economy; he knew they did so in Nor- than before, because they would be backed folk, and he believed their management by the support of the people. would contrast favourably with that of town councils and other borough expenditure. But, on principle, the elective system ought to be introduced. Believing that permissive legislation was the worst of legislation, he objected to the Bill because it was permissive. Some of the details of the Bill were objectionable, and a few of them were actually mischievous. He therefore thought the hon. Member for Bodmin would do well to act on the suggestion of the Home Secretary; and in the name of the farmers of England he thanked the hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he also was glad to see so decided an agreement in the principle of the Bill. He hoped his hon. Friend would accept the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He knew that in doing so his hon. Friend would be making a great sacrifice, now that a general assent was given to the principle of his Bill. But he hoped his hon. Friend would see that in this way he was more likely to attain the object he had in view; for it was now plain that no Bill would pass through Parliament this year; and if the question were ever to be properly settled it must be taken up by the Government of the country. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), though he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not represent an agricultural constituency, he represented a borough which, not having a separate Quarter Sessions, was rated by the county magistrates; and he was of opinion that the time had come when they must apply self-government, as regarded local affairs, to counties as well as to boroughs. For his part, he would rather deal even with the mistakes of elected bodies than with the most common-sense arrangements issued from the Home Office; because in the former case the feelings of the people would be with the Board. He trusted the result of this debate would be, not only to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, but that various other questions in connection with it would receive full consideration. He did not believe that, by any change that might be made, they would get a better or more economical expenditure than they had from the county magistrates. He believed that under an elective system they would have the same men to ' regulate these affairs, but with more power MR. SCOURFIELD said, that so far as his own experience or observation went, the privilege of county magistrates to look after the county expenditure might be looked upon in the light of a damnosa hereditas. The duty was troublesome and onerous. As to the complaints made against the system, he agreed with those who represented it as a sentimental grievance. The noble Lord (Lord Henley) had stated the case with great clearness and fairness. The difficulty experienced was not that the magistrates spent too much, but rather that they could not be induced to spend what they ought to do, especially in the matter of prosecutions. Besides, most of the county expenditure was statutory, and not in the control of the magistrates; and he believed the utmost saving that could be effected would not amount to more than 2d. in the pound. The whole question was one of the administration of details. What was wanted was to satisfy any feeling existing in the country on the subject, and at the same time to preserve an effective machinery for business. He would recommend that a limited number of elected members should be added to the board of magistrates, where their advice and assistance would be given with great advantage. This Bill, containing 140 clauses, was not calculated, in his opinion, to effect the object in view. He hoped the hon. Member who introduced the Bill would be satisfied with the expression of opinion which had been evoked, and would act in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of State. There was no desire on the part of the magistrates of this country to conceal anything from the ratepayers, their only wish being to secure celerity in the transaction of public business. MR. WHALLEY said, he understood that the last Speaker was opposed to the principle of the Bill. [Mr. SCOURFIELD: No.] The recommendation of the Secretary of State, that the general subject should be investigated by a Select Committee, was but a courteous way of shelving the Bill altogether. No question had ever been so frequently discussed, and under so many forms, as the present. The grievance had been spoken of as a sentimental one, but he was sure it was a practical grievance as well. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, and allow this Bill to go before a Select Committee. MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE approv-mained, as at present, in the hands of the ing the principle of the Bill, and not de- magistrates, or whether a large ratepaying siring the subject to be shelved, hoped element were introduced, the influence and the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his power of the local authorities would be Bill and that the House would unani- exercised to little purpose so long as the mously assent to the proposal of the Go- Government were permitted to interfere vernment. He could not agree with the with the magistrates, as in the case of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce), inspection of gaols. He had been led to that the business at Quarter Sessions was make these observations in consequence of usually transacted hurriedly. In the county a very objectionable course which was with which he was connected, at all events, taken in the western district of Suffolk, the greatest possible attention was paid to which he had the honour to represent, and the county business and expenditure. He which course had led to a lengthened mewas likewise unable to concur in the re- morial from the magistrates to the Home mark of the right hon. Gentleman, that Secretary. That memorial might perhaps other property than land paid the greater be under the consideration of the right portion of the rates. He hoped, indeed, hon. Gentleman at the present moment. that such a state of things would soon He ventured to hope that the remarks exist, but he feared that it did not at which had fallen from several hon. Mempresent. "The wish was father to the bers in the course of this discussion might thought." In the counties with which he have some influence in inducing the right was acquainted the land and houses bore hon. Gentleman to weigh the matter well all the large and daily increasing burdens before he came to any decision upon it. borne by parochial and county rates. It had been said by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), that the dual principle had been found to work well wherever it was applied. But though it might do so in the case of Boards of Guardians, Cattle Plague Boards, Highway Boards and the like, it might not do so in the case to which it was now sought to apply it. It must be remembered that while the ratepayers were for the most part irresponsible persons, the magistrates were responsible for the peace of the county, for the safe custody of prisoners, and for the care of lunatics, as well as for the buildings; and they must see that the proper amount of money was spent for those purposes. MR. THOMAS PAGET said, there were two points which he considered to be highly objectionable in the Bill. The first was the permissive clause, and the second was the placing the representation in the hands of those who were themselves representatives of others. The elections, he thought, ought in every case to be directly made by those who were interested in the question. He therefore thought it wiser that the hon. Member should withdraw his Bill on the understanding that the whole subject should be taken up by a Committee. But he should feel bound to support the hon. Member if he proceeded to a division. MAJOR PARKER said, he did not deny the expediency of forming Financial Boards, but he wished to say that, whether the power of arranging county finances re He SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY said, that though he gave his assent to the proposal before the House, he did so most unwillingly, and he regretted the course that had been taken. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had informed him the other day that he could not consent to refer his Bill to a Select Committee, because it had not been printed. (Sir William Gallwey) could not disguise from himself the fact that the House might almost be said to be a body of magistrates, and they seemed to think that a question affecting the interests of ratepayers might be postponed for any length of time. There was a strong feeling out of doors, among those who were deeply interested in the matter, that it ought to be dealt with as soon as possible. He was unable to discern any reason why the Select Committee should not make his and his hon. Friend's Bill the basis of its investigations. MR. SPEAKER interposed, and remarked that this was not the time for the hon. Member to discuss the question of the Bill going to a Select Committee. That could only be considered when the Bill had been read a second time. SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY said that was undoubtedly so, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department had already stated the course he meant to take with regard to his Motion when it came forward. However, for the purpose of the present argument, he would simply assume that the Secretary of State might decide that the principle of a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Now, what valid reasons would there be against adopting such a course? If the Committee had something substantial to consider there would be a much greater chance of attaining the objects in view than if it had merely to decide upon an abstract question of principle, which, indeed, had been al ready discussed before more than one Committee. It had been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the landlords, either themselves or by their tenants, contributed very largely to the rates of the county; but he entirely denied that landlords paid anything vicariously by their tenants. Would any man say that the rents of farms had been lowered in consequence of the payment of rates by the tenants under the Union Chargeability Act? Indeed, if the tenants did not pay rates, why were they called upon to fill the office of guardian? MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he thought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wyld) was entitled to have the principle of the Bill verified in the ordinary way. If that were done it might then be referred to a Select Committee. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would divide the House, in which event he should certainly follow him into the Lobby. It appeared to him that the Government were simply trifling with the question. The Leaders on either side of the House were wont to give advice to independent Members, and why should not the latter occasionally give advice to their Leaders? For his own part, he did not care either for his Leader or his party. He had independent opinions of his own, and always expressed them; and in the present instance he clearly thought the House ought to divide on the second reading. He had never been a magistrate, and had no desire to be one as long as magistrates were unpaid. The magistrates might generally do their business pretty well; though he confessed that, looking at certain recent appointments, they were not exactly the sort of persons he should like to trust. At all events, the ratepayers naturally wished to have some control over the application of their own money. What was the use of introducing Bills if those who had charge of them did not divide upon them. He should support the second reading, if it were only to show the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that they should not take everything into their hands. They wished to take everything and to give nothing. Adverting to the useless debates which had lately consumed the time of the House, the hon. and learned Member remarked that, unless they made more rapid progress with the business, it would be impossible to have a dissolution for two or three years. MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT said, he hoped the House would not attribute any weight whatever to the remarks just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had but just entered the House, and, consequently, had not heard the discussion. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE remarked, that he had been in the House for an hour and a quarter. MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT said, he thought it an unfortunate thing that the unanimity of the House should be disturbed by remarks like those which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was agreed on all hands that the Bill was good in principle, but that it was not in working trim, and therefore the proposition made by the Government had been almost unanimously acceded to. MR. MOWBRAY said, that in order to give his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an opportunity of again addressing the House, he would formally move for the appointment of a Select Committee. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end Select Committee be appointed to inquire into of the Question, in order to add the words "a the present mode of conducting the Financial Arrangements of the Counties in England and Wales, and whether any alteration ought to be made either in the persons by whom or the manner in which such arrangements are now con ducted," (The Judge Advocate,) -instead thereof. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that in 1853 a Bill, similar to the present, was referred to a Select Committee, but nothing resulted from it. He now proposed that an inquiry should be made into the whole subject, in order that the Government might have the information necessary to enable them to bring forward a satisfactory measure. MR. WYLD said, there had been a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill, though several Members had pointed out that some of the details were faulty - an objection always made when a measure was introduced by a private Member. He was quite willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that the details might be amended. He confessed, that the proposal of the Secretary of State was somewhat disappointing to him. He was, however, willing to assent to the proposition of the Government if it was to be understood that, on the Resolutions of the Committee being reported to the House, the Government would undertake the duty of bringing in a Bill. He added that the question was one which the Government ought to take in hand; it affected most important interests; and the present state of things was felt by a large, wealthy, and influential body to be a grievance. A measure of this kind ought never to be in the hands of a private Member. The promoters of this Bill would be delighted to afford the Government every assistance. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he could not possibly pledge himself and the Government as to what should be done. He presumed the Committee would inquire into the subject, and, when they had reported, the Government would be able to consider the question thoroughly. The views of the Committee and those of the Government might not be in accordance, or the Committee might be in direct opposition to the hon. Member. on which it was based. Many persons had asked, "What has the House of Commons to do with the Irish Peerage?" forgetting that it was constituted and regulated by an Act of which they had heard much during the last few weeks-namely, the Act of Union; and no alteration of the existing arrangements could be made without an Act of Parliament. There was nothing in the objection that this Bill ought to have been introduced into the House of Lords in the first instance. The Act of Union was brought forward first in the Houses of Commons of England and Ireland, and passed through them before it went to the Upper Houses. The first object of the Bill was to prevent the creation of any more Irish Peers. At the time of the Union the Irish Peerage was placed in the same position as the Scotch Peerage at the time of the Union in this respect, that instead of all Irish Peers having seats in the other House, it was arranged that the Irish Peerage should be represented by the election of a number of Peers. There was, however, this difference-that at the time of the Union with Scotland, the creation of any more Scotch Peers was prevented, while at the time of the Union with Ireland the right to create Irish Peers was preserved to a certain limited extent. The power of the Crown to create Irish Peers was forced upon the Irish House of Lords by the Duke of Portland. The objections urged against this power by the then Irish Peers were so strong that Lord Cornwallis wrote to the Duke of Portland expressing fears lest the Act of Union should be imperilled, and suggesting the compromise which was ultimately adopted. That was that the Crown should and be at liberty to create one Peer for every three Peerages that might become extinct, and that when the number of Peers was reduced to 100, the Crown might create as many as it pleased to keep the number up at 100. It was popularly believed that the number must be kept up at 100; but the maintenance of that number was discretionary, and not compulsory. He hoped the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland would ultimately be united with the Peerage of England. At the time of the Union with Scotland there were 154 Peers of Scotland. Since then 76 Peerages had expired, and, deducting those that had been made British Peerages, there remained 36 Scotch Peers, of whom 16 were representative Peers, leaving only a small residue without seats in the Upper House. MR. SERJEANT GASELEE was dissatisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary, and insisted upon a division. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 46; Noes 154: Majority 108. Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, agreed to. Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present mode of conducting the Financial Arrangements of the Counties in England and Wales, and whether any alteration ought to be made either in the persons by whom or the manner in which such arrangements are now conducted. (The Judge Advocate.) PEERAGE (IRELAND) BILL-[BILL 83.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN said, that in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, he wished to state its provisions and to explain the principles At the time of the Union with Ireland | incapacitated, his seat should be declared there were 228 Irish Peerages, of which vacant. He also proposed that a repre 60 had become extinct, leaving a remainder of 168, of which about 80 had been made British Peerages. He believed there were now 111 pure Peers of Ireland, and only 28 being representative Peers, 83 had no seats. Since the Act of Union 18 Peers had been created. To prevent any further creations was the first object of the Bill. If any Irishman was worthy of being created a Peer, he was worthy of the full rights of the Peerage and of a seat in the House of Lords. The Irish Peer occupied an extraordinary position. He had only the right of voting for one of the 23 representative Peers, and he was deprived of the ordinary privileges of citizenship, because he could not take part in the financial business of his country, and he could not be a Member of the House of Commons for any place in Ireland, though he might represent an English constituency. Therefore, unless he could secure election in England it was impossible for him to discharge any of the ordinary duties of his position. For these reasons the Irish Peerage ought not to be maintained, and to limit its continuance he proposed to prevent any new creations. He did not propose to interfere with promotion in the Irish Peerage, but he did propose to make some alterations in the present system of representative Peers. The representative Irish Peers were at present elected for life; but in Scotland the representative Peers were elected for one Parliament. Although an Irish representative Peer might succeed to a British Peerage, he still remained a representa tive Peer; and a case had occurred in which a representative Peer was for nearly two years in a lunatic asylum, there being no power to elect another until his death. No Scotch Peer who succeeded to a British Peerage could remain a representative Peer. If a representative Peerage of Ireland were to remain, as it must until the whole Irish Peerage became extinct or was absorbed in the British Peerage, it ought to be made truly representative as it was in Scotland; and he, therefore, proposed, without interfering with the existing rights of life Peers, that all elections after the passing of the Bill should be for a Parliament only; that any representative Peer becoming a British Peer by creation or succession, should, ipso facto, cease to be a representative Peer; and that if any representative Peer become mentally sentative Peer might resign his position if he chose to do so. At present an elected Peer could not resign, but must hold office for life, even although he might be elected against his will. He further proposed that in the election of representative Peers cumulative voting should be introduced, so as to secure the representation of the minority. He would enable any Peer to give to one candidate as many votes as there were vacancies. At present the minority was wholly unrepresented, and it was impossible that that injustice could be remedied, as it was said to be in the House of Commons, by the Member for one constituency representing the minority in another. At present, he believed the election to the Irish Peerage was a mere matter of nomination, and the late Prime Minister appointed all the Irish Peers. [The Earl of MAYO: No.] Whether that were so or not, no one could be elected unless he professed those extreme Radical opinions which found favour on the Treasury Bench, and a moderate Conservative like those that sat at this side of the House had not the slightest chance of being elected. If this proposal of cumulative voting were adopted with respect to the Irish Peerage, he hoped it would be applied to the Scotch Peerage. A Scotch Peer could not sit for any place in England, Scotland, or Ireland; and if he did not belong to the dominant party he had no chance of being elected a representative Peer. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Mayo) could hardly favour the continued creation of Irish Peers, which was only forced upon the Irish Peers at the time of the Union, that the Crown might have an additional means of conferring favour upon English sup. porters; for if the noble Earl could not find a seat in England or Scotland he would be excluded from public life, could take no part in the public business of his country, and would be compelled to vegetate upon his property. Prevent the further creation of Peers and in time the Irish Peerage would become extinct, naturally, as well as by the creation of British Peers, and in this way the Peerages of the three kingdoms would become amalgamated. Even if the House of Lords were increased by the number of the Scotch and Irish Peers (which he did not propose by this Bill) it would not be a large body compared with others. There were 466 |