The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-06 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN O'CLOCK

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OP COMMONS---This Day.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past 12.
PETITIONS.
...

Several petitions were presented against the sale of in-
toxicating liquors on the Sabbath; Mr. LOCKE, South-
wark, against the amalgamation of the city with the metro-
politan police ; Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN against the
Prison Ministers Bill ; Mr. BAILEY, from Manchester
against the Poor Removal Bill.
CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.

Mr. NEWDEGATE 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 even
charge upon the owners of land and other property, as pro-
posed by this bill. The bill would materially relieve Dis•
senters, 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 solely
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-
ferred 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
based upon the express opinions, as he had said, of Sir
Robert reel. If the bill was permitted to go into commit-
tee he was prepared to introduce clauses to define the way
the pro luce of this new rate should be appropriated. He
purposed adopting the suggestions of Arcbdeacen Hal ,
that the money collected should be directed to maintaining
the fabrics, to the proper arrangement of the graveyards,
ayr, lawyers, and laymen.
should be
He
and to the decent conduct of the service. Ihe board
which he proposed should guide the imposition of the tax
should
did ben ot fairlyoonsicomposedder
that a cleo of
preponderance
given to landowners, because many of them were not mem-
bers of the Church. belt 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
e of the house to withdraw
office, and that his conduct
their support from him. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. STRACEY seconded the motion.
iwnhoieffihcehehandadledintdhiocsaet eodn
tohuatt osfi d
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 tim, this day six months, unless
the hon. gentleman consented to its being referred to a
select commit,ee. Such a bill would not he 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-
sent upon them. As the rates would be made permanent,
the power of opposing the tax, as now, in the vestries would
be entirely removed from the owners of land. The proposed
machinery in connection with Queen Anne's Commissioners
was intricate, cumbersome, andicostly. Besides, the prin.
ciple of centralisation would be most objectionable to the
parishes. No provision was made for the defrayal of ex-
penses to which the 2d. in the pound was unequal as at
present.

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
not lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question of
church rates. That portion of it which provided that land-
owners could commute all future 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-
machinery, 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 Testes could not tie carried, that
they would come to some understanding 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
tnese rates. (Hear, hear.) The Government would give
every encouragement to such a measure.
Sir S. NOR f HCO t E appealed to his hon. friend to
withdraw his bill, as .here was no probabiltiy of its being
carried in the present session
Mr. R. MILLS contended that church rates were fairly
and legally chargeable upon persons and oocupiers, and not
upon land. There was no ecclesiastical law which could
be oth-,rwise interpreted. Only under statute law was the
tax liable upon property. He opposed the bill because it
would leg.lise an injualce.
Mr. SUOURFIELD likewise urged the hon. member
to withdraw the bill.
Mr. NE WDEGA LE replied. A settlement of this
question had been demanded for 29 or 30 yewrs, and he was
anxious to obtain the decision of the house on the prin..
ciples it contained. He was willing. however, to refer the
bill to a select committee.
The house then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading 56
Against it
94 • 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
ighhete hnav seenbtewe,. with i
enathbilsedon u e,
now provided for the redemption of the land tax.
Mr. EVANS seconded the motion.
Mr. NE ‘l,measure,DEGATE opposed the bill,
esnaydimngentthaott had
e
his own measure, just rejected
to a select committee, they m
approximate, by the conjunction and
two to a satisfactory and useful measure.
dr. DODSON supported the bill in order to have the
matter settled.

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. GRIFFITHS opposed the measure, considering
that it would prove ineffectual for the purpose.
Mr. BRISTOW supportiendthseebcoilnl,d.a.rn:d.ds.inai.g.d..
....
72
Against
easily amended in committee.
The house divided, when there appeared--
The
rl aes osiretietoynadgraei
ang ...
t the 81
Majority
consequently lost.

roposed after th® word "may,"
SECURITY FROM VIOLENCE BILL,
The house went into committtm on this bill.
On clause 1,
" provided any previous conviction tot
felony be found against him,'
to MinntrolLEcAe
He objected to unneces-
sarily introducing the brutalising infliction of corpora
nishmen COCKE p
t into their criminal code, because of a tempo-
s t term. (Hear, hear.) It
corporal punishment was to be looked upiin as effectual,
defended the olauce, considering the
night poaching ? (Laughter.)
He objected, at any rate, to its infliction for the first
rarywhy ahloatrminflorictpaitnficorabraopuet :r aro ~
offence.
inflMicrtioAnDoDfEcßorLpoErYal punishment for the first conviction
only commensurate with the offence.
Mr. CLAY said the optexcional state of things which
le
bud. The best way was
had led to the proposition :this bill was now over, and
advised the withdrawal of the bill.
flogging because it was effec-
t, hear.)
Atter some discussion, joilt which Sir S. Northcote, Mr.
Puller, Mr. Bcntinck, C 1. North, Lord H Fans, took
part, the house divided, when there appeared—
Against For the amendment ............... 37
tt
ou aNniii rp.a nc
:dilmnAeßbi°Bndi itYh e
......... : ................ 191
Majority against .......... —154
Mr. MI TFOlt i) proi seal to
eleave out. " publicly or," so
that the punishment ini,,,ht b inflicted in public by the
prison officers and in the presence of the prisoners.
nsetrtoiknesise intendedlt `would
be inflicted,
The amendment was not pressed, and the clause was
adopted.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, in reply to Sir G. Grey, that
but not more • • wou be optional
the nu
with the judg eto state mber of lashes to be inflicted.
150 was th
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
" u rxa inn 15u0ma oof
proper . ent" to be used ;. but in the end the amendment
was negatived without a division.
Mr. DENT moved (5 o'clock) th at the Chairman report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The hiiuse divided on this motion, there appeared—
For reporting progress 32
Against ............. , 159
Majority against reporting progress .. ...27
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 question of flogging, believing that