MR. J. R. MILLS said, the question had been asked what was the hardship of church rates upon Dissenters. The hardship was, that having to pay for the support of their own ministers, and their own chapels, they had also to pay for the carrying on of the service of the Church. The hon. Member was not right in assuming that the church rate was a charge on property; it had been decided by the highest authorities that it was a charge on persons, in respect of their land, and the remedy in the ecclesiastical courts was against the person and not against the property. The charge of 2d. in the pound would produce £700,000 a year.

was

MR. SCOURFIELD said, that the real grievance of Dissenters was, that they had to pay for the Church as well as for their own worship, and that was the plain reason for their wishing to get rid of church rates. Church rates were only available for repairing churches when they had fallen into decay; but they were wholly inoperative for preventing them for falling into that state, and the thing was not, whether the Church should be repaired, but whether the charge for repairing it was fairly and equitably assigned. No doubt it was true that the granting of an exemption on some tantamount to the imposition of a tax upon others; but he thought that it had recently been very plainly shown that the time had not arrived when they ought to trust to unmixed voluntaryism for the sup port of the institutions of the country. He thought that it might, perhaps, be imprudent of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to press his Motion to a division, after the appeals which had been made to him; but although he (Mr. Scourfield) recommended him not to go against the feeling of the House, he should certainly support him in the second reading of the Bill. MR. NEWDEGATE said, that in answer to the appeals which had been made to him, he must be allowed to state that he represented a very large portion of the community, which protested against the settlement of this question being any longer delayed. No man could take the steps he

dividing the House. He thought there was some confusion in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) as to the nature of his Bill. It was not a Bill to perpetuate church rates, but to substitute for church rates a distinct charge upon property; therefore, when his hon. Friend complained of the exemption of certain places from that charge, he forgot that the inhabitants were to have the power once for all, to reimpose that charge if they thought fit; and he confused the church rate and the right which the parishioners had to reclaim for themselves that portion of the gross value of the property of each parish which had hitherto been represented by church rates. He would willingly accede to the request not to trouble the House by a division; but seeing that it would delay the settlement of a question for which they had been waiting thirty years which settlement had been four times attempted — he felt he could not. with justice to those whom he represented, refuse to give the Members of that House an opportunity of recording their opinions. At the same time, he had no objection, after it had been read a second time, to refer the measure to a Select Committee, in order that its details might be considered before they were submitted to the House.

-

desire to bring about a compromise; yet when a compromise was proposed, they either voted against the second reading of the Bill embodying the proposal, or took the more undignified course of walking out of the House and not voting at all.

SIR GEORGE GREY thought, that however anxious he might be for a compromise, his anxiety on the subject afforded no good reason why he should give no consideration to the provisions of any Bills which might be laid on the table with a view to securing that object. It was very desirable to give every facility for the voluntary extinction of church rates. The present Bill, in his opinion, required considerable alteration in Committee, in order to prevent its conferring powers of too arbitrary a character on the Commissioners, as well as powers too extensive on the tenant for life. He, at the same time, had no objection to vote for its second reading.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to extend support to this measure at present, with the prospect of the Government opposing it afterwards. The hon. Member (Mr. Alcock) recommended the Bill to the House as introducing into the church rate the same principle as that on which the land tax was redeemed; but the hon. Member had not ventured to say much with respect to the special application of the Bill, which he (Mr. D. Griffith) thought would be very trifling in extent. He was afraid such legislation would prove ineffective, and he could not give it his support.

MR. BRISCOE would give his cordial support to the Bill. There were certainly objections in the details, but they could easily be removed in Committee.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided:-Ayes 72; Noes 81: Majority 9.

SECURITY FROM VIOLENCE BILL.

[BILL 35.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Award of Punishment of Whipping).

MR. PEACOCKE moved an Amendment to insert in Clause 1, line 2, the words Provided any previous conviction for felony be proved against him," after the

word "may," the object of the Amendment being to secure that corporal punishment should not be inflicted, as proposed by the clause, in certain cases for a first offence. If the Committee were to assent to the exceptional legislation which the clause was meant to enforce in exceptional cases of aggravated highway assault, the opinion of the public out of doors could not fail to be that the Bill under discussion, instead of being a well-considered scheme changing the course of our legislation, was rather the result of the panic and alarmı which had last year been created by the garotters. If the right hon Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Adderley) thought it desirable that corporal punishment should be inflicted in those cases in which personal violence was offered, why did he not make it applicable to other offences of a still more aggravated description-such, for example, as aggravated rape and night poaching? The great objection to corporal punishment was, he thought, that it tended to brutalize a man ; but if a man were to be guilty of crime a second time, then it was a fair presumption that he had become so brutalized that corporal punishment would not add to his deterioration. With respect to ticket-ofleave men, their position indicated that they had committed a previous offence, and therefore they would not escape punishment if his Amendment were adopted. great objection, therefore, he thought, to our present criminal code was that it did not make a sufficient distinction between the first and second offence. That was a distinction which, in his opinion, ought to be drawn, and he trusted the Committee would express their concurrence with him in that opinion by voting for his Amend

ment.

The

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the word "may," to insert the words provided any previous conviction for felouy be proved against him."

MR. ADDERLEY said, that when the time which had elapsed since the alarm in respect to garotters prevailed, and the period which had been allowed to intervene between the last stage of the Billwhich was taken in March-and the present were taken into account, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in supposing that the measure was the result of a panic. It was, he might add, his deliberate conviction that corporal punishment might with advantage be resorted to in the case of such

offenders as those described in the preamble of the Bill. The great object of punishment was to put a stop to crime, and the punishment provided by the existing law could not, he maintained, be held to go as far as was desirable in that direction. The merit of inflicting corporal punishment as he proposed would be that it would be inflicted once, and that there would be no necessity for its repetition.

MR. LOCKE KING questioned whether this mode of punishment would have the effect anticipated by the right hon. Gentle

man.

MR. KNIGHTLEY could not see why this punishment should only be inflicted

once.

MR. CLAY thought the exceptional state of things, against which this Bill was directed, had now passed away, and he objected to exceptional legislation for an exceptional state of things.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHOTE said, that the effect of the Bill would be not so much, perhaps, to deter persons who had entered upon crime as a profession from prosecuting such a career as to deter others from entering upon it at all. The great point was to stop crime at the outset, and he thought the punishment proposed would be likely to be most effective if prescribed in the case of a first conviction. He hoped, therefore, the clause would not be so altered as seriously to interfere with the efficiency of its operation.

MR. PULLER said, that if the argument of the hon. Baronet were to hold good, we should repeal the principle of our criminal legislation which went on the principle of a gradation of punishment, by which the second offence should be more severely punished than the first; here we should visit the first offence with the heaviest punishment. A contrary system had for some time been in operation in the army and navy, under which the men were divided into two classes, a man being liable to corporal punishment only after he had, owing to misconduct, been degraded from the first class into the second. That system had, he believed, been found to work well not only in the army, but in the sister service. Some men were, no doubt, so hardened in crime that scarcely anything short of corporal punishment would have a very deterrent effect upon them; but then there was the danger, that if such punishment were assigned too indiscriminately, there would be a difficulty in obtaining convictions.

MR. BENTINCK said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to deal with these questions as if they were dealing with the rights of their fellow-subjects; but he thought that criminals of the most hardened class should be considered as separate from the rest of their species. He protested against all maudlin sentiment, and thought the evil should be firmly and promptly dealt with. He should oppose the Amendment.

MR. DAWSON said, he should oppose the Amendment, being of opinion that the administration of punishment should not be made so lax as to lose the deterrent effect it seemed in some degree to have effected.

MR. MARSH agreed that the most efficacious way to prevent the crime was to nip it in the bud. He had had some experience in these matters, and he believed that corporal punishment was the very best of punishments, because nobody liked it. Occasionally, people were found breaking windows on purpose to be sent to gaol; but nobody ever broke a window to get a good flogging.

COLONEL NORTH said, he could not understand the sympathy manifested for the delicate feelings of a garotter, and thought nothing so likely to put a stop to the offence as a good sound flogging. It was said that the crime was on the decrease; but the fact was these London performers were starring it in the provinces.' was most absurd to object to the flogging of such brutal ruffians.

It

LORD HARRY VANE thought, that if the house were of opinion that to revert to corporal punishment would put an end to these crimes, it ought to be inflicted for the very first offence. Any one who committed this crime at once placed himself in the category of violent ruffians, and was a fit subject for a degrading punishment.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON pointed out that the garotters were generally old hands at crime, and few of them who were indieted for garotte robberies were then arraigned for their first offence. Besides, it would be always in the power of the Judge, if he saw any reason to think that the criminal before him was not a hardened offender, to remit this portion of the punishment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided :-Ayes 37; Noes 191: Majority 154.

MR MITFORD moved, that those words of the clause which sanctioned public whipping should be struck out. Amendment agreed to.

MR. HUNT thought that words of distinctive import should be used to define the number of lashes to be given.

MR. ADDERLEY said, that the maximum number of lashes to be inflicted at a time was fifty.

MR. KNIGHTLEY moved an addition to the clause, defining that the instrument used for the whipping shall be the "cat" employed in the navy, which, he was told, was more effective than that used in the army. As the Bill stood, a birch rod might be used; and though, in common with many other Members, who, no doubt, bad experienced its good effects in early youth, he had a great respect for the birch, still it would be making a mockery of justice to use it to such criminals.

MR. ADDERLEY said, it was intended that the instrument used should be a "cat,' but there was no necessity to specify it in the Bill. By an earlier clause it was enacted that boys under a certain age should be punished with a birch only, which, of course, inferred that the cat was to be used for men. The instrument never had been specified in any Act of Parliament.

SIR GEORGE GREY wished to know to whose discretion the choice of the instrument was to be left. Under the existing Act, it was provided that the number of strokes and the instrument with which they should be inflicted should be specified by the Judge. The hon. Gentleman, he presumed, did not intend to leave this matter to the discretion of the gaoler.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE did not think it was desirable to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member. If it were provided that the conviction should specify the number of strokes and the kind of instrument with which they should be inflicted, the object of the hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently attained.

COLONEL NORTH wished to know whether all the "cats" were of the same pattern, for that fact would considerably affect the measure of punishment.

MR. BENTINCK objected to the matter being left to the Judge, for we might have Judges infected by maudlin sentimentality. Fancy Sir Joshua Jebb being a Judge. What sort of instrument would he pre scribe? The Bill ought to be so framed that there should be no chance of escape for these fellows; and the instrument used

which should be that which would give the most effective flogging-ought to be specified in the Bill.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON said, the punishment could not be uniform, unless there was a pattern cat. A navy cat was unknown in some counties. He had never seen one, although he had seen a military cat.

MR. HENLEY thought it would be a great blessing if a Committee were formed of naturalists and officers of the army and navy, because he was not aware of there being any pattern cat either at the Admiralty or the Horse Guards. He had heard of pattern caps and pattern jackets, but never of a pattern cat. He had had some experience of the inconvenience of having to decide such questions. Some few years ago the Secretary for the Home Department-he did not remember whether it was the present Secretary-wanted to know what kind of a cat had been used in a prison in Oxfordshire. It was very difficult to give a description; for although it was easy enough to say the animal had so many tails and a body or handle so long, it was a very different thing when they came to the number of knots and the substance of the tails. So they sent their cat to the Home Office. They left it there a reasonable time, but by no possible entreaty could they ever get it back again, and he could only suppose it had ever since been the means of keeping the subordinates of the office in good order. Before parting with it, he had a conversation with the governor of the gaol, who had been in the navy, who said it was not a navy cat; and with another official who had been in the army, who said it was not an army cat. But if there was no pattern instrument at the Horse Guards or the Admiralty, a prisoner might complain of being unjustly punished, and there might be fifty officers on one side and fifty on the other to say that the instrument was or was not what they understood by a navy cat.

COLONEL NORTH thought there should be some standard of punishment; or in one county it might be with an instrument having five, in another with an instrument having six, and in another with an instrument having nine tails.

Amendment negatived.

MR. ADDERLEY moved the addition of the words "in each case the Court shall specify the number of strokes to be inflicted, and the instrument to be used." Amendment agreed to.