so much consideration at least was due to the earnestness and attention given to the whole subject of capital punishment and the criminal code by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert); but he (Mr. Gilpin) was one of those who entertained an opinion that had grown with him-that this strangling of human beings for the purpose of illustrating the sacredness and value of human life was a miserable bungle-and, therefore, he said that if they made these exhibitions private, which up to this time had been public, they would take away from the advocates of capital punishment the only strong reason they gave for the perpetuation of this law, and that was, the example which they said-most untruly and most unwisely-it afforded to the people who witnessed these executions. He would only say he was satisfied that what enlightened public opinion asked for, and would obtain before long, was, not the concealment, but the abolition of this punishment. MR. W. EWART said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion, but he thought it was a sort of self-condemnation of the supporters of capital punishment, when, after pleading the public example as a justification for executions, they now sought to withdraw from the public that example. There was hardly any subject on which so many vaccillations took place as on the subject of capital punishment. He was surprised that no provision was made in the Bill for the admission of the members of the press to witness the executions in case they should wish to do so. His hon. Friend had alluded to many countries where private executions took place; but had he observed the accounts received from countries where capital punishment does not exist at all? He would not find that in a single instance the country that had abolished capital punishment repented of it. His (Mr. W. Ewart's) feeling against capital punishment was as strong as ever; he believed the feeling against it was increasing every day, and must do so as long as Christianity and civilization proceeded in their course. MR. BONHAM CARTER said, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had done well in submitting his Bill in a separate form to the House, for the questions with which it was incidentally connected were of a kind that might take a longer time to carry than the single question which was embodied in his Bill. He was gratified to find that the House was in favour of the measure, and that inquiry had brought out Mr. Gilpin an overwhelming weight of evidence in support of it. He wished to protest against the term "private execution," because that was not contemplated by his hon. Friend. The desire was to remove from executions the exhibition of torture which had been long since abolished in connection with all other punishments in England. This sort of display should be for as few eyes as possible. They did not propose private executions, but that the executions should take place before a diminished number of persons in such a way as would produce a conviction on the public mind that the executions had actually taken place. Motion agreed to. Bill to provide for the carrying out of Capital Punishments within Prisons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. BONHAM-CARter, Mr. TOLLEMACHE, and Mr. MITFORD. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54.] SUPPLY.-REPORT. Resolutions [March 5] reported. LORD ELCHO said, that an hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Charles Rus. sell) in some observations he had made on the previous evening upon musketry instruction, had evidently not been accurately reported. His hon. and gallant Friend, he thought, had done great service in bringing the subject of musketry instruction before the notice of the House; and were it not that he (Lord Elcho) was a Volunteer, and military men might say that he was taking up a subject with which he had no concern, his own experience at Hythe would have induced him to call attention to the matter. Any person acquainted with the musketry instruction practised at Hythe, and given to our Volunteers, must feel that it was somewhat hard upon those who had to go through that course. He was told that it not only caused dislike, but that it affected the recruiting of the line. A Volunteer at Hythe was kept at practice there a fortnight; an officer used to go for twelve weeks; but he believed that that term was somewhat reduced. [Sir CHARLES Russell: To ten weeks.] For all practical purposes of making a man a good shot fourteen days at Hythe was all that was necessary. intelligent sergeant sent to Hythe to become a musketry instructor could be taught in less than ten weeks-he had no doubt that fourteen days, or even less, would make such a man competent to give the practical instructions the men required. He was not at all saying that the Hythe An Those were my words, and I am anxious that the impression should not be conveyed to the House, or to the gallant officers who conduct the schools of musketry at Hythe and Fleetwood, that I wished to express on my own behalf, or that of the army, that rifle practice is itself nonsense. Resolutions agreed to. PRINCE ALFRED'S ANNUITY (re-committed) BILL-[BILL 43.]-COMMITTEE. (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey.) Bill considered in Committee. School of Musketry should not be retained, said so. but that some modification of the present system of instruction was necessary. Modifications were necessary with respect to firing at distances. It was now laid down that the firing at 300 yards should be performed standing; beyond 300 yards, kneeling; the exception being in favour of old officers and the cavalry. The former, from stiffness of the joints might not be able to kneel, and there was a good reason why the position of kneeling would be inconvenient to the cavalry. But the point to which he rose to refer more particularly was that his hon. and gallant Friend had been reported to have said on the authority of a young officer of the 95th that the rifle drill was complete nonsense, and that there was not a practical officer in the army who would not agree in that assertion. Now, he was quite certain that his hon. and gallant Friend had not said that, or could have wished the Committee to believe that there was not a practical officer in the army who would not adopt the sentiment. There was another point to which he should have wished to call the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary at War if he had been present, and that was the inconvenience to which the Volunteers were subjected by having to shoot at two descriptions of targets. In class firing they used the regulation target. Now, in the opinion of all Volunteers the form of target used was not the one best calculated to elicit skill in the use of the weapon. In prize firing they used quite another kind of target. The Secretary at War would confer a great boon on the Volunteers if he would institute one uniform target for class and prize firing. SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I am obliged to my noble Friend for calling attention to a slight inaccuracy in The Times newspaper report of the few observations I addressed to the Committee on musketry practice, and which did not occur in any other newspaper. I called the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a paragraph in the Army and Navy Gazette, which stated that a case of a young officer of the 95th had been brought before a medical commissioner, as he was labouring under intermittent mania, which first exhibited itself by his saying that the rifle drill was all dd nonsense; and I said that, although officers of the army would not go any such length as that, they would decidedly sympathize with the man if he were placed in a lunatic asylum for having MR. NEATE said, that the alteration which had been made for the purpose of making the annuity inalienable was much more important than it might at first seem to be. The House might declare the inalienability by a Bill; but he doubted whether they had power, by leaving the discretion with the Crown, to dispense with an existing law. As a matter of policy and general law it might be desirable to make allowances to the Royal Family inalienable in the same way that the pay of an officer was considered inalienable, it being granted to maintain a particular position. His objection in this case was not so much to the principle as to the mode in which it was proposed to give effect to it. He did not think that a matter of this kind should be left to domestic arrangement between Her Majesty and the Prince. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER agreed that the words which were introduced when the Bill was committed pro formâ were not devoid of importance; but they did not alter the intention of the Bill, nor he believed of the House, when it sanctioned the previous stages; because the question whether the annuity was to be inalienable was raised on earlier occasions, and he had stated his belief that the Bill as it stood would have the effect of rendering the annuity inalienable. That was an answer given in good faith but with insufficient knowledge, and the effect of the clauses of the Bill, and his impression at the time, was that the grant to trustees would practically have that effect. finding that that was not the case, his course was to introduce words into the Bill for the purpose of giving effect to what he believed to be a sound principle of policy, and so to fulfil an engagement with the House. He did not understand his hon. On Friend to dissent substantially from the MR. NEATE thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his very satisfactory explanation. Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow. MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, Bill to render legal Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERS, Mr. HANKEY, and Mr. MORLEY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 50.] LEGITIMACY DECLARATION, &C., BILL. On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, Bill to explain the Act of the twentieth and twenty-first Victoria, chapter eighty-five, and the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERS and Mr. EDWARD CRAUFURD. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 51.] MUTINY BILL. On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the better Payment of the Army and their Quarters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, and The JUDGE ADVOCATe. Bill presented, and read the first time. House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, March 7, 1866. MINUTES.-SELECT COMMITTEE-On Metropo politan Local Government, &c.; Theatrical Third Reading--Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772)*; CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL. (Mr. Hardcastle, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Baines.) [BILL 11.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HARDCASTLE: I wish to express to the House in the strongest manner in which I am able my sense of the great responsibility which I incur in attempting to deal with this question, and I trust the House will grant to me some usually willing to grant to persons who de portion of that indulgence which they are not often presume to interfere in their de House I feel greatly in need. This ques bates an indulgence of which I assure the tion has been so often debated in previous Parliaments, it has been a subject of so much interest to the country at large, that I think it cannot be expected, after thirty years of discussion, that I should be able to adduce many facts or arguments having the charm of novelty. At the same time, as this is the first Session of a new Parliament, and as there are many hon. Gentlemen present who have not had a seat in this House before, I think I should hardly did not enter at rather greater length inte be doing justice to those Gentlemen if I the general merits of the question than I should otherwise consider it necessary to do. It is, I believe, now more than thirty On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend certain provisions of since the question was first debated years The Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act, 1860," ordered to be in this House. Soon after the abolition of brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM. a similar grievance in Ireland called SUPERANNUATIONS (OFFICERS METROPOLITAN Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 52.] SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL. The Chancellor of the Exchequer church cess the English Nonconformists which have been made at different times naturally hoped that something might be for dealing with this question seem to me done for them of a similar nature, and I to resolve themselves into three great think it was in the year 1834 that the first classes-commutation, exemption, and discussion took place in this House on this entire abolition. As to the proposals for question. I am not going to weary the commutation, they have been either in reHouse with a detail of all the numerous spect of compulsory or voluntary commutadebates which have taken place upon it tion. So far as the compulsory commutafrom that time to the present, but I may tion of church rates is concerned, I think remind those hon. Members who have not that none of those proposals have been retaken the trouble to ascertain it for them-garded, at all events of late years, with selves, that there have been thirty-six different attempts to settle the question between 1834 and the present time. Those attempts have issued in twenty divisions; and to show the amount of public interest taken in the question I may state that the smallest number of Members who have been present at any of those divisions was 395, while on one occasion 577 Members recorded their votes. And I think no one will contradict me when I say that neither at the present time nor at any time past has there been any want of interest on the subject, particularly on the hustings. I think we shall all agree that there is no question on which we have been, on both sides of the House, so resolutely and pertinaciously catechized as on the question of church rates. At the last general election the public interest was quite as great as on previous occasions. I will not enter into details of the various proposals that have been submitted for the settlement of this question. Suffice it to say there have been proposals to settle this question by putting the charge on the land tax, by putting it on the Consolidated Fund, by having it paid out of the poor rate, by its being made a charge on the land in the parish. Besides these, there have been proposals for voluntary commutation and for exemption, to exempt Dissenters as such, to exempt all persons objecting to pay, to exempt those who alleged conscientious scruples, and other exemptions. Then, last of all, there has been a proposal which has been repeated and carried through this House over and over again for the entire abolition of the compulsory church rate, and which I trust will make one more step to day. I think I may say that it has been more and more felt in the country at large, and also in this House, whatever it may be necessary to do besides, that the abolition of the compulsory nature of the rate is the very thing that we shall have to do on this question. That principle-the abolition of compulsory church rates-is the principle which my Bill includes. The proposals VOL. CLXXXI. [THIRD SERIES. much favour in this House or the country, and I think it is hardly worth while to take up the time of the House with discussing them. The proposal for voluntary commutation has this defect, that it does not meet the evil. We say that the payment of a compulsory church rate is the evil to be dealt with. But the mere diminution of the charge by a rent charge derived from the property in each parish does not remedy the evil, because the evil does not consist in the amount of the charge, but in the fact that the charge is compulsory; and I think this is a fatal objection to any proposal for voluntary commutation. Then with regard to the proposals for exemption, it seems to me that they are all of them liable to one objection, that the Dissenters who are the weaker party in a parish are to sign a declaration. It must be remembered that in those parishes where the anti-church rate party are the majority it is not necessary for them to make any declaration whatever, because all they have to do is to attend the vestry and oppose the church rate, and it is only in the cases where the anti-church rate party are in a minority that they would be compelled to sign a declaration which would be likely to bring them into collision with their more powerful neighbours. Now if the House will consider the question, I think they will see that all these schemes of exemption have reference, in practice, not to town parishes, but to small country parishes, where the anti-church rate party are in a minority. The large town parishes, where the Dissenters and those who object to the rates are the majority, have mostly settled the matter for themselves; and in the small country parishes just see how it would act. On the one side you have the supporters of the rate, the majority of the parishioners, including the squire, the clergy of the parish, and other residents, who in the County Directory are called the gentry. On the other side you have what, on the same authority, are called traders; you have the small farmers, the small village 3 G shopkeepers, and other persons in a lower to say that my observations have induced grade of society. It is from this second them to consider that my objections to class that the opponents of the church rate the plans for exemption and commutaare mostly drawn. Then what you do by tion have a certain weight, and yet they any scheme of exemption is to compel this may feel disinclined to support a measure dependent class to do an act which is sure for the total abolition of the rate. If this to be most unpopular with those on whom be so, I think it will be on one of two they are dependent for their living. But grounds. They will object to total aboof all schemes for exemption it appears to lition on a theoretical ground, believing that me that the scheme which I believe will be it would weaken the connection which they introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke- desire not to see weakened between Church upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) is the and State; or they will object to it on the most objectionable. He proposes that a practical ground, that without this compulstatement of a conscientious objection to sory contribution it will be impossible to the payment should be a reason for an repair the fabric, and carry on the service exemption from the payment of church of a country church in small parishes. I rates. Well, now, first of all I object to deny that the abolition of church rates the proposal, because it only relieves a very would weaken the connection between small number of those who are likely to Church and State. Has the abolition of object to church rates. I may object to church cess in Ireland weakened the Irish church rates, though I am a Churchman; Church? The Irish Church exists at the and therefore could not say I objected on present moment; some people are perhaps conscientious grounds. I may say it is surprised that it does. The church cess unfair that I should be compelled to contri- had been abolished thirty years. I may bute to the repair of the fabric or the ask what would have been the chance, if maintenance of a service carried on in a it had not been abolished, of the state of building which from circumstances I am the Irish Church being what it now is? unable to make any use of. It was my The commutation of tithes has not weakown case to live five years in a parish in ened the English Church; and, as a genewhich I paid church rates, and in the ral principle, the reform of an institution parish church of that parish I never had the does not weaken that institution, but rather most distant opportunity of obtaining a strengthens it. Seeing that the abolition of place, simply because the church was full church rates is in fact a reform, I think and there were no vacancies during the there is no fear of the union between time that I resided there. The hon. Mem- Church and State being in any way disber's scheme would not relieve me. Then turbed by it. I may be allowed to observe I might object to certain items in the rate, that there is a great distinction between or I might object to the amount of the church rates and any other payment with rate, or I might object to pay because I regard to the endowments of the Church of saw it was a pressure on the consciences of England. The church rate is in the nasome of my fellow parishioners that they ture of a tax, whereas tithe and all other should be made to pay. In any of those Church endowments are in the nature of cases I should not be relieved. The only rent. Then there is another observation man who would be relieved would be the which I wish to make, and it is this. The man who made a confession of a conscien- granting of a church rate is the only in tious scruple. Now I think that this ternal part of the Church organization is confession of a conscientious scruple would which a Dissenter can interfere. At the have a great tendency to foster religious present moment the Nonconformists, if they hypocrisy, and moreover it would have are the majority of a parish, can paralyse a great tendency to induce a profession the action of the Church. Now I should of dissent. I do not know whether the like to know how the change which we prohon. Member wishes to thin the ranks pose will do anything except strengthen the of the Church and strengthen the ranks action of the Church. It is clearly underof Dissenters, but I am sure that any stood by hon. Gentlemen opposite-I eerscheme of this nature would have that tainly understand it myself-that there is effect. I come now to the proposal of the no desire whatever on the part of Dissenters Bill which is to be read a second time this to interfere in any way whatever in the apday-the proposal for the abolition of com- plication of any voluntary rate which might pulsory church rates. I think it possible be raised for the purpose of the Church. some hon. Members may do me the honour Well, then, I come to the practical objec Mr. Hardcastle |