The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-07 00:00:00

IMPER,

HOUSE OF COMMONS---Yesterday.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past 124
CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.
Mr. NEW LEGATE said, in moving the second read-
ing of this bill, that it would be found to be in accordance
with the desires of the occupiers of land and houses, and
with the desires of all men of moderate opinions, whether
connected with the Church or Dissenters. Some change
of the law, which would provide for the fabrics, and the
ordinary church expenses, was now required. He
deprecated any desire to disturb the relations that
subsisted between the Church and the constitution.
Parliament, he was satisfied, had no desire to interfere with
those parochial organisations. The Times had styled his
proposition—which might be characterised as a compromise
between those of moderate and extreme opinions upon the
matter—as "Mr.Newdegate's specific." It would, he thought,
have been better for the leading journal to have striven to
advocate unanimity in this matter in the place of foment.
ing discord. He quoted the opinion of the late Sir Robert
Peel in favour of commuting church rates by a small
charge upon the owners of land and other property, as pro-
posed by this bill. The bill would materially relieve Dis-
seaters, and would thus get rid of what Sir James Graham
said occurred under the present system, namely, " ticketing
Dissenters." The late Mr. Whittle Harvey was, too,
strongly of opinion that church rates should be s')lely
charged upon land. Sir W. Page Wood held that by the
common and statute law these rates had always been charge-
able on the land. Lord John Russell contended that the
imposition of church rates on Dissenters was not an act of
injustice, because the land on which they were charged had
been bought by them subject to the imposition. He pre-
tarred proceeding by a bill in the place of a resolution, be-
cause for three sessions he had adopted the latter course,
and the result had not been such as to satisfy him. Sir
Robert Peel was in favour of making a distinction
in the imposition of church rates between large towns and
rural districts. In many of the large towns church rates
were practically abolished; but he proposed to enable
quarter sessions to null the exemption, and to impose the
rate proposed by the bill, provided two-thirds of the rate.
payers were in favour of the adoption of such a course. He
placed the charge at 2d. in the pound, that having been the
average rate of church rates levied during the last 25 years
in England and Wales. The bill was based upon the
suggestions of well experienced people, eminent lawyers
and others, who, like him, had for the last seven years
turned their attention to the subject. Moreover it was
bases 'Upon eho eApress opinions, as he had said, of Sir
Robert Peel. If the bill was permitted to go into commit-
tee he was prepared to introduce clauses to define the way
the produce of this new rate should be appropriated. He
purposed adopting the suggestions of Archdeacon Hall,
that the money collected should be directed to maintaining
the fabrics, to the proper arrangement of the graveyards,
and to the decent conduct of the service. Ihe board
which he proposed should guide the imposition of the tax
should be fairly composed of clergy, lawyers, and laymen.
He did not consider that a preponderance should be
given to landowners, because many of them were not mem-
bers of the Church, but he would allow them to constitute
a fair proportion. It was, indeed, a matter of regret that
Sir Robert Peel had not carried out in office those measures
which he had indicated out of office, and that his conduct
in office had led those on that side of the house to withdraw
their support from him. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. STRACEY seconded the motion.
Sir C. DOUGLAS said he should support the bill if all
the clauses were struck out save the 39th, which provided
that church rates should cease on a certain day in the pre-
sent year. As he greatly objected to the bill he proposed
that it be read a second time that day six months, unless
the hone a corsented to its being referred to a
select committee. Such a bill would not be palatable to the
country, and could never work well. A settlement of the
church rate question was much to be desired, but this bill
would not effect a palatable compromise.
Lord HENLEY seconded the amendment. The Dis-
senters would not accept a bill like this • only one
emanating from themselves would receive their support.
The bill would afford no relief to Dissenters, and in some
cases would positively throw a heavier charge than at pre-
thtael' owners of land. The proposed
pre-
sent upon them. As the rates would be made permanent,
as now, in the vestries would
machinery in connection with Queen Anne's Commissioners
powertirely of
removed opposing
i.rom the
WAS intricate, cumbersome, and costly. Besides, the prin-
ciple of centralisation would be most objectionable to the
btheeen
parishes. No provision was made for the defrayal of ex-
present enses to which the 2d. in the pound was unequal as at
p.
Sir H. STRACEY supported the bill. Owners of land
could capitalise the rates to which they were liable by a
single payment, and so rid their land for ever from the
impost. Those on his side of the house earnestly desired
to act in this matter with a Chi istian feeling, and in the
hope of for ever settling the ill-feeling that prevailed with
respect to church rates.
Mr. HARDY considered that the bill would not lead to
an amicable settlement of the matter.
Sir G. GREY was sure every one in the house gave the
hon. member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) full
credit for being actuated by an ardent desire to bring the
matter to a settlement. But he was afraid this bill would
rot lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question of
church rates. That portion of it which provided that land-
owners could commute all futare charges by a single pay-
ment was a very excellent feature. The transference of the
responsibility of the tax from the occupier to the owner
would not be so easy of adoption as the hon. gentleman ap-
peared to suppose, and, besides, he was afraid the ma-
chinery by which this bill was proposed to be carried
out would be far too cumbersome to be effectual. He ad-
vised the hon. gentleman not to persevere with the bill.
The paucity of members to-day, compared with last
Wednesday, testified that a general impression prevailed
that the bill would not be pressed, (Hear, hear.) He
trusted the Dissenters, finding that the bill of the hon.
baronet, the member for Tavisteck (Sir J. Trelaway), for
the total repeal of church rates could not ne carried,
would come to some under standing with those who
were opposed to them, in order to arrive at a friendly set-
tlement of the question short of the total abolition of
these rates. (Hear hear.) The Government would give
every encouragement to such a measure.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE appealed to his hon, friend to
withdraw his bill, as there was no probability of its being
carried in the present session.
Mr. R. MILLS contended that church rates were fairly
and legally chargeable upon parsons and occupiers, and not
upon land. Thera was no ecclesiastical law which could
be otherwise interpreted. Only under statute law was the
tax liable upon property. He opposed the bill because it
would legelise an injustice.
Mr. SUOURFIELD likewise urged the hon. member
to withdraw the bill,
Mr. NE WDEGA FE replied. A settlement of this
question had been demanded for 29 or 30 years, and he was
anxious tontained o obtain the decision of the house on. the prin-
bill
ciples it c.
to a select commi tea H was willing, however, to refer the
a.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. 56
Against it ...............
Majority against the second reading —3B
The bill was consequently lost.
CHURCH RATES REDEMPTION BILL.
Mr. ALCOCK moved the second reading of this bill, the
object of which, he said, was to enable owners of land and
others to redeem church rates in the same way as the law
now provided for the redemption of the land tax,
Mr. EVANS seconded the motion.
Mr. NE WDEGATE opposed the bill, saying that had
his own measure, just rejected, been sent with this one
to a select committee, they might have been enabled to
approximate, by the conjunction and amendment of the
two, to a satisfactory and useful measure.
matter D
r. ODS
ttled.ON supported the bill in order to have the
se
Sir G. GREY said it was important to afford facilities
for the commutation of church rates, but the bill would
require great amendment before it could be made effectual.
He thought it would place too much power in the ecclesi-
astical courts, but he had no objection to the second
reading.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH opposed the measare, considering
the, it would prove ineffectual for the purpose.
Mr. BRISTOW supported the bill, and said it could be
easily amended in committee.
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the second reaoing
Against it
Majority against the second reading.. —9
The bill was consequently lost.
SECURITY FROM VIOLENCE BILL,
The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. PEACOCKE proposed after the word " may,"
to introduce "provided any previous conviction for
felony be found against him." He objected to unneces-
sarily introducing the brutalising infliction of corporal
punishment into their criminal code, because of a temp-
rary alarm or panic about "garotters." (Hear, hear.)
If
corporal punishment was to be looked upon as effectual,
why not inflict it for rape or night poaching p (Laughter.)
Ile objected, at any rate, to its infliction for the first
offence.

Mr. ADDERLEY defended the clause, considering the
infliction of corporal punishment for the first conviction
only commensurate with the offence.
Mr. CLAY said the exceptional state of things which
had led to the proposition of this bill was now over, and
advised the withdrawal of the bill,
nipd nobody liked it. (Lean h
H g—ter-) The best way was
to crime in the bud. ( 1, hear.)
After some discussion, in which Sir S. Northcote, Mr.
Mr MARSH advocated flogging because
it
was
sae-
Puller, Mr. Bentinck, Col. North, Lord II Fane, took
presence of the prisoners.
part, the house divided, when there appeared_
might be inflicted in public by the
For the amendment ................ 37
Against
Majority......a.ga..iis.t• • 191
—154
Mr. MITFORD proose to leave out "publicly or," so
einntthe
The amendment was not pressed, and
prison that t hseffire
officers
punishment
the clause was
adopted.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, 'l3 reply to Sir G. Grey, that
150 was thymaximum of strokes intended to be inflicted,
but not more than 50 at one time. It would be optional
with !he judge to state the number of lashes to be inflicted.
The instruments would be those at present provided in the
prisons.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY proposed to add, after "offender"
the words "the instrument of punishment shall be that
which is used in the navy_"
A spirited discussion then ensued with respect to the
proper " cat" to be used ; in the end the amendment
was negatived without a division,
Mr. DENT moved (5 o'clock) that the Chairman report
progress, and ask leave to sit again,
The h
divided on this motion, there appeared—
AgainstFo reporting progress .................... 32
. ... ................... 159
Majority against reporting progress..-127
On the question that the clause, as amended, be agreed to,
Mr. COX said he was desirous of taking the sense of the
house on the broad
many members the question of fieggiu_
g believing that
n in the b
—mute were inimical to it.
(Hear, hear.)
The house then divided, when there were_
For the clause ........................ 144
Against it
Majority ............. --113
The remaining clauses, with some amendments, were
then agreed to, and the chairman reported progress.
MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (IRELAND)
BILL.
This bill was read a second time,
ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
The house adjourned at half Tut 6 o'clock.