Commons Sitting of 7 May 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Sleeping Statutes; Scientific and Literary Societies.

THE TREATY OF PEACE.
Report of Address brought up, and read, as follows:—
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to convey to Your Majesty our sincere acknowledgments and thanks for the important communication which Your Majesty has been graciously pleased to make to us of the General Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th day of March, between Your Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, by which Peace has been established between Your Majesty, the Emperor of the French, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, on the one hand, and the Emperor of Russia on the other:
"WE beg to assure Your Majesty, that, while we should have deemed it our duty cheerfully to afford Your Majesty our firm support if it had unfortunately been found necessary to continue the War, we have learned with joy and satisfaction that Your Majesty has been enabled to reestablish Peace, on conditions honourable to Your Majesty's Crown, and which fully accomplish the great objects for which the War was undertaken:
"WE beg leave to express to Your Majesty the great satisfaction which we feel, at finding that while those Alliances which have so mainly contributed to the vigorous and successful prosecution of the War, have been equally effective in the consolidation of Peace, Powers which have not taken an active part in the War, have combined with the belligerents to give additional firmness to the arrangements by which the repose of Europe is in future to be protected from disturbance:
"WE humbly state to Your Majesty that we rejoice that, notwithstanding the great exertions which the late War has rendered necessary, the Resources of the Empire remain unimpaired:
"WE beg to express our hope that the Peace which has now been concluded, may, under the favour of Divine Providence, long continue to shed its blessings over Europe; and that harmony among Governments and friendly intercourse
138
among Nations may steadily promote the progress of civilisation, and secure the welfare and happiness of Mankind."
Address agreed to.
To be presented by the whole House.

TITHE COMMUTATION RENT-CHARGE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE:* Sir, I rise to introduce to the House a question of grave importance, and of no mean difficulty; and, upon many accounts, I could have wished that the discharge of such a task had been entrusted to abler hands than mine. But, I may truly say, that if the bestowal of much pains upon the subject, added to an earnest and heartfelt conviction of the justice of the cause which I have undertaken to advocate may, in some degree, compensate for other deficiencies, of which I am sincerely conscious, then, Sir, I am not without apology for the position in which I find myself.
I have to submit to the House that the present system of parochial rating practically inflicts a grievous injury upon a particular portion of Her Majesty's subjects,—that this injury has been the unintentional result of recent legislation,—that it is continually increasing,—that it has been for some years admitted and condemned by the highest and most impartial Authorities,—that it remains, nevertheless, to this hour, unredressed.
And, Sir, if I can in this debate sustain, by argument and proof, these propositions, I shall not, I am certain, invoke in vain the succour of Parliament. Nor will that succour be the less readily afforded, because this particular portion of my fellow-subjects who have principally sustained this injury happened to be the parochial clergy of the Church of England. I should, indeed, be loth to believe that any difference of religious creed, which may exist among the Members of this House, will interfere, by a mean and unworthy jealousy, to prevent the doing of justice to any other religious body of their fellow-subjects. I am about to ask for no privilege—no favour—but for simple, long-delayed justice to a body of men, who are, to say the least, second to none in their claim upon the gratitude of the country.
Sir, the grievance is, that the rent-charge, which represents the ancient tithe, has, since the passing of the Parochial

139
Assessment Act, been subjected to an excessive amount of rating, and especially poor's-rate, scandalously and notoriously disproportionate to the amount to which other hereditaments are assessed.
This is my first proposition, and, in order to establish it, I must make a great demand upon the indulgence of the House. I must review the history of the legislation upon the subject. I must call the attention of the House to judicial decisions, to the circulars of Poor-Law Commissioners, and especially to two Reports; one upon Local Taxation, in 1843, by the Poor-Law Commissioners;—another upon parochial assessment, by the House of Lords, in 1850, and to the evidence taken before it.
I must begin as far back as the statute 43rd Elizabeth, c. 2. That statute in general terms imposed the rate "upon every inhabitant parson, vicar and other, and upon every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriations of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods."
Under this statute a practice sprung up of rating the hereditaments not according to an estimate of their net annual value— a rule introduced by a later statute—but according to a just proportion of relative liabilities. It is very important that the House should bear this in mind, as it will appear that the injury done to the tithe-owner has mainly resulted from the fact that the principle of the new law has been in practice applied to the tithe-owner, while that of the old law has been continued with respect to the occupiers of other hereditaments. It is important to observe, that, under the statute of Elizabeth, the mode of assessing the poor-rate became, and has continued to be, the pattern for the assessment of other rates.
The rule of law with respect to assessment, on the principle of relative liabilities, was thus stated, in the year 1830, by the Court of Queen's Bench, in a case which obtained great notoriety—the King v. Joddrell, (l Barn. &c. 403.) The Court said—
"The second objection was, that the farmer's share of profit ought to have been rated, or, which is the same thing, the appellant should have been rated proportionally less. Of the whole of the annual profits, or value of land, a part belongs to the landlord in the shape of rent, and part to the tenant; and whenever a rate is according to the rack-rent (the usual and most convenient mode), it is, in effect, a rate on a part of the profit only. It must, therefore, in the next place, be ascertained what proportion the rent bears to the annual profit or value, and that will show in what
140
proportion all other property ought to be rated. If, for instance, the rent is one-half or two-thirds of the total annual profit or value of land, the rate on all other property should be on a half or two-thirds of its annual value."
The statute of Elizabeth remained unchanged for about two centuries and a half.
In the year 1834, the present Poor Law Act, (4 & 5 Wm. IV., c. 76) was passed; and in the year 1836, the Tithe Commutation Act (6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 71) was passed, and it contained this important clause upon the subject now in debate.
"Tithe commutation rent-charge shall be subject to all Parliamentary, Parochial and County, and other rates, charges, and assessments, in like manner as the tithes commuted for such rent charge have theretofore been subject."
The effect of this statute, which, perhaps, under all circumstances, was a wise compact between the Church and the State, was, nevertheless, first to give the tithe-owner a sum less than two-thirds, according to some estimates, of the actual value of tithes at the time of commutation; secondly, to deprive the tithe-owner of any share in the increased profits of the future improvements in, or enclosures of land.
In the very same year, namely, 1836, the present Parochial Assessment Act (6 & 7 Wm. IV., c. 96) was passed, containing the following enactments—
Sect. 1. "Whereas it is desirable to establish one uniform mode of rating, for the relief of the poor throughout England and Wales, and to lessen the cost of appeal against an unfair rate, be it enacted, that from and after such period, not being earlier than the twenty-first day of March next, after the passing of this Act, as the Poor Law Commissioners shall, by any order under their seal of office, direct, no rate for the relief of the poor in England and Wales shall be allowed by any justices, or be of any force, which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto; that is to say,
"Of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes, and tithe-commutation rent-charge, if any, and deducting there from the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent."
But the tithe-owner becoming alarmed lest the just operation of these two Statutes—namely, the Tithe Commutation Act, and the Parochial Assessment Act—should place him in a comparatively unfair position with respect to future assessments, procured the insertion into the Parochial Assessment Act of the following proviso.

141
"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed to alter or affect the principles or different relative liabilities (if any), according to which different kinds of hereditaments are now, by law, rateable."
The intention of this proviso is clearly manifest from the following extract from a letter of the Poor Law Commissioners, dated September 19, 1837.
"As the profits of the farmer will not be rated under the Parochial Assessment Act, the tithe-owner would appear to be entitled to a deduction proportionate to that profit."
[Mr. BOUVERIE: That was before the Queen v. Capel.] I am perfectly aware of that. I will mention that case in due order of date. And now I must draw the attention of the House to an important decision bearing upon the question of rating, delivered in 1839. It was the case of the Queen v. Lumsdaine. In that case Mr. Justice Littledale said—
"The statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, embraces two classes of persons subject to taxation; occupiers of real property, and inhabitants in respect of personal property. Hitherto rates upon the latter class had been in practice confined to stock-in-trade and shipping; but on future occasions other kinds of personal property may perhaps be rated and be held rateable. The provisions of this Act apply only to the former class of rateable objects, and leave the second at large as before. There is nothing that amounts to a repeal of the law on this head, nor can the Act be considered as a declaratory one."
Here, the House will see, therefore, is a distinct judicial declaration that stock-in-trade is rateable under the new law. The bearing of this upon the subject in debate will presently appear.
Now I come to the year 1840, and to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of the Queen v. Capel, which I promised the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Poor Law Board, to notice in its proper place. The effect of that decision was to reject the proviso in the Parochial Assessment Act as unintelligible and inoperative; the Judges refused to take any cognisance of the history of the introduction of that proviso; and pronounced that the practice of rating according to relative liabilities was illegal, and that all property must now be rated upon an estimate of its net annual value.
That case has, I think, been very much misinterpreted, and not clearly understood, but it certainly took away from the tithe-owner the benefit of a proviso upon which he had relied as a security from illegal assessment.
142
Shortly after this decision, on the 16th of September, 1840, the Poor Law Commissioners—one of whom was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—put forth a circular in which they expounded the law as follows:—
"The estimate of the net annual value—is formed on the supposed rent which might be realised by the letting of rateable hereditaments. This will entitle the tithe-owner to an advantage which the Commissioners believe he has not in all cases had the benefit of. The rent which a tenant would consent to pay for the rent-charge, supposing the rent-charge to be let, would obviously be a sum which would remunerate him for the trouble of collection, and insure him against all risks of loss of rent-charge itself, and of loss of interest occasioned by the obligation to advance rent, and by occasional delays in recovering the rent-charge; and against all incidental expenses incurred in enforcing his rights.
"The compensation of the tenant taking those risks will obviously exceed the payment which the tithe-owner would make to an agent or collector, who incurs no risks, and is not bound to insure and pay to the tithe-owner a certain fixed sum at fixed times. To the benefit invoked in this distinction, the Commissioners consider the tithe-owners to be clearly entitled, by the express terms of the definition of net annual value in the Parochial Assessment Act."
Now, Sir, on the 18th of June, 1840—there was introduced into Parliament, one of those annual Acts, specimens, I think of very sorry legislation, by which stock-in-trade was exempted from liability to being rated; and which annual Act, in spite of the promise given at the time that the question should speedily be dealt with in a permanent and satisfactory manner, has been renewed continually for sixteen years, up to the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to be understood as not expressing any disapprobation of the public policy and expediency of according this exemption to stock-in-trade. I am bound to say that I believe the rating of this kind of property would be found to be impracticable; but I contend that the operation of this exemption was injurious to the tithe-owner in a much greater degree than to the owner of any other hereditament. And in order to support this proposition, I will read an extract to the House from the evidence of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, given before the Lords' Committee in 1850, Upon this point.
"There is a serious mistake (he says) which persons often commit with reference to the rate-ability of stock-in-trade. They take the whole stock-in-trade of the country as one aggregate, and from that they infer the great relief that would result if it were rated. But if a rate were

143
imposed upon stock-in-trade (we will assume that the ambiguity of the present law could be got over, and that such a rate might be levied upon stock-in-trade), the effect of that rate would be to give very little relief to the agricultural interest; and for this reason, that stock-in-trade is, for the most part, collected in the town parishes. It would materially alter the relations of the payments made by different occupiers of houses within those parishes, but it would have very little effect upon the occupiers of agricultural land in rural parishes. Take, for example, any ordinary rural parish; there is scarce any stock-in-trade in it. The stock-in-trade, giving the expression the largest acceptation that can be given to it, merely consists of a few shops in a village, if there be a village in the parish, the stock-in-trade in which is of an extremely limited value. There is perhaps a blacksmith's forge and perhaps a carpenter's tools which might be rated. This would be the whole amount which would be brought within the rate as stock-in-trade in such a parish. Now, such is the ordinary case of rural parishes. The greater number of rural parishes have no town in them, nor even a considerable village. The occupiers of agricultural land in rural parishes of that description would derive no sort of benefit from the rate being imposed upon stock-in-trade in Oxford Street, or in the Strand, or in Liverpool or Manchester; the whole of the relief which would be derived from the imposition of a rate upon stock-in-trade in a town parish would go to the occupiers of houses not being traders in that parish."
Mr. Lewis is asked—
"Supposing that the stock-in-trade of tenants was rated, would it not make a great difference to the tithe-owner?"
"Unquestionably the tithe-owner in a rural parish would derive benefit from rating the farmer's stock; he is just one of those persons who would derive benefit from rating the farmer's stock. In a rural parish the stock of a farmer is much more considerable than the stock of an artisan or tradesman; and, therefore, if that stock were held to be rateable, which it has never been hitherto, or if it were made rateable, no doubt considerable advantage would accrue to the tithe-owner."
And, Sir, as this is the first citation which I have made from this Report, it may be convenient to remind the House, that this Committee of the Lords was appointed in the Session of 1850. In that year Lord Portman obtained a Committee on the laws relating to parochial assessments. The Committee consisted of—

Lord PORTMAN in the Chair.

Lord Camoys.

Earl of Hardwicke.

Lord Wodehouse.

Earl of Malmesbury.

Lord Lilford.

Earl of Chichester.

Lord Redesdale.

Earl of Stradbroke.

Lord Wharncliffe.

Earl of Yarborough.

Lord Ashburton.

Earl of Lovelace.

Lord Hatherton.

Viscount Sidney.

Lord Vivian.

Bishop of London.

Lord Overstone.

Bishop of St. Asaph.

Marq. of Lansdowne.

Earl of Lonsdale.

Earl of Minto.

Bishop of Manchester.

Earl Fortescue.

Bishop of Oxford.

144
This Committee was, as the House will see, composed of eminent and distinguished persons; but it would be impossible to contend that it was constituted in any manner to favour the claims of the clerical tithe-owner.
To resume the thread of my argument as to the injury done to the tithe-owner, by successive leigislation, as well as by successive judicial decisions since the Tithe Commutation Act, I say that this stock-in-trade exemption is one of the various instances in which, while every other class of Her Majesty's subjects have been relieved, the tithe-owner has had his burdens increased and his income diminished.
I come now to the last instance of legislation of this class. In 1846 the Corn Laws were repealed. I mean to offer no observation upon the general question of that most important change in the public policy of this country. But I am entitled to make this remark with reference to the subject now before the House, that the effect was to occasion a fall of ten per cent (according to a fair calculation) upon the tithe rent-charge, which had been settled—the House will remember—upon the averages of corn produce. And, Sir, I appeal with confidence to the recollection both of the House and the country, as to the conduct of the clergy on this occasion; with the full knowledge that the main source of their subsistence was about to be seriously diminished, but being told, and believing at the same time, that the food of the poor was about to be made cheaper and more abundant, they steadily refused, in spite of the strongest temptations to interfere, in any way to impede the course of legislation in either Houses of Parliament, upon the subject of the repeal of the corn laws; and by such conduct they have earned for themselves an enduring title to the gratitude of their fellow-countrymen, and surely have also established a claim to have the remainder of their income protected from the grievous injustice of unequal assessment. To obtain which relief I must add, they have had recourse to no unworthy arts of agitation, but have thrown themselve, like loyal and faithful subjects, upon the justice of the Imperial Parliament. They asked for justice, not for favour. I trust, nay, I am sure, Sir, that they will not be disappointed in the response which Parliament will give.
I have now laid before the House all the statutes—all the judicial decisions—

145
all the poor-law circulars, which materially affect the question in debate. I am anxious in the next place to demonstrate the injury which the practical working of the new system has, contrary to the intention of the Legislature, inflicted upon the tithe-owner. The parish rate, Sir, comprehends all assessable value, whether it arise from hereditaments of land, or hereditaments of rent-charge. It was the theory of the Parochial Assessment Act that all hereditaments should be rated on the estimate of their net annual value. My complaint is, that, in practice, the rent-charge—which, be it always remembered, is the principal source from which the maintenance of the clergy is derived—has never been so rated. I appeal to the Report itself of the Lords' Committee, in 1850, which resolved—
"1. That the principle of the Act 6 & 7 Wm. IV. c. 96, which requires that every person shall be rated on the net annual value of the real property, in respect of which he is rated, is imperfectly carried out in practice; that, for the purpose of providing a remedy for the inequality and injustice arising from the general practice, it is expedient to adopt measures for assimilating the practice to the principle of the law.
"10. That the tithe commutation rent-charge is generally assessed on the known full value thereof, while the assessment on other property is made on an estimated value. That the rates on the tithe rent-charge are charged in an unequal proportion, to the injury of the owner thereof, whenever the other property is not assessed at the full value thereof. That the rent-charge, like other property, should be assessed on the rent which a tenant would pay for it. That from the value of the tithe commutation rent-charge no special deduction to which other property is not entitled should be made."
I perceive that the amount of difference to the injury of the tithe-owner has been estimated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as ranging itself between thirty and forty per cent.
That opinion will be found in the Report on Local Taxation in 1843. And, in 1850, the same high authority thus gives his evidence before the Lords' Committee:—
"Are you aware what the actual practice has been in rural parishes, as to rating with reference to the tithe?"
"I am aware that, before the Tithe Commutation Act, the practice as to rating tithe varied considerably. In some cases, the rate upon the tithe was paid by the occupier, and no rate at all was imposed upon the clergyman. There is no doubt that the Tithe Commutation Act has operated very considerably to the disadvantage of the tithe-owner with respect to rating. It has acted injuriously to the tithe-owner in this manner—it has exhibited the entire amount of his tithe in a public and authentic form; and, therefore, the tithe commutation being known and
146
ascertained, the overseer has put down the tithe-owner in the rate-book at that full amount; but, being himself generally a farmer, he rates other farmers in the parish at an amount less than the net annual value. That practice certainly gives to occupiers of land within the parish an advantage, in comparison with the tithe-owner. He puts the tithe-owner, we may say, at a hundred per cent.; and he puts the occupiers of lands and houses at eighty per cent., or at eighty-five or ninety per cent., and perhaps, sometimes, at a less amount; but, at all events, he generally contrives to rate other species of property below the full net letting value. It is in this manner that the present system is detrimental in its working to the tithe-owner; and, as I conceive, the tithe-owner has a legitimate ground of complaint as to the working of the existing law, I may state, that one of the objects which the Bill—which is now before the House of Commons—has in view, is as far as possible to secure a uniform rating of all species of property up to the full value. I need not tell the Committee that any attempt to secure the rating of property up to its full value is extremely difficult; there is always an unwillingness to set down the full value of anything, from an apprehension that it will lead to increased taxation; there is a constant struggle to keep the assessment below its full value, partly with reference to other classes of property in the same parish, and partly with reference to the county-rate; because, if one parish can keep down its rating below that of another parish, although it may be rated fairly as between all persons in the parish, it gains in the county-rate, if other parishes are rated up to the full value. Therefore there is a constant disposition to keep the assessment for local rates below the full value; and one of the objects which this Bill has in view is as far as possible to secure a uniform rating up to the real value of the rateable hereditament. As far as that object would be attained, there is no doubt that the practical injustice of which the tithe-owner now reasonably complains would be remedied."
In these concluding observations, the Chancellor of the Exchequer alludes to a Bill introduced into the House in 1850 by the present Home Secretary and himself, contemporaneously with which the Lords' Committee sat.
Sir, I have received an immense number of letters from clergymen, all, more or less, tending to expose the cruel injustice of the present working of the law.
I will not detain the attention of the House by reading them, but I must remark that those who talk about "wealthy parsons" and "fat livings," are little aware of the straggling poverty which is the lot of many of our parochial clergy.
It is not known, as it should be, that the average value of the livings in the English Church is nearly £100 per year less than that of the preferments in the Established Church of Scotland; the truth is, that the average value of livings in England is little above £150 per year,

147
while that of the Scotch preferments is rather above £250.
There is one letter, however, which I have in my hand, and which I will read to the House. The writer says:—
"The aggregate of the land in this parish, exclusive of glebe land and houses, contributes, when a rate of one shilling in the pound is struck, £47 3s. 10 d. My rent charge, which is paid by the respective owners of all this land, will this year contribute £12 8s.
"Thus, a nominal tithe of the produce of the land, is compelled to bear a quarter of the burden borne by the land arising from local taxation.
"The injustice in my case is caused by the irregularity of assessment of land and rent-charge respectively, the rent-charge being assessed at its full rateable value, and the land being considerably under assessed.
"I know of one instance, in which land which is let at 30 s. per acre is assessed at 17 s. per acre.
"It may be said that there is a legal remedy for this grievance. I answer that there is a nominal remedy, but virtually there is none. What is the remedy? A valuation of the land; an appeal to petty sessions; a further appeal to quarter sessions; a war between parson and people, and a ruinous expense. Twice I have asked for a moderate relief, and I have been met with violence and a combined opposition. It is a case of one against many—the one weak, the many strong."
I hold in my hand a synopsis of cases, showing the great injustice at present done to the parochial clergy, and I will lay one or two of those cases before the House. In one case, the gross rent-charge was £238 10 s.—the value of the house and glebe was £26 5s., making a total of £264 15 s.—the outgoings in ratio amounted to £185 12 s. 4.d., which included £26 12 s. 4d. for poor-rates, so that the net income of the clergyman was only £79 2s. 8d. In another case, out of an income of £84 9s. 11 d., the poor-rate amounted to £12 3s. 9d.
This variance between the theory and the practice of the law, and the impossibility of working the principle of estimating the net annual value has received a remarkable legislative recognition. The Property Tax Act of 1842 sactioned the practice against the law; for it is enacted by 5 &6 Vict. c. 35, s. 64, rule No. 11:
2.—"Where the said rate shall be made throughout by such pound-rate on any proportionate part of the annual valne as aforesaid, the proportion thereof shall be observed as in the said rate, but the assessment thereon to be made under this Act shall be made at the same sums respectively as they would have been estimated at if the said rate had been made on the full amount of such annual value."
Mr. Speaker, my second proposition is, that the present legal remedy is costly,
148
uncertain, and odious—so much so, as to be practically inapplicable—to be, in fact, no remedy at all.
In the first place, if a clergyman he over-rated he must prove the fact, not as formerly, by showing a relative inequality, but by showing that his neighbours are under-rated, by probing and laying bare the private affairs of those with whom he is in daily intercourse, and with whom it ought to be his principal object to live in uninterrupted harmony. Upon this point, also, I can call the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a witness. He says—
"It is to be remembered, that anything in the nature of an appeal against an assessment or rating is always troublesome, and is generally expensive and odious. That latter circumstance has great influence upon the clergy; it is an unpleasant task for a clergyman, in general, to appeal against a parish rate; he does not wish to enter into litigation with his parishioners, he wishes to retain his influence over them, undisturbed by contests about pecuniary interests; and I believe, in the majority of cases, from very proper and generous feelings, he restrains himself from appealing against rates, even though they are not equal rates. As far as possible, therefore, I think some public authority ought to step in, and save individuals from the responsibility of objecting to an unfair rate; and, as far as possible, the rate should be made, by a public authority, an equal one."
Mr. Willis, the eminent solicitor, whose evidence is well worthy the attention of the House, expresses his opinion upon the difficulty and expense of the appeal, as follows:—
"Will you be kind enough to state to the Committee what that difficulty is?"—"The difficulty is this, every one who appeals, is bound to state the grounds of his appeal; he may allege that he is over-rated. If he states that he is over-rated per se, the fact may not turn out to be so; it may not appear in the abstract that he is over-rated; therefore, appealing per se, he might fail; but he may go on, and he may say, 'I am over-rated compared with A, B, or C,' and then, if he were to show that he is rated at the full sum for which his tithes will let, or for which his lands will let, and that others are rated at two-thirds only, I do not know, in the present state of the law, under the Parochial Assessment Act, whether the result would not be to quash that rate; I am not sure that it could be amended, because the law is that no rate shall 'be of any force,' unless it is made in a given manner; and if you show that it is not made in such a manner, I am afraid the result must be not to get the rate amended, and so do justice by the appellant, but simply to quash that rate; I have felt that difficulty, and on the part of the clergy I need not say that it is a most formidable one. But even if it should be thought that the rate could be amended, it could only be amended as to the individuals with whom I compare myself whom I make parties to the appeal. I am bound to give notice to all to whose rating

149
I object, and the amendment of the rate would be confined to those cases. Where one general principle pervades the rate, it is perfectly obvious that such amendment would not effect the object I have in view—the obtaining of a correct assessment in this parish; it would only make it pro tanto less objectionable. If, however, I give notice that the whole rate is void, upon, the ground that it is not made in conformity with the provisions of the law, I must then show that the whole rate is bad, at least, I must have so many cases of undue rating as to induce the tribunal to infer that the whole is bad, that the erroneous principle pervades the whole rate, and then it would be quashed. I need not state, I think, how difficult it would be for an appellant to do this, to select his cases, and to bring the evidence that would be needful before the tribunal to which he resorts."
I have in my hands, Sir, a letter from a clergyman who did prosecute his appeal, and who succeeded in showing that his neighbour was assessed at too low a valuation, but who found that the consequences of pursuing his success to a practical result, would be so expensive and so odious that he abandoned his triumph as soon as he obtained it.
I have many other letters from clergymen upon the same subject—the burthen of them all is to show that the parish priest is placed in this dilemma—either he must resort to a remedy which indisposes his parishioners to receive his ministrations, or he must submit to be deprived of a portion of his maintenance which he can often but ill spare. Sir, I rejoice to say that with few exceptions, they have adopted the latter alternative. All the more necessary therefore it is that Parliament should interfere to protect those whom it has unintentionally injured, and who are, practically speaking, unable to protect themselves.
Sir, my third proposition is—that the tithe commutation rent-charge having been fixed upon the principle of giving an uninproveable hereditament to the titheowner—the commutation having been settled by adding to an agreed net annual value the taxes then in existence—that this compact between the State and the Church has been violated. First, by imposing any new taxes at all upon this rent-charge. Secondly, by imposing taxes, having the improvement of property for their object, upon an unimproveable hereditament. Again, Sir, I refer to the testimony of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1843 and 1850.
It must not be forgotten that the burdens imposed by the law upon the clergy
150
are by no means their only burdens. Their voluntary burdens are necessarily very great; they are in continual contact with suffering and want, and there is a continual demand upon their limited means of als-giving. Nor is this all: I heard the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, say the other night, in answer to a statement of the large amount of voluntary subscriptions, by which education was promoted in this country, that much which was called voluntary was not so, inasmuch as the large subscriptions come from the clergy, who derived their incomes from the State. Well, Sir, I fully acknowledge the truth of this observation, with respect to the amount voluntarily subscribed by the parochial clergy, arid I claim the fact as an additional argument, if any were needed, for doing them justice—I do not ask for favour—as to the compulsory taxes imposed upon them.
Now, Sir, what is the conclusion from these premises! That for this acknowledged and demonstrated injustice, which is continually increasing—which is really eating up the incomes of the poorer clergy—the Legislature is bound to find a remedy.
Sir, the remedies for this wrong appear to me to be of two kinds—one of which proposes to itself an alteration of the whole mode of parochial assessment. Such a scheme was to have been propounded by the Secretary for the Home Department, in 1850; and he brought in a Bill with this object, but it never travelled beyond the first reading. Why, I do not know, but I imagine that it must have been on account of the unpopularity of its scheme, which was supposed to have been founded on a principle of centralisation and of interference with local management.
I offer no opinion upon the wisdom of such a scheme; but of two things I am certain, first, that no individual independent Member could introduce it with the slightest chance of success; secondly, that it was abandoned by the Government.
The other kind of remedy proceeds upon the principle recognised—as I have shown—by the Property Tax—of admitting and endeavouring to counterbalance the injustice, by allowing certain deductions, by way of compensation, to the tithe-owner, before his rent-charge be rated.
It appears to me that, if exact justice cannot be done, yet the balance may be equitably redressed upon this principle.

151
Before I explain the details of my Bill, let me remind the House of the amount of abortive legislation upon this subject.
It will be remembered the Parochial Assessment Act passed in 1836; the first attempt at Amendment was by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and Sir E. Knatchbull in 1838; the second by Mr. P. Scrope and Mr. Hawes, in 1840; the third by Mr. Hodges and Mr. Wrightson, in 1841; the fourth by Mr. Cornewall Lewis and Sir George Grey, in 1850; and the fifth, which an hon. Member has just put into my hand, by Mr. Peto and Mr. Hadfield, in 1854.
Such have been the attempts at legislation—but the tithe-owner remains without redress. Let me conclude with the authority of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for the University of Oxford, who I have the happiness to know supports the principles of my measure. In 1852, he said—
"But, Sir, the clergy have a real grievance at this moment. It is admitted by all authorities—Professor Jones, Mr. Cornewall Lewis, and every man who has examined the subject of local rating, will tell you—that the clergy suffer cruelly by being rated for local taxation upon their gross incomes. Now, I would rather redress that grievance than grant them a new and exceptional privilege."
And now, Sir, thanking the House most heartily for the indulgent and remarkable attention with which they have honoured me, and assuring them that had I not taken all the pains in my power to master a very complicated and difficult subject, I should not have presumed to address them at such length—I will briefly mention the principal features of the Bill of which I have now the honour to ask for a second reading. The greater part of the first and second clauses is declaratory; and such has been the discrepancy of practice in various parts of England, that a plain legislative statement even of the deductions, which may now be claimed by law, would be a considerable boon to the clergy. After reciting these, I proceed to propose new deductions, and—First, the land tax; and, surely, it is contrary to every sound principle of finance to tax a man upon a tax. Secondly, the stipend of a curate, whenever one is employed. In some instances, the Legislature compels a curate to be kept—but I extend the exemption to all cases in which one is employed, whether his employment be compulsory or not; and on this principle, that the criterion of
152
the rate is the lettable value of the property rated—if the rent-charge of a living to which a curate was attached was rented, would not the payment of the curate be deducted from the rent of the rent-charge? Take the case of a sequestrated living. The ordinary is bound to tell the sequestrated, his ecclesiastical bailiff, first to defray the expenses of maintaining the parsonage house, and of serving the cure, and then to let the remaining rent-charge.
Thirdly, I propose to allow the deduction of payments made to Queen Anne's Bounty, that is, payments made for a loan, by obtaining which the predecessor perhaps of the present incumbent has enlarged or rebuilt the parsonage house. It is sometimes said that the case is analogous to a mortgage on the estate of a tenant for life, but there is a manifest fallacy in this argument. A lay tenant for life can let his house, and while, perhaps, he is living in Italy pay off his mortgage; but a clergyman is bound to reside in a house, perhaps, too large for him, and to the building of which he has been no party. It seems only fair, then, that this exemption should be allowed.
The third clause corrects what is admitted to have been a mistake in the schedule of the former Act, and by the insertion of additional columns prevents the recurrence of a mistake which has frequently caused rateable value to be placed under the column of gross estimated rental.
The fourth clause provides that the rent-charge shall not be subject to the payment of rates and taxes imposed since the commutation of tithes. I have already entered at length into a defence of this provision.
The fifth clause renders it compulsory on justices, before allowing the rate, to inquire into the accuracy thereof, and imposes a penalty upon overseers who make a false declaration.
I have been informed that this clause is much opposed by gentlemen who discharge the office of magistrates in their counties, and I perceive at this moment that this information is likely to be correct. All that I would say upon the subject now is, that the clause forms no part of the principle of the Bill.
The last clause provides that valuation lists shall be open to inspection.
And now, Sir, I will sit down with the expression of my hope that no objections to the details of this measure will prevent

153
the House from going into Committee upon the merits of the principle which it contains.
I do most earnestly trust that the House will not, by refusing to give a second reading to this Bill, that is by rejecting its principle, refuse to entertain the claim of justice which is preferred to it by the tithe-owner, and especially by the parochial clergy, or show that it is indifferent to their long and patient suffering.
LORD ALFRED HERVEYseconded the Motion. He said the position of the clergy, scattered as they were about the country, made it impossible for them to exercise much pressure in defence of their claims: and even if they could they were not the men to take up a cause of a merely personal nature, that was one reason why he advocated the measure. The provisions which had been applied to houses and lands had been greatly neglected in the case of rent-charges, which it was not usual to let, and which, therefore, were not properly valued, but the same principle ought to apply to both. The rent-charge ought to be rated according to the estimated value, and not according to the gross value. The recommendation of the Poor Law Commissioners to this effect had been totally disregarded. Other properties were rated at less than their estimated value, often at two-thirds less, while the rent-charge was estimated at its full value. That had the effect materially of raising the rate on the rent-charge, so that when other property paid 1s., the rent-charge paid 1s. 6d. No doubt by the Parochial Assessment Act an appeal had been provided for the incumbent, but it required a voluntary movement, and a direct appeal to those who were interested in keeping up the present system. Out of 15,000 parishes in England, 11,000 were without any valuation, and the valuation of the remaining 4,000 had been very imperfectly taken. The Poor Law Commissioners had stated that farms were often rated at one-half of their real value, and the injustice thus done to the tithe-owner was often not less than thirty per cent. Various proposals had been made to meet the evil—one was that twenty per cent should be deducted from the rent-charge. That proceeding would be to place the clergymen in an invidious position, and to make it appear that he was rated at less than his neighbours. The Poor Law Commissioners had recommended a fresh valuation of assessed property; but that would excite great alarm and opposition
154
throughout the country. It was a fact of his own knowledge that clergymen of £400 a year paid £100 in rates and taxes. There were, besides, the charities, life insurance, and other expenses necessary to his position; and he thus had very little left for his own benefit. The clergy asked for no advantage that was not enjoyed by the other classes of the community. He, therefore, appealed with confidence to the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, as far as the grievance complained of was concerned, he apprehended it was indisputable. It was admitted on all hands that the practical working of the system of assessment had resulted in an inequality, and therefore in injustice with respect to its dealings with the parochial clergy. So far he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock, but he could not approve the remedy which was proposed to remove that grievance. The state of the law on the question was this: Tithes, by the Statute of Elizabeth, were subject to poor rates. In early times a portion of the tithes was appropriated to the maintenance of the poor. There was a division of the tithes, in olden time, into three or four portions, one of which was the patrimony of the poor. Therefore, when the Statute of Elizabeth made tithes contribute to the poor rate, it involved no new principle, it was only continuing a charge to which the clergy were liable at Common Law. Tithes being subject to poor rates, the question had always been upon what principle that rate should be assessed. The Courts of Law had recognised at all times only one principle—namely, that all property subject to the poor rate should be taxed equally. The tithe-owner, in common with the owner of every other species of property, was to be rated according to the great principle of parochial assessment, namely, the value of the property as it would let to a tenant. The principle established in the Parochial Assessment Act was no new principle; it merely declared the principle which had been established by a long course of decisions, that the value of the property taxed should be taken to be that for which it could be let, the tenant paying all rates, taxes, and charges. When that Act was passing through the House of Lords the

155
Archbishop of Canterbury expressly moved that tithes should be exempted from its operation, but that proposal was altogether repudiated, and the result was the adoption of a proviso proposed by the Duke of Richmond, that there should be no alteration of the law with respect to the rating of tithes and other kinds of property. Then came the Tithe Commutation Act, converting tithes into a rent-charge. The amount of tithes bad hitherto been uncertain for the purposes of rating, but now the amount became a well known and constant quantity. That was the source of the grievance of which complaint was made, because the tithe-owner's rent was known, but the land-owner's rent was not known; and those whose duty it was to make the assessment reduced the amount of assessment of the land-owner, while they assessed to the full value the owner of the rent-charge. That was a serious grievance, and his hon. and learned Friend by his Bill proposed to remedy it. Now, what was the amount of property to which this grievance applied? He (Mr. Bouverie), of course, in an argument of this nature, put aside all consideration of the hardship which might be inflicted on the parochial clergy, as such. They must not be influenced by their sympathies for the clergy; what it was their duty to guard against was, whether in this or any other form of taxation, that no injustice was done. He could, if required, make out a good case of sympathy in favour of small landowners. The amount of property to be thus exceptionally dealt with was £4,050,000. That portion of it which belonged to the clergy was 2,411,000; the remainder, amounting to 1,639,000, was the property of lay impropriators, schools, colleges, lessees, and others, to none of whom could the complaint of a personal grievance apply. His hon. and learned Friend would, he trusted, permit him to defend the consistency of the opinion given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted that right hon. Gentleman as an authority in favour of this Bill, but he thought that his hon. and learned Friend was altogether mistaken on that point. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether it was his opinion, if the Parochial Assessment Act were strictly carried out, there would be any injustice done between the tithe-owner and the land-owner, and he answered "No," and that he thought if the Bill had been carried
156
into effect the injustice complained of would never have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say, "I am not aware of any other disadvantage to which the tithe-owner is subject than this, that his cards are shown, whereas the cards of the other ratepayers are not shown." And he added that all other occupiers should be compelled to show the annual value of their land in such a way as to ensure equality of assessment. That was the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Phillimore) suggested a different mode of meeting the evil which did not appear to him (Mr. Bouverie) to be adequate to the purpose desired. By the second clause of the Bill it was proposed to deduct charges for collection, the usual tenant's rates and taxes, all ecclesiastical dues, and the repairs of the chancel and church. The law, as it now stood, allowed all those deductions. It was also proposed to deduct the land-tax, the stipends of curates, and the charges paid under Queen Anne's Bounty. The land-tax was a landlord's tax, it was not deducted in estimating the rateable value of land, and there was no reason why the tithe-owner should be placed, in a different position from the owners of other property subject to poor rate. With regard to the stipends for curates, a large proportion of curates were kept in towns, where the grievance did not exist, and as to those clergymen who did not choose to perform their duties personally, they had no claim whatever. With regard to the payments under Queen Anne's Bounty, it would be a very large estimate to say that twenty per cent of new incumbents' houses had been recently built throughout the country, in respect of which alone those payments were due, and therefore a deduction on that ground would he no consolation to the eighty per cent of the clergy who were not subject to the charge. As to the alternative of making the assessment on two-thirds or four-fifths of the tithe commutation rent-charge, the same temptation would exist to induce those who made the rate to lower unfairly the estimate of other property as existed now, and no remedy would be afforded for the grievance of which the parochial clergy complained. He could not agree that the tithe commutation was a bargain made by the State with the clergy, and that the State had no right to subject it to new taxation. If the Legislature thought fit to impose

157
new taxes upon the tithe rent-charge the owners had no more right to complain than the owners of other property. When the tithes were commuted the tithe-owner was credited with the receipt of the gross sum yielded by his tithes. Since that time the charge for poor rate in this country had been diminished £1,500,000, and if impositions of another kind had been put upon the tithe-owner, of which he complained, he ought to give credit, on the other hand, for the benefit derived from the reduction of the poor rate. He willingly admitted the disinterested spirit which the clergy had exhibited on the repeal of the Corn Laws, which seriously threatened to lessen the value of their peculiar property; but he was glad to say, as yet, it had been productive of no practical loss to them. As to the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock, that the right of appeal was a mere mockery, the appeal given by the law now was no greater hardship upon clergymen than upon the hon. and learned Gentleman or any ratepayer who was overrated. There seemed to him to be no other possible mode of remedying the injustice than by giving an appeal, whereby, if in any one instance the rate could be shown to be unequal, it would be put straight. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could point out any practical means of facilitating appeals he would consider of it; but he must protest against clause 5 of the Bill, which constituted the justices, whose function now merely was to sign the rate, a Court of Appeal. It would be intolerable for justices to have to sit as a Court of Appeal every time a rate was allowed. He approached the subject with no prepossessions against the clergy, but he felt bound to point out that, while the clergy had an indisputable grievance which, he believed, might be remedied, the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock would not, in his opinion, afford any real remedy, and neither was it sound in principle. He was not prepared to object to the second reading of the Bill, but he had pretty clearly indicated what portions of it he should object to at a future stage.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to inquire where the Chancellor of the Exchequer was. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in the chair was unable to answer the question; but the right hon. Gentleman ought certainly to have been present. He was the highest
158
authority on the subject; he had spoken upon it, written upon it, and given evidence upon it; and his authority could be cited against the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the President of the Poor Law Board. Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly expressed an opinion in favour of the views of the hon. and learned Member who brought in the Bill. Yet the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), though not objecting to the second reading of the Bill, had done his utmost to destroy it. He (Sir J. Pakington) had long felt the deep injustice which the clergy suffered from the present system of rating. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer here entered the House.] He was happy to see the right hon. Gentleman. He believed he might appeal to him against the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie), who had just spoken in opposition to this measure. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were no answer whatever to the proposed measure. No doubt rating ought to be equal, and what the clergy complained of was, that they were not equally rated. That was the very grievance the Bill was brought in to remedy. The House was only asked to do an act of justice. Justice required that the clergy should be rated on a different principle. The case in the Queen's Bench, that the rule of rating under the Parochial Assessment Act applied to tithes, had been commented upon in a Report signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And the clergy complained that they were not really rated on the principle of that Act, but were assessed on different principles, from other ratepayers. They also complained that they paid on a different value from other ratepayers, especially considering that the stock-in-trade was exempted; and they complained of the effect of the fixed nature of their rent-charge. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board said the principle of law was, that all rating ought to be equal. He did not dispute that dictum, but, on the contrary, his argument for the Bill, as he had previously stated, was that the clergy were not equally rated. The House of Lords had expressed their opinion by Resolution, that the rent-charge ought to be assessed, not in the full value, but at the rate which a tenant would pay for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Report

159
of the Commission of which he was the most conspicuous member, estimated the difference in the rating of owners of tithes and owners of other property in many cases at twenty per cent, and in some 10,000 or 11,000 cases at thirty or forty per cent. He concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. E. Phillimore), that, practically, the remedy of appeal in the case of clergymen was worthless, and he found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the same Report, making the same assertion. The Commissioners also said—
"We consider that the clerical tithe-owners have very just grounds of complaint as to the manner in which the rent-charge is valued in the majority of cases throughout England and Wales, and, therefore, are fully entitled to protection as effectual as can be devised against the evil."
Those words were most conclusive as to the justness of the complaint and the necessity for protection. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) to the deductions for salaries of curates, he thought there was some weight in it; but that was a mere question of detail. He thought the measure, with some modifications, would deserve the sanction of the House.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that the President of the Poor Law Board had agreed to let the Bill go to a second reading, because it was admitted on all hands that the holders of tithe property were labouring under a grievance. He did not think the House had anything to do with the question whether this property was owned by rich or poor persons. The real question was, whether there was equality or inequality of taxation in regard to this description of property. The true principle was involved in the question, "If A were possessed of 100 acres of land, and B of a tithe rent-charge of £100 a year, what would C and D give for the rent of each? Let the House look at the items which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Phillimore) gave by way of compensation. First, there was the curate, whose salary the hon. and learned Gentleman said ought to be deducted. But, suppose the Legislature divided the parish, and assigned a portion to the curate. The tithe rent-charge would then be divided with the parish, and the curate would pay one portion, being a district clergyman, and the incumbent the other portion. He did not see that this charge ought to be a deduction. Such a deduction would operate unequally; because, if a clergyman
160
did not keep a curate, the Bill provided no remedy for his admitted grievance. Money borrowed upon the tithe rent-charge for the building and repair of houses was another item. That was a mortgage, but it did not affect the generality of livings. The fourth clause of the Bill referred to additional charges which might be put on this particular species of property. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a rent-charge was a fixed and unimprovable rent, and ought not to be subject to additional charges of any sort. But that argument cut both ways. Was the rent-charge to be a fixed quantity which was never to have another burden upon it? That, he considered, was very dangerous ground to take. It was true that a rent-charge was an unimprovable property, but it was certain of payment, and he thought that the gain in one part might very fairly be set against the loss in some other respects. The parochial assessment was generally a little below the rent; but in one case which had come under his observation it was considerably above the rent. He thought the owners of tithe rent-charge had a grievance to complain of; but he felt bound to say that the Bill would not, in his opinion, relieve it. The House, however, by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill would admit that there was a wrong to be remedied. What that remedy should be he would not undertake to say, although it would probably be found either in allowing a small per centage or in giving greater facilities of appeal.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, there were some deductions which were naturally just in themselves, but there was another class which the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock sought to adjust by means of compensation. Whether the remedy for the grievance under which the tithe-owner laboured was to be found in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member was a matter for discussion. The tithe rent-charge represented the right to take the tenth part of the produce of the land, but it was a different thing to rate property after all deductions had been made. The house of a clergyman, for instance, was quite out of the category of property. In dealing with a property representing only a share of any given property, taxation ought to be placed on a different footing. There were two distinct sets of reductions in the Bill, one to be supported on its own merits, the other founded on inequalities in the rating, and in considering the question

161
these matters ought to be taken into full consideration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was his belief that the clerical tithe-owner was subject to a real and substantial grievance in the rating of these tithes, arising from the fact that the surveyor who made the rate was for the most part a farmer of the parish, whose assessment of the property of his own class was usually below the full value, while the value of the tithe commutation rent-charge, being publicly ascertained, was entered in the rate book at the entire value, and thus placed the clergyman at a disadvantage as compared with other parishioners. The House was aware that there was a double motive for thus assessing the property of the pariah. In the first place, if the rental of a farm were greater than the assessment, each parishioner was a gainer as compared with the tithe-owner, who was assessed at the full value. There was another advantage in a low assessment, in regard to the county-rate. If a rate of 4d. or 6d. in the pound were laid over the entire county, those parishes that were assessed at only 60 or 70 per cent of the value, paid a smaller percentage than those who were assessed at 80 or 90 per cent of their value. He was, therefore, of opinion that the House ought to remedy that grievance. But the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. Phillimore) did not propose to deal with this real grievance of over-assessment of some parishes and under-assessment of others. He established certain deductions, beginning with the amount of the salary and stipend of a curate. [Mr. R. PHILLIMOBE: The land tax.] Very possibly the tithe-owner might be entitled to deduction in that respect, but he would not, on the present occasion, enter into that question. The law regarded the tithe as property, and not as salary. If it were considered as property, and not as the remuneration for service, he could not see the equity of deducting the salary of a curate. If a person absented himself from his benefice the law compelled him to keep a curate during his absence; but in that case he exercised his own judgment as to his absence, and, therefore, could not be said to be compelled to keep a curate. The provision of the Bill upon that point was not, therefore, of particular value. More might be said in favour of the deductions on account of Queen Anne's Bounty, because a clergyman was merely a tenant for life of his
162
house—he could not dispose of it, as it was in the nature of an official residence, and he did not even stand in the same position with regard to it as an ordinary tenant for life. He was not aware that any objection could be made to that section of the Bill. With regard to the 4th clause he fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). He thought no distinction could be made between new charges and old charges, and there was no reason why this species of property should not be subjected to the same new charges as any other species. If the principle were admitted, why should it not include the increase of existing charges? In the case, for instance, of a police rate, separate from the county rate, the clause would be applicable, whereas if the police were charged upon an existing county rate it would be inapplicable. One argument used in favour of the tithe-owner was founded upon the abolition of the rating of stock-in-trade, but he could not see its force. In town parishes the tithe system altogether failed, because the tithe being the tenth part of the increment of the soil, there was no increment of the soil as the ground was covered with houses. But in ordinary cases the tithe-owner was the owner of the tithes of a rural district containing few shops and scarcely any stock-in-trade, and, therefore, practically he was not damnified by the disuse of the law for rating stock-in-trade. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) still retained the opinion he had formerly expressed as to the injustice under which the tithe-owner laboured by the existing law, and he thought the House ought to apply itself to the removal of that grievance, but he doubted whether it would be effectually remedied by the proposed measure.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must beg to express his gratification at the general tone of the debate, and at the fairness with which gentlemen connected with land, and therefore interested in rating as many classes of ratepayers as possible, besides that to which they belonged, had admitted the grievance of which the tithe-owners complained, and endeavoured to facilitate its removal. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discussed the subject with the fairness eminently characteristic of his mind, and his knowledge of it was no doubt greater than that of any other Member of the House; but, in order to illustrate the difficulties with

163
which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. Phillimore) had had to contend in grappling with it, he must remind his right hon. Friend that some of the principles laid down in the Report signed by him went far towards supporting that 4th clause to which he was now opposed. He would respectfully press upon the House that, after the universal admission which had been made as to the existence of the grievance which was the subject of the Bill under consideration, it would not be altogether creditable to allow small difficulties of detail and small differences of opinion to prevent the application of a remedy to that grievance. They ought not to fold their arms and say, "Although the grievance is plain, palpable, and even scandalous, we cannot, on account of difficulties of detail, attempt to provide a remedy." It would be far better to apply a remedy which was open to some abstract objections than any longer to neglect the subject. Although the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) objected to some provisions of the Bill, he understood the right hon. Gentleman, and he likewise understood the Government, to pledge themselves, in voting for the second reading, that they would honestly endeavour to make the Bill as effectual a remedy as possible for admitted grievances. The first object of the Bill was to fix by law certain deductions to which the tithe-owner was entitled; its second object, and that which presented the greatest difficulty, was to counteract the effects of the inequality of assessments. With regard to the two modes of proceeding pointed out by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he hardly thought it would be worth while to pass a Bill to improve the method of appeal, since the more elevated the character of a clergyman, and the greater his desire to maintain unbroken relations of amity with his parishioners, the greater would be his reluctance to resort to any appeal that could be provided. The general feeling of the House seemed to be favourable to a deduction on account of the parsonage house, as that house was not built for the enjoyment of the clergyman, but in order to fasten him to his duty. The question of a deduction on account of the salaries of curates was one of the greatest intricacy, and he should look for guidance upon it to the authority of practical men such as his hon. Colleague, and the right hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the right hon. Baronet the
164
Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). He would, therefore, venture to suggest to his hon. and learned Friend, to Her Majesty's Government, and to those Gentlemen that felt an interest in the measure, whether, upon the whole, it would not be most expedient to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, not for the purpose of taking evidence upon the subject, but for the purpose of closely and carefully considering in juxta-position the various remedies proposed to meet a grievance universally acknowledged. At all events he ventured to hope that the labours of his hon. and learned Friend, as well as the expression of opinion elicited that day, would not be unattended with beneficial fruits.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to observe that the Parochial Assessment Act of 1836 was very much complained of. He would therefore give notice that when he Bill was in Committee he would move the insertion of clauses to remedy the evil, and removing the restriction which prevented persons from appealing to the Superior Courts without the permission of the magistrates.
Mr. WIGRAMsaid, he was anxious merely to say that whether the law was theoretically right or theoretically wrong, it was admitted on all hands to inflict a great grievance upon a large class of the community. He would therefore suggest that Her Majesty's Government should apply itself to determine what was the proper remedy for the grievance, as it was quite hopeless for a private Member to expect to carry a measure through if he had to encounter at every turn objections on the part of the Government to the details of his Bill.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would admit that the clergy had a great grievance to complain of under the present state of the law; but at the same time he was prepared to contend that the general system of rating was unjust. It was unjust as regarded the growers of raw produce throughout the country, which meant every occupier of land throughout England and Wales. Occupiers of land were rated in a way that no other employers of capital were; for they were rated according to their production, and according to the amount of industry which they brought to bear upon the working of the soil. He thought, therefore, that the whole question of rating should be grappled with.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R.

165
Phillimore) to let the Bill be considered by a Select Committee, but not to hand it over to the Government, who had neglected to provide redress in the case of the clergy of Ireland, some time ago; it was, he thought, for the House itself to provide the remedy.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. DILLWYN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, there could be no difference of opinion as to the imperfect working of the present Act for the repression of aggravated assaults upon women and children. Such offences occurred in the metropolitan district at least upon the average as frequently as one every day. The police reports and our daily experience consequently proved that the existing law was quite insufficient to prevent them. Now, in his opinion, it was an erroneous view to think that the main object of punishment should be the reformation of offenders. The principal object, and in fact the only one which justified us in administering punishment, was the repression of crime, and the more simply we kept that system in view the better. It was not his intention to deny that the reformation of offenders, if it could be compassed by the same means, was a very desirable object, but he must deny that it was practicable to include this with the other, as the express objects of our penal legislation. Looking at our whole penal code, the penalties awarded for crime, as far as he understood it, did not contemplate the reformation of offenders. Centainly, the sentence of death did not contemplate that object, nor did long imprisonments, nor penal servitude. A great objection, also, to long imprisonment was, that, in the first place, we had not the means of carrying it out, and, in the next, if we were to extend the length of the term of the imprisonment for offences, we should not be able to provide sufficient prison accommodation. It did not appear, from the conduct either of those who had undergone long imprisonment, or of those who had returned from transportation, or of the ticket-of-leave men, that they had been very much reformed. Neither did he believe that our prison discipline, as at present conducted, was at all likely to reform criminals. He would now call attention to the different remedies that had been suggested for the prevention of the particular
166
class of crimes which he had in view; and he believed none of those remedies, except the infliction of corporal punishment, which was what he proposed, were at all likely to attain their object. Imprisonment was not calculated to deter a man of brutal and savage nature, under the strong influence of ferocious passions, of anger or jealousy, or under the excitement of drink, from the commission of those offences; no matter to such a man whether the penalty were three, six, or twelve months' imprisonment, it would not check his rage. Nor was it probable that solitary confinement, which had been recommended as a substitute for a longer term of imprisonment, would in those cases be effectual, though in many instances, such as those of larceny, swindling, and other such crimes, he believed that shorter sentences of solitary imprisonment would be a great saving of expense, and give a much better chance of reforming the offender. To a man who had once experienced it, doubtless solitary confinement was a very dreadful séntence, but not so to one who had not experienced what it really was. In the cases which he had in view, it was desirable to prevent first offences, and there must be some penalty which should inspire active fear, and an immediate terror. Another suggestion which had been made was, that there should be a cheap law of divorce. That was a very large question, affecting the social and domestic relations of the whole people, and one which required very grave consideration. He certainly should approve of it as a civil remedy, for he believed that by separating persons who were ill matched, the cause of many of those crimes would be removed. But it would, without doubt in many instances, be holding out a direct inducement to commit the assaults which he desired to restrain, if the punishment of those assaults were to be associated with facilitating a divorce; and therefore he did not wish to mix up the question of the law of divorce with the question which he had now brought before the House. Besides, the law of divorce could only apply to the case of a wife; but many of these aggravated assaults were not committed by men upon their wives. Within the last three months there had been three or four gross cases made public of assaults by men upon their concubines; and although a woman had no right to live with a man in that relation, he ought to be punished if he treated her brutally. There were also cases of men assaulting their mothers and

167
sisters, and worst of all, there were cases of men assaulting children, which deserved the most prompt and severe punishment. One case, which he had noticed, was that of a man who had just had an illegitimate child sworn to him, and immediately wreaked his vengeance upon the child as soon as he got out of the Court. In these and other cases, a law of divorce would of course afford no remedy. He did believe that the only way to meet the whole class of such cases was by imposing corporal punishment, for he was firmly of opinion that would deter from crimes of that nature. They were essentially different from cases of theft and other crimes, in which the offender deliberately weighed the consequences of his act, and knew the loss of character which he would have to sustain. These assaults were committed in a momentary passion, and the forcible threat of a good flogging would be more likely to have an instant effect upon a man, at such a moment, than the contemplation of a more prolonged sort of punishment. It was almost invariably true, that the greater the bully the greater was the coward, and the fear of actual pain upon his own back would operate upon any man who was capable of cruel ill-treatment of the woman he was bound to protect. Such men, like dogs, were of a brutal nature, and if we wanted to cure dogs of the habit of running after hares or sheep, we did so by whipping them, until we acquired a control of them, and taught them to restrain their savage propensities. He believed that, by such a punishment as he recommended, there would be a chance, not only of deterring men from these offences, but of reforming them also. Nothing but the fear of pain and shame would do it; and shame might do much with them; but if they were only to be sent to prison, they were too depraved in character to feel any shame for that, and would meet with associates in prison, who would sympathise with them, and keep them from any sense of degradation. But a man who had been flogged for such an offence, would he laughed at even by his fellows whom he met in prison, and would be put to shame. Now he was perfectly aware that more than one objection had been raised to the system of punishment he recommended. One was, that it would prevent a reconciliation between the husband and wife, after the sentence should have been inflicted. He did not say but that, in some cases, it
168
might do so; but he believed it would make these assaults of very rare and infrequent occurrence, and that general effect would be well worth the occasional chance of preventing a reconciliation. But in many cases it was his belief that it would not prevent a reconciliation. He knew a case of a man in South Wales, many years ago, who was continually brought up by the Poor-Law officers for deserting his wife and family, and sent to the House of Correction for it. At last he was brought up and indicted under an old Act of Parliament, as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, at the quarter sesssions, and he was sentenced to be whipped—and he was whipped; he went back to his family, and never appeared before the Magistrates again; but they lived happily together ever since, although his wife was the cause of his having undergone that punishment, and he really became a reformed man. Another objection was, that flogging would tend to degrade and brutalise a man, but he did not attach any weight to that argument, because he believed that the man who committed these assaults was such that he could not very well be degraded—he was a thorough brute, and as a brute he must be treated, and be cowed by the fear of the lash. It had been said that this would be a retrograde step in our legislation; but what did that mean? If it tended better to attain the great end of legislation, the prevention of crime, it would surely be a step in advance. When we wanted to cure a disease, we did not look for the most agreeable but the most efficacious medicine, and if we found a medicine that was nastier than any other which had been previously tried, but that effectually cured the disease, we did not call it a retrograde step but an advance in the art of healing. Besides, it would not be an innovation in the law, after all. There was the Act of the 7 & 8 George IV., chap. 39, which provided the punishment of whipping for malicious injuries to property. There was also the Act for the punishment of assaults upon Her Majesty the Queen, in which case lion. Members must be well aware that the principle of corporal punishment had been quite successful for the prevention of the offence. Another objection which had been made was, that such a power as that of inflicting corporal punishment ought not to be given to one or two Justices of the Peace. But the Magistrates

169
were already invested with very large powers, which they generally exercised in a very satisfactory manner; they were always subject to the observation and comments of the public press, and he believed their decisions inclined usually to the side of mercy rather than the other way. His attention had been called to the meeting of women at Leicester, who had petitioned against this Bill. But he could not attach much importance to that meeting. He had never expected that women would hold meetings in favour of the Bill, or take any public part in its advocacy. By doing so, women would of course have exposed themselves to a great deal of personal ridicule, and their compassionate, long-suffering, uncomplaining spirit would indispose them to plead their own cause, and to demand such a remedy as this. The women felt no doubt that they might safely leave their cause in the hands of a Parliament of men. But notwithstanding all that had been stated, he still had reason to believe that the feeling amongst the female sex was in favour of the law which he proposed, and that they did consider it to be necessary. After all, it was not altogether a woman's question, but it was much more a man's question. It concerned the character of our own sex that we should repress these unmanly assaults; and he believed that upon the men who committed them they had a worse and more injurious effect than they had upon the women who endured them. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said, in the debate of 1853, that if the working of the law then enacted should be found unsatisfactory, he would be prepared to reconsider this question; and that if that law were insufficient, Parliament might have recourse to stronger measures. He (Mr. Dillwyn) believed that, since that period, there had been a great change of public opinion and feeling upon this subject, and he therefore trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that, notwithstanding the general and very just desire that those offences to which the Bill of the hon. Gentleman referred should be checked by the strong hand of the law, he felt bound at once to state the reasons which induced him to think that the specific change which the hon. Gentleman proposed would be inexpedient, and ought not to be
170
adopted by the House. The Bill contained almost a complete code of provisions upon this subject, but substantially it made only one alteration in the existing law. A Bill upon this subject was brought in three years ago by the right hon. Gentleman now the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, who was then the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. FitzRoy) and was passed into a law. What the hon. Member for Swansea now proposed to do was to repeal that Act, and to reenact it verbatim, with the addition of another punishment to be attached to the offence in question. There could be no difference of opinion about the character of that offence, and with much that had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, he, and he thought every one else, must agree. There could be no sympathy with those persons whom he had justly described as men of brutal and savage nature, who were guilty of these aggravated assaults on women, and especially on their own wives. There could be only one desire about it, that these offences should be checked. But much of the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman was based upon the general assumption of his that long imprisonments were inexpedient, that they were expensive, and that they could not so well be inflicted, and therefore the hon. Gentleman, irrespective of these particular cases, would recommend corporal punishment to be substituted for long imprisonment inflicted by law. And so, as regarded the question of divorce, the hon. Gentleman was in favour of a cheap system of divorce, but he did not propose anything of the kind. What, then, did the hon. Gentleman propose? The existing Act gave summary jurisdiction to two magistrates in ordinary cases, or to one police or stipendiary magistrate, to deal with these aggravated assaults, and to inflict a penalty of not exceeding six months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour; or else the magistrates had the alternative of inflicting a fine not exceeding the sum of £20, with imprisonment in default of its payment; and there were other provisions enabling them to bind the persons over to good behaviour. Now the hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal the punishment which was imposed by the present Act, and to reduce the six months' imprisonment, in all cases, to two months' imprisonment, but to couple that sentence of imprisonment, of which the minimum was to be fourteen days, and the maximum was to be two

171
months, in every case, according to the wording of the Bill, with the infliction of corporal punishment. Now, he (Sir G. Grey) thought it would be very inexpedient to require the magistrates in all cases, and without any discretion whatever, to visit these cases with corporal punishment, in addition to the limited imprisonment. If the House sanctioned it, they would be, for the first time, placing in the hands of the civil magistrate the power of inflicting corporal punishment in the case of an adult. There was at present no law which gave the magistrate such a summary jurisdiction ever adults, for any offence. What would be the state of the law if this Bill were passed into an Act? The magistrate might send the case, if it were a very aggravated one, to be tried by a jury at sessions or assizes. But if this Bill became law, when the man was convicted in such a case, the judge at the assizes, or the chairman of the quarter sessions, would not have the power of inflicting corporal punishment, although the magistrate would have that power if he disposed of the case by his own summary jurisdiction. He thought that was a power so extensive that the House should be cautious how they placed it in the hands of the magistrates, to be exercised in a summary way. But the hon. Gentleman had assumed without sufficient proof that the present law was inadequate to the attainment of its object. Now the hon. Gentleman must have entertained a very Utopian view of the powers of Parliament if he had thought the present law would effect the complete repression of all this class of offences. It was doubtless the fact, that they were still of frequent occurrence, but the number of such offences which had occurred since the Bill was passed should be compared with the number of them previous to that date, There was another circumstance which the hon. Gentleman had likewise overlooked The Act enabled any person to prefer a complaint in these cases; it multiplied the cases which might be brought before the Police Courts and magistrates, and he (Sir G. Grey) believed that it brought many offenders to justice who would before have escaped any punishment; and the case; which were made public were those in which justice was done upon persons who before that Bill was passed would have escaped the cognizance of the law, ant whose cases would not have become known The hon. Gentleman had anticipated the objection as to the effect which the infliction
172
of that punishment which he proposed would be likely to have upon the domestic peace of the families of the husbands and wives who were to live together afterwards. By the present law, if the complaint were lade by the wife, or by any person on her behalf, and the magistrate inflicted imprisonment, either with or without hard labour, it often happened that the husband was released before the expiration of his sentence, at the earnest intercession of the wife, there being reason to tope that the effect of the punishment had been such as would induce better conduct on his part, and better treatment of her in future. In such a case did not the husband go back to his home with feelings more likely to tend to the future peace and comfort of his wife, himself, and their children, indebted as he was, for the remission of a part of his sentence to her intercession, than he would if he were sentenced, as he might be under the Bill now before the House, to imprisonment for fourteen days, with a severe flogging, to go home with a sore back, and with feelings of the greatest irritation against the wife who had caused that sentence to be passed upon him? For all these reasons, he thought they ought to have a longer experience of the existing law before they meddled with it, and that they ought not to adopt the measure now proposed.
MR. PACKEsaid, he thought there was one great objection to the Bill in its present shape, that it gave the magistrate no option as to the mode of punishment; but, independently of that, he thought the operation of the present law had not been sufficiently tried, and he must therefore oppose the further progress of the Bill.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he was of opinion that there was no primâ facie case for making a new law on this subject, nor did he think that the operation of the proposed measure would be salutary. He judged from what he knew the opinion of the House had been on the system of flogging in the army and navy. He should therefore feel it his duty to oppose the Bill. There was one strong reason that induced him to take this course, namely, that the women of England did not wish for the Bill—they did not wish that this punishment should in any case be inflicted upon their sons and brothers. A meeting had recently been held by women at Leicester on this subject, and, with the permission of the House, he would read a Resolution

173
which had been passed at that meeting. It was moved—
"That whereas that meeting fully appreciated the benevolent intentions of the Legislature, they could not allow the Bill now before Parliament to pass without expressing their opinion as to the inutility of this barbarous and obsolete mode of punishment, believing that such a law would have the effect of further brutalising and demoralising those that came under its lash."
That Resolution had been unanimously adopted. He therefore considered that the measure was not only unpopular, but supererogatory and uncalled for.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, he wished to know what were the reasons why they were called upon to support the present measure? He supposed that in ordinary cases there were three causes which stood in the way of bringing criminals of this class to justice. The first was, that it was plain there was some sort of lingering affection still left on the part of the wives; the second was the fear that their husbands, when they came out of prison, would treat them more cruelly than before; and the third, that whilst the husbands were in gaol, the wives would be in absolute want of support. Now as to the first of these causes, he would be extremely sorry to diminish by legislation the chances of bringing to justice criminals of this nature; but, doubtless, so long as these unhappy women could forbear, it would be better for them. Then, with regard to the second, the magistrates had the power to make a criminal find bail that he would not ill-treat his wife for twelve months after he was set free from prison. With respect to the third, he had a proposal to suggest, which he would bring forward on a future occasion. Strongly opposed as he was, under ordinary circumstances, to make prison labour remunerative to the prisoner, he thought there was a special case, when labour might well be made remunerative for the benefit of the wife. In that respect he thought the law did not meet the ends it had in view.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not help expressing the regret which he felt that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had opposed the Bill, and he certainly could not agree with him in the views he had expressed. He (Mr. Bentinck) heartily concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading of the Bill, that punishment was intended to prevent crime, and not to reform criminals; and he thought the House was bound to confine
174
itself strictly to that view of the subject. It was pretty plain that the existing measure had not had the effect which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had anticipated. Then his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) only asked the House to do as much for the protection of women as they were ready to do for that of animals. What, then, were the objections that were urged to the magistrate having the power of extending the punishment for this crime, and adding to it corporal punishment? There was an argument that he had often heard urged out of the House, but not within it on this occasion, that it was opposed to what were called the rights of man; but it had been said on this occasion that the punishment would tend to brutalise and degrade the minds of those whom it visited. But he would contend that there was no possible means of reducing to a lower step of brutalisation ruffians who could be guilty of such a crime as the Bill now under consideration was calculated to deal with.
MR. BARROWsaid, he thought that a man who could be guilty of the crime which was the subject of consideration would not be deterred from such conduct by this brutalising punishment—an expression he felt no difficulty in using with respect to it. There was another objection which might fairly be made to the use of this punishment—it was an infringement of personal liberty. Now, he (Mr. Barrow) claimed the right of every Englishman not to be subjected to corporal punishment—except after that verdict had been given which they claimed as one of their greatest privileges—namely, that which was given after a trial by jury. He did not believe this measure would in the least lead to the reformation of criminals.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the House appeared to him to be arguing the question upon much too narrow a basis. Perhaps some Member of the House might some day meet some saucy boy, perhaps under fourteen years of age, and give him a box of the ear; he might be found guilty of an aggravated assault, and then, whether he were a Member of that House, or any one else, he must be flogged under the provisions of this Bill. If any punishment less than flogging could be devised he would support it. He had seen a great deal of flogging in the navy—in his younger days he had seen twelve or fourteen men flogged one after the other, and he had very rarely seen them cured of

175
their faults. Now, the men in the navy were better conducted, and flogging was much less frequent. If a man were guilty of the atrocious habit of ill-treating his wife, or any woman under his protection, he would punish him in the most severe manner—he would give him the hardest and dirtiest work that could be devised, but he would not flog him. If that were the punishment, in half the cases, depend upon it, the wives would not come forward to prosecute.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to point out that, by the first clause of the Bill, it was provided that this punishment was only to be put in force in cases which the magistrate should think could not be satisfactorily dealt with by the 9 Geo. IV., chap. 31. It must be remembered that this punishment was to meet offences which were so brutal that no punishment could be degrading to those who were guilty of them. Flogging was still continued in the army and navy, and it was only the excess of it which had been abolished, and that all allowed was injurious. The hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) objected, in certain domestic arrangements which he seemed to contemplate, to being flogged without the consent of a jury; but what possible connection could the form of trial have with the particular punishment to be inflicted? The main objection urged against this punishment seemed to be that it would not only not effect a reform of the criminal, but would absolutely obstruct it; but that argument was founded on a misapprehension of the first object of punishment, which was to deter. A man was flogged, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the people who were not flogged.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he believed the cause of the existence of this crime among the working classes was the impossibility there was, under any circumstances, of man and wife ever being separated from each other. Whatever might be the crimes of man or woman in that rank of life, however they might hate and detest each other, they could not get rid of the marriage tie; and lie verily believed their conduct in this, and similar cases, was founded upon this sense of impossibility. As to the offence itself, so far was it from being confined to the male sex, that he (Mr. Muntz) knew of one or two cases were women had thrashed their husbands most severely; and with respect to the wives bringing their husbands to justice, he well remembered punishing
176
one ruffian himself, who was ill treating his wife, by knocking him down, when directly after he (Mr. Muntz) got his face scratched by the wife for assaulting her husband. There were faults on both sides, and he very much doubted whether corporal punishment would have the effect of diminishing the offence of woman-beating. How would any hon. Gentleman meet his wife, he should like to know, after she had been the means of getting him a good flogging? For himself, he confessed he should not be disposed to be very affectionate under such circumstances. Let the hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to regulate the law of divorce, giving married persons among the working classes the opportunity of being separated for a sufficient reason; let him do away with the reproach of there being in this matter one law for the rich and another for the poor, and he would be acting more beneficially for their interests than if he carried this measure.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) that the first object of punishment was to deter, but, to effect that certainty of punishment was quite as necessary as severity, and if the imposition of this punishment should make wives more unwilling to prosecute and magistrates more unwilling to convict, this Bill would have quite a contrary effect to that which its advocates aimed at.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he could not bring his mind to approve of the Bill of the hon. Member for Swansea. He very much doubted if there had been any increase in this crime. He did not believe there had been, judging from his experience of the Superior Criminal Courts, in which all cases were tried of assault with severe wounds, or when anything in the nature of an attempt on life was made. He thought that the increased public notice which was bestowed on these cases was due to two causes. First, because it was a popular topic, so that every newspaper reported every case of the kind; and, secondly, because the increase of moral improvement among the working classes had made them more sensitive to conduct of this kind whenever it did take place than they were before; so that the wife was often encourged and compelled to come forward, and more encouragement was given than formerly to prosecute for this offence. He thought the apparent increase of the crime, which was not real,

177
was due to other causes. What was the real difficulty in the way of punishment for this crime? Why, that in the majority of cases the wife herself was the first to come forward, and throw herself upon her knees before the magistrate, praying that her husband's sentence might not be passed. With that impression he certainly thought a law which would subject the husband to corporal punishment would rather increase than diminish the evil. The additional exposure which would be given to the offence, and the degradation of the punishment, of which the man must bear the marks about his body for the rest of his days, would often deter the unfortunate wives from applying to the magistrate at all, and thus defeat the very benefit that was intended.
Motion made, and Question put "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 135: Majority 38.
Bill to be read a second time upon this day six months.
The House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.