clauses were essential to the bill, omit | On the view, therefore, that he took, they them without infringing the privileges of the House of Commons. But surely it would not be contended, that the clauses omitted in this case, were essential to the bill? They had formed no original part of it; but had been introduced in com. mittee. Altogether omitting those clauses, did not so change the character of the bill as to prevent them, consistently with their privileges, from going on with it. Upon looking into the subject he found an authority, in the year 1835, respectingthe Southend Pier Bill, which he thought applicable to the present case. The House of Lords had omitted a clause which might have been considered as absolutely essential - a clause giving power to issue public money for the purposes of the bill. The Lords struck out the clause, and the Commons agreed to the said amendment of their Lordships, because the clause was introduced in committee upon the bill, and without the authority of the House according to its usual form when issuing public money. He had no wish to go into the merits of the amendments, but simply to state what he believed to be the proper rule respecting the privileges of the House. ought to disagree to these amendments on the point of privilege, but that disagreement did not conclude the whole question of the bill. He proposed, therefore, to disagree to those amendments which affected these privileges, and take the rest into consideration on Friday. Motion agreed to. RURAL CONSTABULARY.] Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the County and District Constables' Bill. On the question, that the Speaker leave the Chair, Mr. Hume regretted, that the House were about by this bill to transfer to an irresponsible power the right of taxing the whole community. Previously to carrying into operation such a measure as this, they ought to have constituted boards of rate payers, to be elected by, and to be responsible to the rate-papers, for the con. duct of this business. He objected to proceeding with so important a bill at this period of the Session. It was a bill which required a full attendance, and ought to have had even a call of the House. He submitted, too, that in the principle of it, they were at fault, and he thought the noble Lord ought to consider well how he went about to violate the great principle that the people should only be taxed by their representative. the purpose of postponing the measure to another Session, he moved, that the further consideration of it be taken that day three months. For Lord J. Russell could conceive, that there were certain cases in which the rejection of money clauses by the House of Lords, might not make it necessary for them to insist upon those clauses. But as the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had stated, and as he (Lord J. Russell) also thought, the difficulty in this case was, that the fact of the rejection of the clause by the Lords, did not entirely get rid of the power of taxation, but did in fact, and in sub-ple of centralization adopted in this meastance, transfer that power to another sure. He did not wish to see the police the centralization was precisely the same, | Lushington, C. body. That he conceived, to be the point which created a difference between this case, and that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was of opinion, that the course to be pursued was to disagree to the amendments altogether. Now, he conceived, that they might perfectly well disagree with these amendments, and do it on the ground of privilege. It was quite a common practice for the House to disagree to any amendments of the House of Lords, and to state the grounds of their disagreement to the Lords, subjoin ing, at the same time, that such and such other amendments they had rejected as -being an interference with their privileges. Mr. T. Attwood cordially seconded the motion. His objection was to the princi appointed by the county magistrates. Lord J. Russell could not conceive how the objections of hon. Gentleman applied to this bill. Some hon. Members declared that if a board were appointed by the rate-payers, and responsible to them, they should not object to the bill placing the control of the police in such body, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) objected to placing the appointment of them in the hands of the county magistrates, and complained of the centralising character of the bill. But it was clear that whether they placed the appointment in a board elected by the rate-payers, or in the county magistrates, for centralization had, in fact, nothing to do with it at all, because in either case a local body was taken. Centralization was misapplied to the present bill which vested the power of appointment in the hands of the county magistrates. He did not himself object to the general principle that there should be county boards appointed by the rate-payers. The bill would only give to a body which was now in existence the power of appointing special constables. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow it to pass; he should be very sorry to allow the Session to pass over without the measure becoming law. Mr. Warburton suggested, that the noble Lord should make this bill--which was only passed without debate at present on account of the emergencies of the country -only a bill of two years' duration. Lord J. Russell said, that if they limited the duration of the bill to two years, the magistrates could only make engagements for two years, and if they could only make your engagements for two years, the most valuable men would not take employment under them. Sir E. Wilmot objected to that part of the bill which related to the appointment of one chief constable in each county, and in the committee he would make a proposal to get rid of that difficulty. The House divided on the original question;-Ayes 85; Noes 14: Majority 71. List of the AYES. Eliot, Lord Grimsditch, T. Hope, G. W. Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Loch, J. Lowther, J. H. Smith, R. V. Stanley, hon. W. O. Lushington, rt. hn. S. Somerset, Lord G. Palmer, G. Parker, J. Surrey, Earl of Thomson, rt. hn. C.P. Thornely, T. Troubridge, Sir E. T. hon. C. P. Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H. Warburton, H. Philips, M. Price, Sir R. Round, J. Wilbraham, G. Wood, G. W. TELLERS. Stanley, hon. E. J. List of the NOES. Brotherton, J. Grote, G. Redington, T. Ν. TELLERS. Hume, J. Bill went through the Committee. BIRMINGHAM POLICE.] Mr. Fox Mr. T. Attwood was confident that it was a most improvident bill, and he much feared that it would produce much evil of a serious nature in the town of Birmingham. He must complain of the change made from the first bill, which the people of Birmingham would not object to, to an arbitrary measure which threw the whole power into the hands of the Secretary for the Home Department, and made, too, at the suggestion of the general opponents of the Government. He did not see why the men of Birmingham of the present day should not be governed as were their grandfathers. He did hope that the Government would take warning in time, and not persevere in this bill, or any similar measure, for he had no doubt that it would produce great mischief to the peace and content of the country, and might endanger the security of the Throne itself. He was sure, that a police force would do no good under the controul of the Home Secretary, but it would be good and useful under the control of the corporation. | berals." As to this bill, he looked upon He, therefore, moved that the bill be read it as unfortunate for Birmingham and for a second time that day three months. the country, and he should vote against it. List of the AYES. Mr. Scholefield, in seconding the motion said, there was a strong disposition on the The House divided on the oirginal part of the council to resist this measure. question:-Ayes 74; Noes 20: Majority He was sure the people of Birmingham 54. would not be satisfied with it, as it was meant to keep them down, and all that could be charged against the town was a riot which might have happened in any town. On a former evening, so convinced was he of the necessity of some police in the town of Birmingham, that he had voted for the first reading of this bill. He would now, however, oppose it, because, on better consideration, he was convinced, it would do much mischief. Sir E. Wilmot had voted for the bill, but not on the ground that the corporation of Birmingham were not competent to manage their own affairs. It was well known that difficulties had arisen as to the power of the corporation to raise the rates, and until the question was settled in a court of law, it became necessary to apply to Government for an advance of money for local purposes; the Government consented to give the money, but annexed its own conditions to the advance. If the Government meant to retain the power in its own hands permanently, he would oppose the bill. If the hon. Members for Birmingham would even now say on the part of the corporation, that they would raise the money without any application to Government, he would vote against the bill. Mr. Wakley thought, that the circumstances connected with this and the former bill were very humiliating to the Liberals in that House. By the former, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, proposed to rest the nomination of the police in the local authority, which the charter had created, and that intention was cheered by the Liberals, but in ten days from that time, the noble Lord came down to the House and proposed quite a different arrangement, by which the power would be vested in the Government, and for that he was also cheered by the same Liberals. He did not blame the noble Lord, who, he had no doubt, acted with perfect sincerity, and for what he thought the best-but what was he to say to the Liberals for their conduct? They ought, in his opinion, to be called "sycophants," instead of "Li Adam, Admiral Blake, W. J. Boldero, H. G. Bridgman, H. Bryan, G. Burroughes, H. N. Campbell, Sir J. Cowper, hon. W. F. Craig, W. G. Darby, G. Darlington, Earl of Divett, E. Donkin, Sir R. S. Eliot, Lord Gaskell, J. M. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Hinde, J. H. Hobhouse, T. В. Kemble, H. Maule, hon. F. Parker, R. T. Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Round, J. question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, for the House to go into Committee on the Poor-rates Collection Bill, Mr. G. Palmer moved, as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months. The first clause in the bill was rather introduced as a stalkinghorse for the second. It gave the guardians of the poor the power to seize by distress, the goods and chattels of the overseers when the rate-payers refused to pay the rates. Now, was it not most ridiculous to talk of seizing the goods of an overseer in order to make good the payment of-18,000l. for instance? He should like to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to have his property seized because the taxes were not paid. He conceived the object of the Bill was more to indemnify the Poor-law Commissioners for any illegal act which they might have committed than for any thing else. Under these circumstances, he should feel it to be his duty to move the amendment he had stated. the overseers of a parish to contribute a certain quota towards the relief of the poor of an union, but as the law now stood there were no means of enforcing that precept except by mandamus. Of course, when a peremptory mandamus went, the overseers must obey, or go to gaol. But the next time the guardians made an order upon them, payment was refused, and it became necessary to apply for a mandamus again; and so they went on. The parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, had acted in this manner three or four times, and a peremptory mandamus had issued toties quoties. Days, and even weeks and months, elapsed, and meantime the poor were starving. Now, he would ask whether this state of things ought to continue? Undoubtedly, there ought to be some summary and effectual means of compelling obedience to these precepts. If the overseers paid the money required by the guardians, it would not come out of their own pockets, as they had always the means of making a rate. He could assure Mr. Hume said, that there appeared to the House, that if they meant the Poorbe in this bill great injustice and incon-law Amendment Act to remain in force, sistency. It was proposed to give the this bill, or some such bill, must pass into guardians a power of taking the property a law. of the overseers but how were the Mr. Grimsditch was surprised to hear overseers to be relieved ? If there was no relief, could it be expected that any man in England would become an overseer? The second clause gave the guardians the power of appointing the collector of the rates, yet the overseers were to be punished if the collector did not do his duty. Unless the noble Lord gave some satisfactory explanation on these points, he should feel bound to vote against the further progress of the bill. Lord J. Russell said, that it was his intention to propose a modification of the clause as it originally stood, and to give the guardians the power of making a complaint before a magistrate in the first instance, and then, after cause was shown, a distress might issue, if the magistrates should be of opinion that sufficient reason had not been assigned to the contrary. If the guardians were to be compelled to provide for the relief of the poor, they ought to have money for that purpose; that was all that he wanted to effect by this bill. The Attorney-general observed, that as the law now stood there was extreme difficulty in obtaining the requisite funds. The guardians had to make an order on the hon. and learned Attorney-general say that there was no remedy for enforcing the orders of the guardians except by mandamus. Now in section 95 of the Poor-law Amendment Act, it was provided that the guardians should have the power of summoning the overseer before a magistrate for disobeying their order, and if it appeared that the overseer had wilfully neglected his duty, he was liable to a penalty of 5l. He trusted the House did not intend to enlarge the very extensive powers already possessed by the commissioners. Mr. Wakley said, that the object of the bill was to make orders lawful which at present were unlawful, and he thought it would be most unwise to render edicts legal which were not yet seen. The bill was another specimen of Liberalism: it was an extraordinary specimen of Whiggish subtlety and sagacity. It was now said, that guardians were not to have the power of directing the magistrates to issue warrants of distress; but that the magistrates should have the power of summoning the parties and deciding according to the merits of the case. But who were the maIgistrates? The guardians, the ex-officio guardians. So that the guardians would ap- clause. By clause 46 of the Poor-law peal from themselves as guardians to themselves as magistrates. He hoped the noble Lord would not persist in pressing the second clause, whatever might be determined with respect to the first. Mr. Ewart thought the remedy proposed by the noble Lord as respected the first clause met the difficulty which before existed; but with respect to the second clause, he thought the proposition so objectionable, that though he should not oppose the motion for going into committee, he should move its rejection in committee. The House divided on the original motion:-Ayes 51; Noes 16-Majority 35. Amendment Act, it was provided, that the commissioners should have the power of authorizing guardians to elect some officers for carrying the Act into operation. By the interpretation clause (109) of the Poor-law Amendment Act, collectors were specified as amongst the officers whom the commissioners had the power of authorizing the guardians to appoint, and he had thought till the Court of Queen's Bench had decided otherwise, that such was the fair construction of the Act. But the Court of Queen's Bench had decided otherwise, and he was obliged to bow to the decision of that Court. He could assure the House, that the greatest jobbing had been practised in the collection of the rates, and that a great deal of the money had been wasted. Each small parish had the power of appointing a collector, but the salaries of a great many of those officers were so small, that they could not be expected to give up the whole of their time to the performance of their duties, and the commissioners had thought it better to have a single collector for a whole union. Such a plan, in his opinion, could not fail of being productive of the best results, and he was sure, the House would agree with him, that to have one collector for a whole union, devoting the whole of his time to the performance of his duty, Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A. would be highly beneficial to the rate List of the AYES. Hume, J. Mackinnon, W. A. Stock, D. Troubridge, Sir E. T. Warburton, H. Wood, G. W. Yates, J. A. TELLERS. Wood, C. Parker, J. List of the NOES. Douglas, Sir C. Е. Hawkes, T. Hindley, C. Scholefield, J. Vere, Sir C. В. Vigors, N. A. Wood, Colonel T. TELLERS. Palmer, G. Rushbrooke, Colonel Grimsditch, T. House in Committee. On Clause 2, relating to the appointment of collectors, The Attorney-General wished to offer a few observations in explanation of this payers, and to the public generally. Such was the plan upon which the commissioners had acted, and he could assure the House, that it had proved extremely beneficial. It had at the same time been productive of considerable discontent, because it had interfered in some degree with the disposal of local patronage, but upon the whole its tendency had been good. In consequence, however, of the discontent which had been produced, an application had been made to the Court of Queen's Bench to set aside an order of the commissioners for the appointment of a collector, and that Court had decided, that under the Poor-law Amendment Act, the commissioners had not the power to make such orders. He theretore allowed, after that decision, that such orders were illegal, and the object of this clause was to legalize them. It simply was to empower the Poor-law commissioners to authorize the guardians to elect a collector for each union, and he would ask |