§ Mr. Gillonhad to present to the House the petition of Mr. Thomas Chapman, now a prisoner in the gaol of Edinburgh, at the instance of the clergy of that city, for arrears of annuity tax, which was levied there for their support. The petitioner complained of the unequal and oppressive nature of that tax, and he also objected to it upon conscientious grounds. He stated, that his conscience forbad him to contribute to the support of the clergy of a church which in its conduct violated the commands of Scripture. He stated, that the hardship in his case was aggravated by the circumstance of his being in a very delicate state of health, and he prayed the House to relieve him by setting him at liberty, and enabling him to pursue his avocations without further molestation. He (Mr. Gillon) had to state, that there was also at present imprisoned in the gaol of Edinburgh, Mr. Thomas Russell, a member of the town-council of that city, who was confined, likewise, because he refused to pay this tax. These facts furnished a specimen of the spirit with which the Edinburgh clergy endeavoured to enforce the collection of this odious imposition. The subject had excited a considerable commotion in Edinburgh, and it was one in every way worthy of the attention of the House. He would just state to the House the nature of this tax, and the results that had recently flowed from the attempt to enforce its payment. It consisted of six per cent. upon all houses and shops in the city of Edinburgh, and was levied for the support 326 of the clergy of that city. It was originally imposed by an Act passed in 1649, and that Act was confirmed by a subsequent Act in 1661. These Acts imposed six per cent. upon all houses in the city of Edinburgh for the support of the clergy, but they limited the amount to be so levied annually to 19,000 marks, a little more than 1,000l. sterling.
§ The Speaker,interrupting the hon. Member, inquired whether he intended to end with a motion, as otherwise he had better at once state the prayer of the petition.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that he had a petition to present from his constituents in Edinburgh, praying for the abolition of the tax.
§ The Speakerremarked, that it was not usual to discuss petitions, unless they referred to a particular personal grievance. As far as he could gather the prayer of the present petition from the statement of the hon. Member, the petitioner prayed the House to do that which it was not in its power to do—namely, to set him at liberty.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, that the petitioner also prayed for the abolition of the tax as un-scriptural and oppressive; and he would submit that such a prayer came perfectly within the scope of the powers of the House. He had mentioned the limitation which was imposed on the amount of this tax by the original Acts under which it was collected. In the year 1809, however, a Bill was introduced—
Sir George Clerkrose to order. He observed, that it was not in the power of the House to grant the prayer of this petition, and he thought that after the suggestion from the Chair, the hon. Member should not proceed with this discussion. There could be no objection to the hon. Member's presenting the petition, but it was exceedingly inconvenient to go into the discussion of an important question like this on the presentation of a petition. At all events, if the hon. Member should go into a lengthened statement on the subject, he hoped that the House would indulge those on the opposite side of the question with an opportunity of replying to him.
§ The Speakerhad merely observed that its prayer did not seem to come within the legitimate jurisdiction of the House.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, that the object of the 327 petitioner was the abolition of the tax— that was what he wanted to achieve. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Gillon) that such a subject was fairly entitled to the consideration of the House for this odious tax—
§ Mr. Cumming Brucerose to order. He submitted that this subject might be properly discussed, if a general motion were brought forward in reference to it. Let the hon. Member give notice of a motion for the repeal of the tax, and then the matter could be debated. The time for the presentation of petitions was extremely limited, and it should not be expended upon the discussion of a single petition of this nature.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, that this attempt to stifle the voice of a victim of clerical oppression should not succeed. He appealed to the justice of the House on the part of Mr. Chapman, who was suffering from conscience sake.
§ The Speakerwould suggest to the hon. Member, that the best way was to present the petition now, and to give notice of a motion on the subject for some future day.
§ Mr. Gillonsubmitted, that he was quite in order in going on with the discussion. If he were to give a notice on the subject, he would then be met by the rule as to the introduction of private Bills, this annuity tax being confined to Edinburgh and another town in Scotland, Montrose, and being collected under a private Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. Methuenrose to order, and submitted that the hon. Member should not go on against the opinion of the Chair and the declared sense of the House.
§ Mr. Gillonearnestly hoped the House would not sanction this attempt to stifle the cries of the victims of oppression under this law. The annuity tax was a tax of six per cent. on houses, shops, &c. in Edinburgh, laid on by two Acts of the Scottish Parliament, of 1649 and 1661, but specially restricted to the support of six ministers, and to the sum of 19,000 marks, a little more than 1,000l. sterling. In the year 1809, notice had been given to Parliament of a Bill to extend the royalty of the city, and no other notice had been given; yet, into this Bill the corrupt town-council of that day had fraudulently introduced a clause legalising the collection of the whole six per cent., long after it had exceeded the amount of 19,000 marks, and extending it over the extended royalty of the city. It was 328 specially to be remarked that this tax was confined to Edinburgh and Montrose, and extended to no other town in Scotland. It was particularly unequal, because, while all the industrious classes—the shop-keepers, artisans, &c.—were compelled to pay it,—the richer classes——the writers, barristers, and judges—who, by a strange perversion of terms in this instance, formed what was called the College of Justice—were totally exempt. Mr. Russell and Mr. Chapman object also to the payment of this tax, as it violated the rights of conscience, by compelling them to contribute to the support of that from which they dissented. The conduct of the clergy of Edinburgh, on the present occasion, had been marked with features of tyranny, such as had rarely met the sight of this House. Had the collecting of the money been the only object in view, they might have obtained this, by arresting the debts due to those individuals, but the clergy had travelled out of their road to inflict an act of gratuitous severity, and to insult the citizens of Edinburgh, by immuring two of their body in gaol, one of them one of the local representatives of the place, a Member of the town-council. His belief was, that if their power were equal to their inclination, they would not, in pursuit of their stipends, confine themselves to this act.
§ Mr. Cumming Brucerose to order. He submitted that the hon. Member was travelling out of the subject matter of the petition for the purpose of making an attack upon the clergy.
§ Mr. Gillonsaid, the clergy of Edinburgh had talked much of excavating and converting the Heathen, and had even asked for a grant of money from this House for that purpose; but they were likely to have but little success in this undertaking, whilst they showed themselves rather as the wolves to prey on, than the shepherds to defend, the flocks.
The Attorney General,interrupting the hon. Member, said, that he had the same object in view as his hon. Friend. He deprecated, as much as possible, the continuance of this annuity tax, the existence of which was to be lamented by all who wished well to the clergy and people of Scotland. His most earnest wish was to see this tax abolished. But he thought that that object would be best promoted by having the question discussed when it was brought fully and fairly under the consideration of the House. He 329 would suggest to his hon. Friend not to persist in this discussion against the generally expressed wishes of the House. He was himself anxious to present a petition against the tax from his constituents in Edinburgh; but he thought that the discussion of the subject should be rescued for a motion.
§ Mr. Gilloncontinued.—One thing he begged to tell the House—they must either repeal this tax, or be prepared to give a grant of money to build more gaols in Edinburgh, as the one now there, large as it was, would be inadequate to contain the victims who must be incarcerated ere this tax could be levied. To the meeting which had been held in Edinburgh he had given an advice which he would here repeat, that it was only by following the example of Messrs. Russell and Chap, man, that they could hope to be relieved of this burthen, and by opposing to those extortionate demands the effectual measure of passive resistance. He supposed he should be told it was the law of the land, and that they must comply with it. He asked what bad law or oppressive tax had been got rid of without agitation? And he contended, that as this act had been surreptitiously passed, neither by the law of God nor man were the citizens of Edinburgh bound to compliance. One word as to the meeting at Edinburgh, over which he had the honour to preside. It was a very numerous meeting, a highly respectable and most orderly one; but they were one and all animated by the most calm and steady determination to get rid of this burthen.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he rose to present a petition from his constituents against this tax. He felt it due to the station he held to say, that he differed totally from the advice which the hon. Member had given to a meeting in Edinburgh. When on the hustings in Edinburgh he told his constituents that the law must be obeyed, that while the tax was the law of the land it must not be resisted, and that however much the existence of the thing was to be deprecated, yet that while it was the law it must be received with respect by all loyal subjects. While he said this he would say, that, as a sincere friend to the church of Scotland and the people of Scotland, he was most anxious to see this tax repealed. He would avoid entering upon the discussion of the general question until it was regularly brought before the House.
Sir George Clerksaid, that he would not go at length into the subject on this occasion, when it had been so irregularly brought under the consideration of the House. He must say, that the advice which the hon. Member had given, as he avowed to the meeting in Edinburgh, was one that would not receive countenance in that House. He did not stand up to justify the policy of the house-tax in Edinburgh; on the contrary, he should be extremely glad to see some alteration in the law with respect to it, but he begged leave to say, that the clergy of Edinburgh had given their assent to the Bill which had been brought in last session, and it was rather of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite than of the clergy that those persons who would not pay their just debts ought to complain. He wished to know why the Report of the Church Commissioners had not been presented, for he believed it was ready. He thought they should be called upon to present it with as little delay as possible.
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that as Montrose and Edinburgh were the only places in which this difference existed, it would not, in his opinion, be very difficult to get rid of it.
Mr. WallaceIn rising to present two petitions on this most important subject, one of which is from Mr. Councillor Russell, and the other from a large number of persons in the town of Perth, I will speak of it as a very grave subject, and eminently deserving the attention of the Legislature. I agree entirely in the description given of the annuity-tax by the learned Attorney General, and in thinking it no less scandalous than strange, that the whole of the learned profession in Edinburgh, composing the wealth and influence of that city, should have contrived to keep themselves free of a tax no less odious and oppressive than unjust, because of its unequal pressure. I am glad to see the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, has just taken his place, so that I may inquire if any plan has been devised, or any scheme is in progress, for putting an end to this cause of continual strife between the inhabitants of Edinburgh and their clergy. An end must be put to it by some means or another, and I do trust the Government will lose no time in devising some plan for this purpose. All classes of the community, Churchmen and Dissenters, are equally bent on the 331 attainment of this object. I will, in consequence of the suggestion from the Chair, and the evident feeling of the House, desist from entering at large into this question as I had intended to do, but I must say, however gravely it is my determination to treat of it, that unless some other means be devised for abolishing the tax, I will approve of a Bill being brought in for laying it exclusively on that class who have hitherto had no share in its payment. The College of Justice is the richest, the largest, and the most learned in Edinburgh. They must be best able to pay it, and it will be but justice they should do so for five or seven years, or until they have expended an amount equivalent to that which has been saddled on the community of Edinburgh, certainly with their knowledge and consent, if not by their connivance with the magistrates and clergy; but by some means or other this tax must be put an end to. I do hope to hear from the noble Lord that the attention of Government has been directed to it. I now beg leave to bring up the petition of Mr. Councillor Russell, presently in the gaol of Edinburgh, and also the petition from the city of Perth, signed by nearly 700 of its respectable inhabitants, who sympathize with Mr. Russell, and pray that some means may be devised by this House for abolishing the annuity-tax.
§ Lord John Russellwas very glad that a reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Clerk) to the Church Commissioners. They certainly had investigated the state of the church so far as regarded Edinburgh, and he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to have said, that the Report upon that subject was ready to be sent to him (Lord J. Russell). Now, he had been informed by one of the Commissioners, that there was a question amongst them whether it would be expedient to present the Report of the city of Edinburgh, in which one part of the subject was incomplete, or whether they ought to complete that part of the inquiry and make a complete Report. They had an account of the number of churches, but they had not an account of the funds which were applicable for church purposes. The question having been addressed to him with an inclination to know his opinion, he stated that he thought the Commissioners themselves were far better judges on that subject than be was, and that it would be 332 better that they should come to an opinion amongst themselves, as to whether they were then ready to make a Report upon the city of Edinburgh; but, at the same time, that he did expect, according to the original instructions issued to the Commissioners, that if they were not prepared to make such Report, that they should make a Report stating the reasons and grounds upon which they thought it would be expedient to make such a Report at the present moment, and also stating what had been the course of their proceedings, circumstances which the Government and Parliament had a right to require of them. He presumed they would take either of these two courses, but they had not yet stated which course they would adopt, and he had not received either a Report of the city of Edinburgh, or a statement of the reasons why they were not able to make such Report. These, then, must be his reasons, and he felt sure they would be considered conclusive against his taking into account any Report that might be made by the Church Commissioners. He quite agreed in what had been stated generally—indeed, he believed, on every side of the House, upon this subject—namely, that it was very expedient and desirable to have some settlement of it. He must say, with regard to the difficulties which stood in the way of that settlement, that they had not been created by his Majesty's Government, but had arisen from events which had taken place long since. Notwithstanding these difficulties, however, he thought if they were only to concur in what might be looked upon as reasonable, it would be easy to overcome them in endeavouring to frame a measure upon the subject; but as it seemed to him that opinions were variously formed, both on one side and the other, he must say, that although it would not in itself be difficult to frame a measure, yet that it would be extremely difficult to frame one in which parties would generally concur.
§ Sir William Raesaid, there were about two-thirds of the landed proprietors in Scotland Episcopalians, and as well might they object to pay tithes as might the persons object to pay the house-tax who had suffered themselves to be arrested. In the one instance the tithes were paid from the land, in the other from the houses. He hoped at the proper time to be able to satisfy the House that there was no just cause of complaint, and that the Attorney 333 General had no just grounds for the charge he had made against his brother practitioners at the Edinburgh bar.
The Attorney Generaldenied, that he had made any charge against them. He had only said, they neither paid to church or poor.
§ Petition laid on the Table.