Commons. All these high judicial officers, looking at the dignity
1086
with which they were invested, and to the high respect with which they were universally treated by all classes of the people, certainly ought not to be exposed to the scenes he had attempted to describe. Why, then, should the Master of the Rolls—the third judicial officer in the realm? The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston) had alluded to the case of the Recorder of London, and to other cases of Recorders of different boroughs sitting in the House of Commons. Those who desired that the Recorder of the City of London should continue to have a seat in the House of Commons, had perhaps better forbear from raising this objection. If that question ever arose, they might probably find some very strong and conclusive reasons urged for excluding that high officer. In one respect, no person would regret the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the present Recorder of London (Mr. S. Wortley) from the House more than himself; but if it were possible to extend the principle of the Bill to those judicial officers, he should be inclined to do so in respect to every judicial officer who presided in any of the highest Courts in the Kingdom. But there were limits to the application of every principle, however just; and when he remembered that it was the practice of the Government to confer these offices upon some of the most distinguished men at the Bar—that it was important such appointments should be held by able and learned men—and that eminent members of the Bar who were candidates for higher offices and greater advancement must seek that promotion through a seat in Parliament, it would perhaps be affecting the interests of the whole Bar of England if they were too nicely, or too extensively, to require the application of the principle of exclusion. The House, however, was now considering, not the question of Recorders, or of the holders of inferior judicial offices, but the case of very nearly the highest and greatest Judge in the land; and he submitted that it was quite impossible to secure for that high judicial officer either the dignity which belonged to his situation, or the respect which ought to follow his office, and which he believed was now felt by all classes of the people, unless he was secured against being involved in the scenes he had described. On these grounds, he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he must

1087
protest against the reproof with which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) had commenced his speech, against the noble Lord the Home Secretary, as most unjust and uncalled for. The noble Lord had not only fulfilled his duty, but fulfilled it most judiciously, in stating to the House what he conceived to be the difficulties of the case, and his objections to the Bill. He had not gone a single point beyond that line; but he (Mr. V. Smith) thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone further than he intended, for he had conclusively shown that if the Bill was meant to be efficient, it must be made much more extensive. What was the illustration of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was taken from the proceedings of the House last night. He said a majority of the House had decided a particular question contrary to the opinions of the most eminent lawyers who engaged in the discussion, and that it would have been indecent for the Master of the Rolls, if he had had a seat, to have expressed his opinion. But the Recorder of London, who was also a Judge, had pronounced an opinion. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would exclude the Master of the Rolls, he ought to move the insertion of the Recorder for the City of London in the schedule; and if the Recorder of London was included, he (Mr. V. Smith) was not sure whether all other Recorders and all other persons holding judicial appointments ought not to be included also. Were not Chairmen of Quarter Sessions parties who administered justice? Ought they not, then, to be excluded from the House, upon the principle of the hon. and learned Gentleman? But, in fact, he (Mr. V. Smith) had never heard a speech that cast a greater slur upon popular and representative institutions than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman; for had he not said that any one who offered himself as a candidate for a scat in that House, exposed himself to the rabble and to personal indignity. He (Mr. V. Smith) had never so understood the representative institutions of this country. On the contrary, he had always understood that a man might maintain his personal dignity even in a contested election; and he doubted whether, as they had been told, every man who went through the ordeal of a contest was obliged to go from door to door begging for votes. He did not know what the experience of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself might have been, but he would never allow it to be said uncontra-
1088
dicted that the pursuit of a seat in that House was a matter of personal indignity to any man. It had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that the Mastership of the Rolls required so much time, that the holder of it would be unable to attend to his duties in the House of Commons. He (Mr. V. Smith) could only say, in answer to that, that if the Master of the Rolls neglected his duty, he was of course responsible to those tribunals and to that punishment to which every man was liable who neglected his duty. But it had not been so found when the present Master of the Rolls had a seat in that House. Could it be said that Sir William Grant neglected his duty whilst he was affording great instruction to hon. Members by attending in the House of Commons? But he warned hon. Members against excluding legal talent, independence, and station from Parliament. He perceived some hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who sacrificed emolument and profit for the sake of attending in the House of Commons. Their presence was advantageous; they came in as party men; but if they were allowed to sit, he saw no valid reason why the Master of the Rolls should not also. The Master of the Rolls, however, was not bound to the party by whom he was appointed; and consequently his independent judgment could not-fail to be of great advantage. It was next said that the Master of the Rolls could not attend to his Parliamentary duties. The reply which he (Mr. V. Smith) made to that objection was, that it was the affair of the constituency which returned him. They must know to what he was liable when they elected him; they knew either that he could attend, or that he could not; and if they preferred being represented by a man of such dignity and consequence, they left the performance of his duties to himself. How many men were there, Members of the House, who never attended, neither day nor night? Every constituency must judge its own representative. He did not wish to limit the choice of the constituencies—he would rather extend it than otherwise; and on such grounds, if the House divided, he should vote against the Bill.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he must beg the House to allow him to say a few words in explanation. Nothing had fallen from him to justify the unusual degree of warmth with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) had spoken; but if he had said anything in the slightest

1089
degree inconsistent with the highest and most sincere respect for the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he exceedingly regretted it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord the Home Secretary was in error, when he said that to carry out the principle of the Bill, if they excluded the Master of the Rolls from a seat in the House of Commons, they must also exclude Chairmen of quarter-sessions. So far as he was concerned, as a humble member of that body, he should not be sorry, and he should feel no hesitation as to which position he should relinquish. But he did not think it could be fairly contended that Chairmen of quarter-sessions were judicial officers. The Chairman of a court of quarter-sessions received no salary, nor was he appointed by the Crown. He could scarcely be considered an officer recognised by the law, or the constitution. He was only the organ of the assembled magistrates. So far as the law was concerned, there might be different Chairmen appointed at every court of quarter-sessions which was held. There was no reason, therefore, for applying to the Chairman of quarter-sessions a rule which would not equally apply to every magistrate upon the bench. But he submitted that the whole tendency of recent legislation had been to exclude from seats in the House of Commons those who were properly judicial officers. By a recent Act, Commissioners in Bankruptcy and the Judges in County Courts were excluded. With regard to the Recorder of the City of London, he had no hesitation in saying, that, considering the nature of his duties and his judicial position, it would be better if he were excluded. He was not quite sure whether, under a recent Act, the Recorder of Dublin was not already excluded. In conclusion he would only say, that he should cordially support the second reading of the Bill; and that if a Motion were made in Committee to exclude the Recorder of London, he should support that also.
MR. EWARTsaid, that if the Recorder for the City of London was excluded, no exception could be made in favour of the Recorder of York, or of any other person holding similar judicial appointments. The whole argument, indeed, of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) went to the establishment of this point. It had been said that the Master of the Rolls was liable to indignity during a contested election, and that such indignity was discredit-
1090
able to his office and position. Were not Recorders liable to just the same? Such was the argument. But whilst considering this subject, he had searched in vain for any principle in the constitution favourable to the exclusion of Judges from the House of Commons Judges were returned to that House so late as the year 1605,. in the reign of James I.; and he found, on looking at the journals, that an objection was then taken; but what was the objection? It was not that they were Judges, but that they might be called upon to act as assistants in the House of Lords. He considered that the Master of the Rolls, having a seat in the House of Commons, was the last remnant of the constitution in respect to the eligibility of Judges, and he should be sorry to see it disturbed. The question was really one for the constituency. If they thought that Judges had time to attend to popular interests, and that the Master of the Rolls ought to be elected, they were right to act upon that conviction. That was his opinion. In the United States Judges were eligible to seats in the Legislature, and he had never heard of legislation suffering any harm in consequence. Sir William Scott was long a Member of the House of Commons, and he conferred great benefit upon the country by the luminous opinions he expressed there. Under such circumstances he must oppose the Bill, on the ground that exclusion was the exception, and admission the rule of the constitution in respect to the representation.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could not allow the debate to close without expressing his opinion, at least, upon the tendency of the course which the House had been invited to pursue. It was quite true, as stated by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that for same years past the tendency of legislation had been to exclude persons holding judicial offices from the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet, as well as some other hon. Members who had spoken, was desirous of proceeding in the same course. They were not quite satisfied with the Bill, and when anomalies were stated, they said they would remove those anomalies by proceeding further in the same course—that was, by removing the Recorder of London, and other Recorders if necessary, and by establishing the total exclusion of persons holding judicial offices. Now the first objection which he (Lord J. Russell) had to this course was, that it limited the choice

1091
of the constituent body. The people at large were to be restrained by law from choosing the man whom they might themselves wish to elect. He disliked all restrictions, and he declared himself opposed to them on principle. He certainly could not consent to increase the number of restrictions upon the constituent body, or to prevent them from electing men of eminent ability whom they might choose, and who were well qualified to sit in that House. He thought, too, that by the present Bill they were taking a course which would debar the people from the choice of saying who was fit to represent them. In the next place, the course proposed by the Bill tended generally to degrade the House. He could not but think that the assistance of the most eminent men—of men the most qualified by their ability, and the most known for their learning—gave a lustre to the proceedings of the House which was of great use, not upon particular questions, but in preserving the general authority and dignity of the Commons of England. For instance, take some of the men who had sat in that House while holding the office of Master of the Rolls, which, as had been observed, was one of the chief judicial situations in the Kingdom. Sir Joseph Jekyll was long a Member of that House, and so were many others, So was Sir William Grant. That most distinguished man, Sir William Grant, in one of the most celebrated debates that ever took place in the House of Commons, stood front to front with Mr. Fox; and persons who heard the arguments of those celebrated men, said the debate was one of the most extraordinary instances of the power of eloquence, and of the philosophy of law, that ever occurred in that House. Would they disqualify such a man because he held the office of Master of the Rolls? Again, he remembered Lord Lyndhurst sitting in that House as Master of the Rolls; and in a very remarkable case, Mr. Canning, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Plunkett, were all employed upon the same side in order to meet the arguments of Lord Lyndhurst upon the other. Lord Lyndhurst, as he had said, was then Master of the Rolls. Debates of this kind, between men eminently qualified by their learning to engage in them, tended to maintain the character of the House, and to lead the people at large to look to their representatives for a display of the qualifications necessary for the discussion of great questions. Let him at the same time remark that the
1092
House of Commons was increasing, and had been for a considerable time, in power and in influence. He might also say that the power and influence of the House of Lords were practically less in the constitution than they had been. But nobody attempted to propose to exclude men holding judicial offices from seats in the House of Lords; nobody would venture to say that the Judge of the Admiralty Court and the Master of the Rolls should not sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, whilst power, authority, and influence were increasing with regard to one branch of the Legislature, the weight derived from learning and from eminent talents was increased in the other, of which the power and authority was proportionately less. He thought this contrast between the great power of the one House, and remarkable learning and high station in the other, was a contrast we should not like to see perpetuated. Let the House consider whether there were not questions upon which the opinions of men of this kind were not of great use in the House of Commons. He had always understood Mr. Pitt to say that he did not like to sit there as a Minister of the Crown without having the assistance of men peculiarly qualified to give an opinion upon the law of nations. This objection applied, he must own, to a Bill which he did not oppose in Committee, but to which he stated his objection, namely, to the Bill for excluding the Judge of the Admiralty Court from sitting in that House. Suppose a question occurred with any foreign country, such as that with France relative to Mr. Pritchard, or such as that with Russia concerning the seizure of the Vixen—questions intimately affecting the law of nations—it would be of great advantage both to the House and the Government to have a man, not one of the law officers of the Crown, or who could become one of the law officers of the Crown, but holding a certain degree of judicial weight, who could tell them, from his knowledge and study upon the subject, what the doctrines of the law of nations were upon the question—a question upon which peace or war might turn. Under this Bill the House would be deprived of such assistance with regard to the Master of the Rolls. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had reminded the House that they had been making reforms in the law. It was quite true that, in these later times, many Bills for the reform of the law had been introduced into the House; and he would put

1093
this question—was it no advantage to have the Master of the Rolls among them in a somewhat different position from lawyers practising at the bar, to tell the Members of the House of Commons what were his impressions upon the subject under discussion, and to offer his suggestions for improvements? But his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had stated as an objection to the Bill, that the Master of the Rolls could not perform the duties of the two situations—of a Member of Parliament and the Judge of his Court. He (Lord J. Russell) thought no man would seriously and soberly maintain that opinion. He did not think that any one could say that the Master of the Rolls, because he was a Member of the House of Commons, would neglect his judicial functions, and that he would not give all the time necessary for the performance of those functions, or that because he sat in a Court in the morning he should not be permitted to sit in the House of Commons in the afternoon. But it was said that he could not attend Committees. That objection, if it were valid, would apply to persons holding important offices at the pleasure of the Crown in the chief departments of the State. But the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Kelly) had made what he (Lord J. Russell) thought was a new objection to the Master of the Rolls sitting in the House of Commons—namely, that the turmoil and the circumstances of a contested election were hardly fitting for a Judge of so much eminence. But with that objection should also be taken the case—and it might be very often the case—that a person after having acquired a very considerable station in Parliament, and reached the judicial position of Master of the Rolls, would have so much of the confidence of a particular body of the electors that a contest would be out of the question, and that he would be easily elected every time hep resented himself. He might refer, for instance, to the position of Lord Lyndhurst, when he was Master of the Rolls. He was Member for the University of Cambridge, where certainly, after a man had been once elected, there was not generally much chance of a contest. He had said that he was sorry to see the House persisting in this course. Hon. Gentlemen who entertained the same opinion of the Bill as himself might think it necessary to divide upon it. He could not ask for a division, but he certainly shared in all the objections which had been made to the measure; for he
1094
thought the House was proceeding in a course which, while it showed distrust of the people, and of their capacity to select their Members, deprived the House of the advantage of having men among them like Sir William Grant and Lord Stowell.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he regretted that Her Majesty's Government deemed it their duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He willingly bore testimony to the high character of the present Master of the Rolls; but he thought that general propositions should not be decided upon personal considerations, and he should therefore support the Bill. A lawyer himself, no man had a higher opinion of the learning, the purity, and the integrity of the Bench; and it was because he desired to see that character preserved unimpaired that he wished all the superior Judges of the land to be excluded from seats in the House of Commons; for he could not but agree with those who thought that their efficiency would be impaired by their being eligible to a seat in Parliament. It had been asked why this Bill should not extend to the Recorder of London and other judicial officers; but he would answer that question by putting another. Why, if the Master of the Rolls were permitted to take his seat in that House, was the House to be deprived of the presence and assistance of the superior Judges of the Courts of Common Law? The objection was the same in both cases.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he begged to thank the noble Lord (Lord Hotham) who had brought forward this Bill for having included Ireland in the schedule. The eligibility of Judges of the Superior Courts to seats in the House of Commons was unsound in principle, and mischievous in practice, and he should therefore give the Bill his cordial support. The Master of the Rolls in Ireland was excluded from Parliament, and this Bill would only carry out the same principle in England. If the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) were to be carried out to its proper extent, all the Acts of Parliament which disqualified persons from holding seats in that House ought to be repealed at once.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to explain in a few words the reasons which had induced him to bring forward this Bill. At first he had apprehended, from the numerous forces which he saw on the Ministerial benches in battle array, that Her

1095
Majesty's Government meant to force this question to a division; but after hearing the reasons urged by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department for thinking that this Bill ought not to pass, he had been led to believe that though Her Majesty's Ministers thought the measure inexpedient, they did not mean to persevere in any serious opposition to it. The chief objection against the Bill was, that it did not go far enough; a tolerably fair proof that there was nothing very objectionable in the Bill. That, however, was no reason for opposing the second reading, for it might be carried further in Committee if the House thought that the measure was in other respects unexceptionable. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) opposed the Bill because it restricted the choice of electors. But the choice of the electors was already restricted, and must to a certain extent be so; and the only question was to the extent of such restriction. The choice of electors might fall upon a man for reasons which, if he were a Judge, would make him particularly unfit to be a Member of the House of Commons. They might choose him because he was a thorough-going partisan, and a "straight runner," as was said by an hon. Gentleman the other evening. Further, a Judge might be supposed to have strong influence with the Government; and although this might be a very good reason with the electors for returning him, it was a much stronger reason why he should not have a seat in that House. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London seemed to think that the character of the house would be lowered by the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls and the Chief Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court; but the noble Lord had forgotten that since the time of Sir William Grant and Sir William Scott, the circumstances of Parliament had entirely changed. Members were all now subject to popular election, and in the next Session of Parliament they were to have elections which would be more popular still. There were no nomination boroughs now, and unless the noble Lord could provide a constituency without constituents, he did not see how candidates could be returned without a canvass, in which it was not consistent with the gravity of the Judicial Office that a learned Judge should engage. The noble Lord had alluded to the period when Sir John Copley, being Master of the Rolls, repre-
1096
sented the University of Cambridge; but if be would consult his noble Colleague who sat on his right hand (Viscount Palmerston), he would ascertain that the representation of that learned University was not so much divested of trouble and canvassing as he seemed to suppose. The opponents of the Bill had not only forgotten the different circumstances in which Parliament had been placed since the Reform Act, but they had also forgotten the nature and the extent of the labour which a Member of Parliament had now to undergo. He had not, as had been imputed to him, inserted other functionaries in the schedule of the Bill as mere makeweight. Had he brought in a Bill confined to the object of excluding the Master of the Rolls from the House, that would have had an unfair and an invidious aspect. But he thought that not only the Master of the Rolls, but that all Judges properly coming within the definition of Judges of Superior Courts should be precluded from sitting in the House of Commons, and upon that ground it was that the schedule had been extended. The noble Lord seemed to think that there was no objection to a learned Judge discharging his duties in Court in the morning, and his duties as a Member of that House in the evening; but, as every hon. Member must know, there was much private business to be done before five o'clock, which a Judge could not attend to. With regard to the hardship of excluding Judges from the House of Commons, when they were permitted to sit in the House of Lords, it must be borne in mind that the House of Lords was a judicial tribunal of the last resort, and the presence of Judges in that House might be in the highest degree appropriate. The Master of the Rolls was liable at any time to be called upon to decide questions in which his own constituents were concerned. He might have to adjudicate upon the case of a charity connected with the very town which he represented—a charity having intimate connexion with the politics of the place; and by the Education Bill recently introduced by the noble Lord himself, it was provided that questions of a most exciting nature in reference to local politics might be taken into the Rolls Court. And all such questions the Master of the Rolls could only escape from deciding by the denial of a right to which every suitor is entitled—the right to choose his own Court. In conclusion, he would refer to

1097
the opinion of a very learned lawyer, who said—
"You must not allow a Judge to be one day seated on the bench, and the next to make his apearance on the hustings. The sort of conduct which a popular constituency naturally expects is not becoming in a Judge."
That was the opinion of Lord Brougham. The opinion of another eminent lawyer he had quoted before, but it did him so much honour that he would venture to repeat it. It was the opinion of Lord Langdale, himself a Master of the Rolls. It was proposed to Mr. Bickersteth by Lord Melbourne, when at the head of the Government of which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was a Member, to confer upon him the office of Master of the Rolls, coupled with an intimation that Mr. Bickersteth would be expected to give his aid to the Government in one or the other House of Parliament, as the Government should think most advisable. Mr. Bickersteth said—
"It is quite clear that a Master of the Rolls ought not to be a Member of the House of Commons. If active, he would act inconsistently with his judicial character; if inactive, he would neglect the interest of his constituents, and of those who promoted him; and whether active or inactive in the House, he might have to adjudicate in his office between his constituents and others."
So much for Lord Langdale's opinion with respect to the presence of the Master of the Rolls in the House of Commons. He added that "there was less objection to the House of Lords. There was less to do, and less squabble and heat; but still the judicial office was enough to occupy the whole of any man's time."
Bill read 2°.

COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 4.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there was considerable inconvenience in resuming an adjourned debate after an interval of three or four weeks; but without any wish to occupy unnecessarily the time of the Committee, he thought it was desirable that he should briefly restate the grounds upon which he was anxious to recommend the Amendment which he had moved to the attention of the Committee. The scope of his Amendment was, that it was not advisable to deprive the magistrates of the power which they now had of controlling
1098
the county rates and expenditure, but to add an elective body, chosen by the ratepayers, to the machinery already in existence. He had only heard two objections raised to this proposition. One was, that it was not consistent with the principle of the Bill; but he thought that the delegation of the elective powers to the ratepayers was in perfect accordance and harmony with the principle and spirit which the Bill involved. The other objection which had been urged, especially by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) was, that if the Amendment were carried, and the financial boards were constituted as he proposed, the elected ratepayers would be swamped by the greater number of magistrates. He wished to meet that argument. Would hon. Members tell him that, if he went to the quarter-sessions as a country gentleman and a landlord—his tenants and himself paying a considerable portion of the county rates—he had no interest in objecting to county extravagance? Was it not as much the interest of the county magistrates who attended these sessions to control the expenditure, as of any gentleman whom the ratepayers of the county might elect? Nobody could contend that they had not. The two parties had a common interest; and, so far from believing that there was any weight in the argument that the elected members would be swamped by the ex-officio members, he was fully convinced, that if the ratepayers sent—as he believed they could and would send—good, sensible, and practical men of business as their representatives at the county board, their word would not only be entitled, but he was sure would receive as much attention, and would be allowed as much weight, as that of any other men of business who attended the quarter-sessions. He would ask hon. Members who talked of swamping, whether he had not analogy in favour of his, proposal? Were not Boards of Guardians composed of a large majority of persons elected by the ratepayers and a small minority of ex-officio guardians? And had anybody ever heard of the ex-officio members having been swamped by the elected members; or of any invidious feeling being generated between them in consequence of the one part of the board being more numerous than the other? In his own experience he had certainly never found anything of the kind. On the contrary he had found that, both having a common object in view, they had carried it out by the most harmo-

1099
nious possible action. Why, it would be quite as reasonable to say that the Irish Members in that House were swamped by the Members for England and Scotland, because the former constituted only a minority of the House; and yet they had a proof last night that Irish interests were not neglected on that account. He earnestly entreated the supporters of the Bill to consider the very serious practical and unavoidable difficulties which stood in the way of making this great change in the system of managing the economical and internal affairs of the counties which had so long prevailed. He begged them to bear in mind that they could not do what was now proposed without touching such a multitude of Acts of Parliament, and dealing with such a variety of considerations, that it necessarily became a very difficult task indeed to draw up a Bill so as to meet the various requirements of the case; whereas, if they adopted his Amendment, they would avoid most of those difficulties, and, instead of a complicated measure composed of 135 clauses, a short and simple Bill of three clauses would do all that was necessary. There would be no new corporation created —no new arrangement formed—all that would be required was a short enacting Bill to allow the ratepayers of counties to elect a certain number of persons to join with the magistrates in administering the finances of the county. There was one argument, regarding the practical working of county affairs, which he believed had not been mentioned in the course of the discussion, and that was, that as the affairs were at present managed very much by committees, the members of the proposed Board (twenty-four in number only) would not furnish the necessary committees. It might be said that the number of magistrates at present was too large for the proper management of the business of the counties. He could only say that he had never heard that the existing number of magistrates was too large, any more than that the Members of the House of Commons were too numerous for the business of the country. He submitted his Amendment, not as the best arrangement that could be devised, but as a fair compromise. It admitted the principle of elected members, and avoided the numerous difficulties connected with the shaping of clauses to meet the requirements of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester.
Amendment proposed, in p. 2, line 17,
1100
after the words "consist of" to insert the words "the Justices duly qualified to act in such county, together with—"
MR. BARROWsaid, he must object to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, because, so far from admitting the principle of the Bill, which was to establish a representative system to control the expenditure of public money, it would continue the anomaly, the only one now existing, of allowing the public money to be administered by an irresponsible Board, for the homœopathic dose of representation which it admitted could hardly be considered as a recognition for the principle contended for, though the Bill was saved from the imputation of being a democratic measure, and that it merely secured a fair representative system in the control of county expenditure. It gave to all property the right of representation, and that was a fair principle on which to legislate. He was opposed to the present irresponsible and oligarchical system by which the county expenditure was controlled; and as to disfranchising the magistracy, he would ask who elected the guardians by whom the members of financial boards would be elected? The right hon. Baronet's theory seemed to be, that the occupiers of land, who paid the county rates, were virtually represented by their landlords, who were in the commission of the peace. But he could show that this theory was fallacious. The right hon. Baronet would probably concede to him that it was only a small proportion of the 160 magistrates in the commission of the peace for Worcestershire who interfered with the financial arrangements of the county. And, besides, he would ask, if they found that out of some 18,000 or 19,000 names in the commission of the peace for all England, only 7,300 were qualified to act, where was the virtual representation of the tenantry in the case of the two-thirds who were not qualified? Moreover, the right hon. Baronet left out of view apparently the absentee and smaller proprietors, minors, and women, whose names were, of course, not in the commission of the peace at all. He could not accept the hon. Baronet's modicum of representation as anything like carrying out the principle of the Bill. He must object to an Amendment which would allow 160 Worcestershire magistrates, for instance, to be ex-officio members of the county board, and allow thirteen or fourteen Unions to send only two members each.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that like the

1101
right hon. Baronet, he had been endeavouring, during the late vacation, to see how he could carry out the principle upon which they were all agreed without such cumbersome machinery as that which had been proposed. But, before he stated his plan, he begged to premise that he believed they were all agreed on this point, that others besides the magistrates were to meddle with the management of county affairs, because, if they were not all agreed on that point, it was useless talking on the subject. Well, what was the ordinary practice in the management of the financial affairs of counties? They all knew that whole bodies of magistrates did not form themselves into financial committees to examine into the county expenditure, but that they appointed from among themselves a sub-committee for that purpose, which sub-committee made its reports to the general body on the first day of the sessions. Well, he would propose that that principle should be adhered to; but that, instead of the sub-committee being appointed by the magistrates, it should be appointed by the ratepayers. He proposed that each Union should send two representatives, the one a magistrate, the other not; that this sub-committee should make its report on the first day of the sessions, as at present; and that during the time the financial business was under discussion, all the members of the board should be allowed to take part in the discussion; and further, that in case the recommendations of the sub-committee should be overruled by the general body, they should have the power of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose decision should be final. They must have a power of appeal somewhere, and he saw no place where an appeal could be so fairly lodged as with the Secretary of State, for it should be remembered that the Secretary of State was the cause of the whole difficulty. It was his orders, and not the extravagance and jobbery of the magistrates, which was the cause of the great expense. The demand for financial boards was the consequence of the orders given to the Secretary of State by that House, and by the Secretary of State to the magistracy; and yet the whole blame was thrown upon the magistracy. If the plan he proposed was adopted, they would get rid of these new corporations with a seal, even though there was no mace, and obtain a true representative system. He (Mr. Drum-
1102
mond) would propose also, that in the case of a small number of members of the board— say five—finding themselves aggrieved by the resolution of the general body, they should also have the power of appeal to the Secretary of State. This would enable them to get quit of the cumbersome machinery of the present Bill. It would provide that there should be persons to manage the county finances elected by the ratepayers, and, at the same time, insure a sufficient control by the magistrates. He believed that a Bill of this kind could, like that proposed by the right hon. Baronet, be easily composed of three, or, at most, four clauses.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the scheme just referred to by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) was a completely new one, and he did not think it was advisable to occupy their time in discussing schemes which were not before them, and which, in effect, would supersede the Bill which was before them. The case of the Poor Law Guardians to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had referred, as analogous to his Amendment, was not at all in point, for in that case the elected members constituted the majority, and the ex-officio members the minority; whereas by the Amendment now proposed the ex-officio members would be the majority, and the elected members the minority. The adoption of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment, therefore, would defeat instead of promote the object of the Bill; and be must say that he thought it hardly fair in the right hon. Baronet to have brought it forward. He certainly could not admit that the adoption of a representative system would be degrading to the magistrates, and he thought the magistrates generally would be glad to receive assistance from members of the comity financial boards elected by the guardians. He conceived that, although a measure of this nature might be very much required in Lancashire, and in other populous counties, it was a most objectionable mode of proceeding to endeavour to remedy local grievances by general enactments. He could say for the midland counties, with which he was well acquainted, that there was no feeling in favour of a representative system, and that if the ratepayers were required to choose representatives it would be found very difficult to get such representatives to act. He thought it most desirable that such an option should be allowed with regard to this measure as was allowed with respect to the County

1103
Constabulary Acts. He considered that they should not make this measure compulsory in the case of counties which did not desire any change in the management of their financial affairs.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, that in the six counties of South Wales, by a special Act of Parliament, the administration of the county roads was confined to a board composed of twelve magistrates and six elected representatives; but he found that the Bill now before the Committee proposed that county finances generally should be administered by only twelve persons, six less than the number required for the management of county roads in Wales. He had been a member of the county road boards for many years, and on several occasions great inconvenience had been occasioned by inability to form a board at all. He believed, if this measure was carried into effect, that in the course of a short time there would be no working board whatever in Pembrokeshire. In the county of Glamorgan there were only five Unions, and as each Union would elect two members, they would have no more than ten members to represent the interest of the most important county of South Wales. He did not in the least object to the most perfect publicity, or to the introduction, in a certain degree, of the representative principle; but there were many objections to this Bill. The Boards of Guardians, for instance, represented in many counties only a very small proportion of the property of the county, and he believed it would be almost impossible to carry on large public works extending over many years with any effectual supervision by boards elected annually, and liable to constant alteration. Ho had no objection to meeting persons not magistrates, because, after his experience of the roads boards, he thought they might secure the services of a very valuable body of men, who would form an independent opinion as individuals, and not as a body. He did not anticipate that if a certain number of persons were elected members of the financial boards, they would necessarily come into collision with the magistrates. He must say, that unless most material alterations were made in the Bill, he could not give it his support.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the speeches that had been made on this subject had been rather directed against the general principle of the measure, than against the particular Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich took a similar course
1104
when the Bill was before a Select Committee of the House. Then, as now, he made a succession of suggestions against the principle of the measure, instead of discussing the particular clause before the Committee. He did not think that was the correct mode of dealing with this measure. The principle that financial boards should be constituted, and the representative system adopted, had been affirmed by that House. And, in reply to the statement that this was a Manchester measure, or a measure for any particular county, he said that the House had, by successive divisions on the second reading, asserted that England and Wales did require representative members to be introduced into the management and expenditure of the county rates. It was the House that had adopted the principle, and the imputation must be on them. He must say reflections had been cast upon the county population, which ought not to have come from the farmers' friends and those who represented the rural population—that the farmers and small holders and occupiers in counties were unacquainted with business—that they were so little conversant with the ordinary affairs of life, that they could not be trusted even to control the salary of a turnkey. ["No, no!"] Oh, yes; it was said they would appoint inefficient turnkeys, who would let all the prisoners out of the gaols. Now was this the way in which hon. Gentlemen spoke of those who sent them to that House? Being a resident in a county himself, he was acquainted with the population of rural districts, and he would say they were as well qualified to manage their own affairs as the inhabitants of towns; and he contended that as the Legislature had given to municipal bodies the power of managing local concerns in towns, it was bound to extend the same privilege to counties, and to establish county councils, which would give owners and occupiers of land an efficient control over the county expenditure. The present Bill had been considered by a Select Committee of that House, who had gone carefully through it, clause by clause; and he thought, therefore, he was not presumptuous in asking the House to proceed with this measure, instead of waiting for the Bills that might be introduced by the hon. Members for West Surrey, Droitwich, and Northampton. They were now asked to add to the elected boards the whole of the magistrates in each county. As an instance of the effect of such a proposition, he

1105
might mention that in the county of Worcester, which contained thirteen Unions, there were 560 magistrates, so that to the thirteen representatives of the ratepayers in the different Unions, these 560 magistrates would be added. He hoped that even the enemies of the Bill would not endeavour indirectly to nullify its object by supporting the Amendment.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had professed much virtuous indignation with regard to reflections which he alleged had been cast by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) upon the persons who might become members of the proposed financial boards. The right hon. Gentleman must certainly have misunderstood the observations of the right hon. Baronet, who he (Mr. Palmer) was sure had not used language casting any such reflections upon the class referred to. The right hon. Gentleman had accused his (Mr. Palmer's) right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) of being unwilling to allow farmers, and the class of persons who might become members of the financial boards, even the privilege of appointing common turnkeys; but if he (Mr. Palmer) was not much mistaken, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) left in the hands of the magistrates, instead of transferring to the financial boards, the power of appointing turnkeys. He (Mr. Palmer) must say that he could not agree with the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington). He had assented, both during the last and present Sessions, to the general principle of this Bill, though he did not himself think that any very great advantage would result to the ratepayers in counties from its adoption. If, however, it would be more satisfactory to ratepayers in general to have boards established for the management of county rates, in the mode proposed by this Bill, he saw no objection to such a system being established. He must say he thought the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, although, perhaps, strictly speaking, it did retain the principle of representation, retained it only in a very small degree, and people might suppose that the elected members were likely to be overruled by the large majority of the magistrates. He agreed in many of the observations of the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith). A great portion of that right hon. Gentleman's speech would lead him to think that the Bill was not at all necessary, and he believed that although it might be very necessary in the
1106
county of Lancaster, it was quite unnecessary in many parts of the country. If he was not much mistaken, some 70 l. or 80 l.a year had been charged upon the county rate of Lancashire for luncheons for the magistrates. He was not surprised, therefore, that the ratepayers of Lancashire should wish to prevent such ridiculous and indefensible charges from being placed upon the rates; but he thought the title of the Bill should be altered, and that it should be called a "Bill to amend the rates and expenditure of the county of Lancaster." Those counties which were so fortunate as not to have such charges placed upon their rates, might then have the advantage of seeing how the proposed measure worked in the county of Lancaster. He believed that the Bill would lead to a considerable increase of expense in counties, for although under the present law no charge was entailed upon counties for the management of the county rates, this Bill rendered necessary the appointment of clerks and other officers, whose salaries would be a new charge upon the rates. He considered, with the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), that the Bill ought to be optional—that it should not be forced upon counties which were not desirous of adopting it. He thought the measure ought not to be brought into operation in any county unless upon the requisition of a large proportion of the ratepayers of the Boards of Guardians.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must beg to observe that the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) had entirely misunderstood what he had said as to the persons who might be elected members of the financial boards. He had said, in the most distinct manner, that, from his own experience, he knew that members of the Boards of Guardians were most competent men of business.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he considered that alterations had been made in the Bill since it came down from the Select Committee, which had materially changed its character. He thought the object of the measure evidently was to take away all the authority possessed by the magistrates with regard to the administration of the county rates. He hoped the House would not forget that the Bill was originally brought forward on account of the—he would not say malversation—but inattention and neglect which had occurred with respect to the application of the finances of the county of Lancaster.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, the proposal

1107
before the Committee was this—that in counties where there were 100, 200, or 300 magistrates, they should associate with them a dozen or two elected men as members of financial boards. Why, they might as well have no elected members of the board at all. He was not a Manchester man, a chairman of quarter sessions, or the representative of a county, but he had acted for a long time as a county magistrate, and he thought the time had come when it would be wise on the part of magistrates to concede this question. He was satisfied that no one who was acquainted with the intelligent yeomanry of this country could doubt that they were fully equal to the discharge of the duties with which it was proposed to intrust them. There were in the Boards of Guardians men of intelligence and leisure, and those were the Men they wanted for those offices, for he did not think they would get farmers to leave their homes for the purpose.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he had no inclination to keep up this debate, because there would be full opportunities for discussing the question in its various parts as the clauses came regularly before them; but there were some things they must correct at the time they came before them, or they would pass as perfect and correct. The hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), had asserted that there was a great increase in the county rates. That might become a grievance, and deserving serious consideration; but he doubted the fact, and thought if they looked over the county expenditure and saw the nature of it—the large sums that had been devoted to improvements, humanity, and justice, as in the case of lunatic asylums and county prisons, and other expenses of that kind—they would see that there had not been such an increase. Upon the question immediately before the Committee, it was said the clause would effectually swamp the magistracy and the ratepayers; but the Amendment would, in his opinion, have the effect of making the ratepayers members of the county boards as effectually as if they were in the commission of the peace. He would only add, that in the county of Surrey, where the county business took place last week, this question was very fully considered, and a very strong resolution was come to by the magistrates present that this Bill was not called for, but was unnecessary, and was only calculated to increase expense; and they unanimously requested that that opin-
1108
ion should be respectfully conveyed to the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was not going into the question then under discussion, but wished to say one word as to the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. V. Smith), and which had been repeated by other hon. Members, and upon which he had heard much from other persons since they had last discussed the Bill—he meant the notion that, in conformity with many precedents of laws of this kind, the application of the Bill to particular counties should be made optional, depending on a desire expressed by the ratepayers. The impression on his own mind had become more and more favourable to that conclusion, and, so far as he was concerned, he should be willing to pay the best attention to any suggestion that was made in the course of their discussions for applying that principle to the Bill; and if the House should come to that mode of dealing with it, he should propose that those hon. Members who had announced their intention of moving Amendments to the Bill should be so far satisfied with such an arrangement, and that they should discuss only amendments that were made, not as this appeared to be, to impede the measure, but that were calculated to improve it.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) was most important, and he could not agree in the description given of it by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). It went, in his judgment, to laying the foundation upon which alone this measure could be made to work. All who bad considered this subject must be aware of the great difficulty there would be in constituting a new corporation in a county, and that they would run great risk of leaving many things dropping between the old and new bodies. If, however, they added a number of electors to the old body, they would keep one general body alive, and there would be no danger of letting any duties drop between the two; they would also keep one common body for the control of the officers they must appoint, and one set of officers would be sufficient. If they did that, it would be quite open to them, by enactment if they pleased, that a financial committee should be constituted out of that common body, consisting of an equal number of the elective and magisterial bodies; and they would have this great advantage in that system, that they

1109
would have a common body from which all authority might proceed, and would get rid of all that class of questions that must and would arise of a mixed judicial and financial character. For that reason alone he should vote for the proposition of his right hon. Friend. With reference to the second reading of the Bill, they were now, in fact, discussing the second reading; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) must admit this, that there was but one division on the second reading of the Bill, and that was adverse to it.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I said the House assented to it.
MR. HENLEY: The House assented, not to the Bill, but to the principle that there should be a representative system. If they added an elective body to the body of magistrates, and out of that carved a body altogether part of it, the measure would, he thought, work well, and they would thereby secure that which the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) wished to secure—a body of an equal number of the elective and magisterial bodies to have the control of the financial matters of the county; but if they made separate corporations in the counties, they would have great confusion and increased expense. He would say one word to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) to induce him to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and for this reason, if he were not misinformed, Lancashire was not under the ordinary law of the land as to the county rates, but those rates were under a local Act.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought there was great objection to the element of dissension they would at once introduce into every Board of Guardians in the Kingdom, and that this clause must be entirely amended, from first to last, before it would be capable of working. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), that there was an appearance of unfairness in regard to his Amendment, standing as it did in the way of an Amendment about to be made by the hon. Member for East Somersetshire, and which seemed to him to obviate the objections made to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he only rose to say that, from whatever quarter it might come, he protested against the offensive imputation of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Jolliffe) of unfairness on his part.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONsaid, his hon.
1110
Friend did not charge the right bon. Gentleman with unfarness: he spoke only of seeming unfairness.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 144: Majority 29.
The House resumed.
Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.