HC Deb 20 July 1859 vol 155 cc107-22

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. BLACK*,

in moving the second reading of the Annuity Tax Abolition Bill, said—When last Session I moved the second reading of this Bill, I was reproved for giving no explanations or reasons why it should pass. I do not intend to expose myself to the same reproof on this occasion. At the same time I will endeavour to condense, as much as possible, what I have to say on the subject. I shall confine my observations to Edinburgh, as I am best acquainted with that part of the case. I will not enter into the history of the origin of the tax, but only notice that the Act of 1661 is the ruling Act by which the tax was collected. But this odious tax was largely increased and intensified by a fraudulent collusion between the clergy and the magistrates in 1809, when, without giving notice to the inhabitants, they smuggled into a private Bill a clause by which the clergy overreached the magistrates, and, after long litigation, secured the plunder which the magistrates intended to have devoted to their own purposes. I shall not be surprised if hon. Members imagine that I am only retailing a popular calumny, but I repeat that I am prepared to prove that this is a literal fact, as I have with me extracts from their own averments in their written pleadings before the Court; and if it is denied, I can read those extracts, which, although curious, I will not trouble the House with at present. When speaking of the Established Church in Edinburgh it will be well that we understand what we are speaking about. I daresay many English Members imagine that it holds a position in Edinburgh somewhat similar to that of the Established Church in England. Fortunately I' can refer to a document which will not be controverted, in which the numbers of the adherents of the different denominations are stated by parties who could have no bias on the subject, and only acted in their official capacity when preparing the Census of 1851. I request the especial attention of the House to this statement:— Results of the Census of 1854 with respect to the Religious Establishments in Edinburgh and Leith:—

Religious Denomination. Places of Worship. Sittings. Attendants, Morning. Attendants, Afternoon.
Established 26 19,994 8,674 6,887
United Presbyterian 20 20,465 12,792 15,235
Free 29 20,830 15,315 15,922
Other Denominations 48 20,584 12,105 9,183
Total 123 81,873 48,886 47,227
The whole number who attended divine service on that particular day was 48,886. Now, do hon. Members imagine that one-half or one-third of these belonged to the Establishment? there were just 8,674, or less than one-fifth. The statement includes Leith, which is almost a suburb of Edinburgh; but that does not affect the proportions. Now from this, I ask if it is reasonable that four-fifths of other denominations should be taxed to provide for the ministers of one-fourth. Another inference I draw from this is, that it is not to the Established Church alone that we are indebted for the maintenance of religion and morality. Here we have ninety-seven places of worship maintained by Dissenters, against twenty-six by the Church; the adherents of the Church often assume that it is to the Establishment we are mainly indebted for the maintenance of public worship. Another assumption is, that it is the church of the poor. Now here are 20,000 sittings, and only 8,674 occupants; for the poor would be welcomed to those empty pews, but they will not go. It is the churches of the Dissenters that are the churches of the poor. Let us then keep in mind that by the Census of 1851, the Established Church in Edinburgh is not a majority, but in short can only rank as one of the sects, and not the most numerous; not the first or the second, but only the third on the list. I have the pleasure to know many of the Established ministers to be men of talent and learning, and most estimable characters, but they have the misfortune to be placed in rather an odious position by this tax, and I wish to give full scope to their talents and usefulness by relieving them from their disagreeable position. The division of last Wednesday on the Church Rates Abolition Bill was a significant fact, showing the advance of public opinion against compulsion in matters of religion. Now the church rates are mild compared with this tax. They only compel the population generally to support the fabrics where the members of the Establishment worship; but this tax extorts from members of other communions money to support the ministers of a sect to which four-fifths of the community do not belong, and to which some are decidedly opposed. Ministers' money in Ireland was abolished two years ago. The two taxes were the same in principle—both taxed the many for the support of the few, both partook of the essence of persecution. For if it be persecution to compel men to profess a creed which they do not believe, it is no less persecution to compel men to support the preachers of a creed in which they do not believe. I do not, however, say that the doctrines of the Established Church are contrary to the general creed, though there are some who are compelled to support it who consider their doctrines heretical, and the large majority consider that this taxing power to support religion is quite opposed to the great laws of the Statute-book of the Christian religion. But, independent of this, the tax of ministers' money in Scotland is greatly aggravated beyond the same impost in Ireland. In Ireland it was only-dwelling-houses that were assessed. In Scotland neither shops, warehouses, nor cellars escape the ecclesiastical maw. In Ireland it could not exceed 55s. in any one case, with us it may reach £20, £30, or more. In Ireland there were no exemptions; in Edinburgh it is principally the tradesmen, the middle and the poorer ranks, that pay—the aristocracy escape, all who are members of the College of Justice, who are a large class, are exempt. And let it be kept in mind that the tax is in itself heavy, heavier than the income tax, even after it has been increased by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When you keep in mind that all this grievance and injustice has been saddled upon the people by two Acts, the one passed in times when persecution was rampant, and by a monarch who was more intent on his unhallowed pleasures than the welfare of his country, and by a clause surreptitiously smuggled into a private Bill—I say when they think of these things, is it to be wondered at if the citizens of Edinburgh wince under the lash? For some time there has been a lull. This I account for by the circumstance that this House has been annoyed from year to year by Bills upon this subject, and the inhabitants trust that Parliament will, as it ought, relieve them from this intolerable grievance; and, on the other hand, the ministers abstain from extreme measures lest they should injure their cause in this House. The volcano is at present at rest, but it is still burning within, and may burst forth at any moment. In 1833, no less than 846 persons were prosecuted, many had their goods destrained, and five were imprisoned. I have myself seen the most disgraceful scenes in the streets of Edinburgh, the military and dragoons parading the streets, assisting the auctioneer to sell the goods of a tradesman to pay the stipends of the ministers. Not long ago I had a letter from a citizen, enclosing resolutions of an association to refuse payment of the tax, and that more than 500 had come under an engagement to resist. Under such circumstances I ask again if the inhabitants of Edinburgh are not justified in claiming—in demanding relief from Parliament? But oh, say you, what substitute do you provide for this tax? It is not our business to provide for the Establishment. If you want an Establishment provide for it. But we were desirous to find some substitute, and I conscientiously believe that what we have proposed is both a legitimate and a sufficient substitute. But we are not wedded to it. If you can find a better we will not object. When this question was last before the House, various objections were brought against the measure, which I had not time to answer, although I was anxious to do so. As I shall have some time to day, I will take the opportunity of noticing one or two of the errors which have been fallen into. One of these was that large grants of lauds and teinds were made to Edinburgh for the purpose of maintaining the ministers. Now I had an opportuity of searching the city records and seeing the charters, and I found that all that the burgh received was quite trifling. It was granted for three purposes—the maintenance of the poor, the establishing schools and colleges, and supporting the ministers, as, in consequence of the depreciation of money, by which the pound Scotch was reduced to ld. sterling, the whole amounted only to £200 or £300, which the magistrates very properly devoted to the University. It has been said the tax is not personal, but a tax on property. The hon. Member for Wigtown completely proved this to be a personal tax in his speech when this measure was before the House last Session. When it is recollected that by the Act imposing the tax, it is expressly declared that only tenants shall be liable, but proprietors and heritors shall be exempt; when we take into account that the most distinguished political economists have maintained that rent is a personal tax; when we see that certain persons are liable and certain persons are exempt—it is very like nonsense to say that it is a tax on property. Then as to the tax being the same as teinds, in Scotland at least: teinds at the Reformation became the property of the Crown, which were partly gifted to the favourites of the King or sold to the proprietors, with the reservation that a certain portion was to be set aside for the maintenance of the clergy. The teinds never belonged to the proprietors, they only held them in trust. Mr. Black then shortly referred to Leith, and showed that the £2,000 was the property of the city, which the inhabitants of Leith had no more right to than the inhabitants of Dalkeith. He said there were several other subjects to which he would have alluded, but he was unwilling to take up too much of the time of the House; and, alluding to Lord Elcho, he said there was one which was a hobby of the noble Lord's, which, he said, if he set it in motion he was afraid the noble Lord would get up and ride. [Lord ELCHO: Go on.] Well then (continued Mr. Black) the noble Lord formerly brought forward this question and the not rebuilding of the church as a reason for voting against the Bill. Now, I maintain that it should have had a contrary tendency; for the Town Council, as representing the community, which consists of four-fifths of dissenters, and naturally consists of a great majority of those who fuel aggrieved by this tax, have sometimes a hostile feeling to the Church. I want to relieve the Church from the Corporation, which are like two dogs tied together, which want to go different ways. Mr. Black then referred to the speeches of the late Lord Advocate Baillie and the late Home Secretary, and said he knew them both to be sincere and honest men, and had no doubt that if the late Ministry had been in power they would have brought in a Bill to settle this question. He trusted the present would not be less liberal than the last Government, and that they would support the second reading of the Bill.

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

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he did not rise to propose the actual rejection of the Bill, but to ask what were the intentions of the Government with respect to it. The Bill proposed to accomplish three objects. To the first of these, which related to local arrangements in the town of Montrose, there could be no objection. The second of its propositions, which he believed to be objectionable, continued the payment of the tax by the town of Leith for the benefit of the clergy of Edinburgh. But the third, which was the vital principle of the Bill, was the entire disendowment of the Established Church of Scotland, so far as the town of Edinburgh was concerned. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was, that those who wanted a church should pay for it. This was, in fact, an assertion of the voluntary principle, and he wished to know if the Government were prepared to concur in that doctrine? If the principle was good for Edinburgh, it was good for the whole of Scotland; and if it was good for Scotland, it was good for the rest of the United Kingdom. It was therefore most important that the Government should declare their intentions on the subject, and whether they were prepared to give their sanction to a measure, the object of which was of the character which he had described. If the Bill had provided any proper substitute for the annuity tax instead of the voluntary system, no doubt it would be accepted unanimously by the House.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that this was by no means a new proposition, and former Governments of which he had been a Member had agreed to the principle of a Bill similar to that contained in the present measure. The difficulty had always been to find a substitute for this tax; but that, he thought, it was not impossible to accomplish. There was a great similarity between the annuity tax and ministers' money in certain parishes in Ireland, and he confessed that he had no hesitation in giving his assent to the principle contained in the present Bill. He thought it desirable that this limited and local impost should cease. At the same time the introducer of the present measure did not propose the total and immediate abolition of the annuity tax, but reserved existing interests. In giving his vote for the second reading of the Bill, be wished simply to signify his assent to the abolition of the annuity tax in its present form, and to express his desire, in the event of the Bill not passing during the present Session, that it might be in the power of the Government in the next Session to propose some plan—not exactly in accordance with schemes which had been previously proposed, and which had not received the assent of Parliament—but some plan establishing, though not an equivalent, a substantial substitute for the present tax. The statement he now made was a bonâ fide statement, founded on a consideration of the details of the question, and in the event of the present Government being in office next Session, and the Bill now under consideration not going through all its stages in this Session of Parliament, the Government would then bring forward a measure founded on the principle he had described of providing the required substitute, and so settling the question on equitable grounds.

LORD ELCHO

said, that it was with no small curiosity he desired to hear in what way the Government intended to deal with this question; and the course which the Government seemed inclined to take was, in the event of a division, to vote for the present Bill, simply to affirm, as it was represented, that this was a question which ought to be settled. He concurred in the opinion that the question called loudly for settlement; but the principle in the present Bill was dangerous, and no one in favour of a Church Establishment, as he was, could allow the Bill to pass a second reading without opposition. The annuity tax was a question which had been unceasingly agitated in Scotland for a long series of years; it had been the subject of repeated inquiries and reports by Committees and Commissions, and it had long formed the stock-in-trade of the Liberal members from Scotland, and especially of the Members for Edinburgh. His hon. Friend brought the measure forward year after year; wrote columns about it in the local papers, and discussed it in frequent speeches. The theme might be a valuable and legitimate one for his hon. Friend in his private capacity, but he doubted whether it was one which he could thus incessantly press upon Parliament in his public character. The question had frequently been presented in the form of a legislative measure. When he (Lord Elcho) was in office in 1853, a Bill was introduced, though it never reached a second reading, having for its object the settlement of the question. By that Bill the annuity tax was reduced in amount, and he believed that many of those who objected to the tax on the allegation of conscientious scruples would have supported that Bill, which, though it diminished the amount of tax, did not affect the matter of conscience. That Bill, like all preceding Bills up to the present year, was founded on compromise, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of 1851; but the spirit in which the present Bill had been drawn might be learnt from the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who distinctly stated that he objected to the grievance of a Church Establishment. That, indeed, was the principle of the hon. Member's Bill, and on these grounds, and these grounds only, though anxious for a compromise on the question, he felt bound to resist the second reading. It was said that this question was analogous to the question of ministers' money in Ireland. He admitted the analogy; but the mode in which it was proposed to deal with the annuity tax was antagonistic to the mode in which ministers' money was dealt with; for in the latter case a substitute was found, and provision was made for the Irish clergy out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was also alleged that this was neither more nor less than a Scotch church-rate question. He denied that altogether. The annuity tax was a fund established by statutory enactment—it was a compulsory payment; whereas the church rate might be termed a voluntary rate, as it depended on the decision of the majority of the parishioners. The fact was that the annuity tax was analogous to tithes; and what the Bill proposed to do was to deprive the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland, so far as Edinburgh was concerned, of the fund by which they were at present main- tained without proposing any substitute. Were hon. Members prepared to abolish tithes? Let them reflect what they were asked to do with respect to Scotland might react on England. In 1849 Sir John Shaw Lefevre, who was sent down to Scotland to report upon the annuity tax, stated:— Although the impost complained of is a tax, and not a rentcharge Tested in the ministers as an endowment, yet it is a tax which the State has guaranteed to the ministers and their successors for their benefit, and, unless the rights even of their successors are dealt with in a spirit of justice and moderation, a feeling of distrust and insecurity will be created as respects other endowments, which will not be limited to the Established Church of Scotland. The hon. Member proposed that in lieu of this tax the clergy should rely on the letting of pews. If that were not the voluntary system, he should like to hear explained what the voluntary system really was? It was likewise proposed that the clergy of the Church of Scotland should the supported by the collections now made rat the church doors for the support of the poor. Thus the hon. Member not only tasked the House to sap the foundation on which an Established Church rested, but in the same Bill he also proposed that they should plunder the poor. He trusted that the House would not sanction such a proposal. It appeared that the Government were rather unfortunate on Wednesdays. Last Wednesday week they had to swallow the Endowed Schools Bill, forced down their throats at the point of the bayonet by the hon. Member for Birmingham. Last Wednesday they had to swallow the total abolition of church rates; and now, a Wednesday having come round again, they had to show whether they had any Conservatism left among them, and whether they would resist a Bill which contained a principle destructive to any Church Establishment. He was anxious to see what course would be taken in the division by some of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet. Were they prepared to vote for a Bill which contained the principle of the total abolition of an Established Church? But whatever the Government or individual Members might do, so strongly did he feel the necessity of maintaining the Church Establishment, that he for one could not consent to see the present measure dealt with in the manner proposed by the Home Secretary. He thought that they would be wanting in their duty to their constituents, and to the Constitution—one of the main features of which was the main- tenance of the Established Church—if they allowed the Bill to pass without opposition. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

MR. SPOONER

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, "Toleave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words' upon this day three months."

MR. W.MILLER

supported the Amendment, stating that he had been instructed by the Provost and Burgesses of Leith to oppose the Bill by every means in his power. He denied that the clergy were open to the charge of having wrung their dues from the people by distraint. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) professed great reverence for the law, but he had not paid these rates for two years, and his example had not been without its effect. If there was any ground for the complaints of the pressure of this tax they might easily be obviated to a considerable extent by removing these exemptions which were now possessed by members of the legal profession and other classes in Edinburgh.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that the time had arrived when the House must deal with this question with a view to settling it. Attempts at compromise had hitherto failed. He should be extremely glad if by some concessions on both sides the question could be settled; if, however, no such compromise could be effected, he would not be deterred by the taunt that he was sanctioning the voluntary principle from giving his support to this Bill. The tax was unequal in its incidence, and was open to all the objections against both Church Rates and the Established Church of Ireland. So long as it existed in its present form it would always be insecure; and it was time for the Legislature to interfere to put an end to the tax. The measure introduced in 1853 was highly objectionable, as merely shifting the burden to the Consolidated Fund. No benefit would result from reducing the tax and making its incidence more equal by extending it to all classes. This would only excite a more general opposition. Any attempt at compromise was hopeless; in a large city like Edinburgh, the voluntary system might safely be relied on for raising the few thousand pounds which were paid to the clergy of the Established Church. The experience of the Free Church and the Dissenting bodies proved that pew-rents were largely available for the support of the clergy.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

said, he had hoped to hear some proposal on the part of the Government for dealing with the subject to which he could have given his assent. He had, however, been greatly disappointed at the statement of the Home Secretary, who called upon them to affirm the principle of the Bill, which involved the entire abolition of the Established Church. He could not help thinking that the Cabinet had fallen into the trap laid for them last Session by the hon. Member when they were anxious to obtain votes to defeat the Reform Bill then before the House. He thought the straightforward course would have been that the Government should have accompanied their offer to introduce a Bill on this subject in the next Session with the condition that the present Bill should be withdrawn. By the course they had taken they had placed themselves in the position of giving their support to a measure which would have no practical result, promising themselves at the same time to introduce something which would be wholly different next year. The present Bill was in every way objectionable; but he could not condemn in language sufficiently strong the proposition by which it was sought to lay sweeping and sacrilegious hands on the funds collected at church doors for the poor. He gave his cordial support to the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord.

MR. CAIRD

protested against the accusation which had been made with regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, that it involved a robbery of the Church and of the poor. At present the most wealthy classes in Edinburgh were altogether exempt from contributions to the support of the clergy of the Established Church, and he thought that exemption ought not to be maintained. Yet these persons were loudest in their denunciations of the measure. It had been said the effect of this Bill would be to rob the poor of Scotland; but they were now provided for by law, and being totally independent of the collections at the church doors, this Bill would not in the slightest degree affect their interests. He was glad to learn that the Government intended to take up this question, and he hoped they would settle it in a satisfactory manner.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

saw no use in prolonging the discussion, as the Go- vernment had promised to take up the subject with the view of settling it, It was most desirable that an end should be put to this tax, in a manner which would involve no injustice to any of the parties whose interests were concerned; but the various attempts which had been made to settle the question since 1831 had proved unsuccessful. He was himself no advocate of the voluntary principle, and did not hold that Church Establishments were unscriptural; but the abolition of the annuity tax had been urged by many persons who were not adherents of the voluntary principle, or opposed to the principle of Church Establishments. The main question was, what equivalent should be substituted for the annuity tax, and he regretted that his noble Friend had not offered any suggestion on that point. The noble Lord seemed to think that the application of the seat-rents to the support of the clergy would be an acknowledgment of the voluntary principle; but that appeared to him to be a mistake. It was one thing to maintain the voluntary principle to the extent that no Establishments ought to exist, and it was another thing to exclude the voluntary principle altogether from a Church Establishment. What would have been the condition of that vast metropolis with regard to pastoral superintendence and the benefits of a Church Establishment if the voluntary principle had not been acted upon? As streets and squares were gradually built, churches were seen constantly rising in their midst, and were they supported by taxes or endowments? No; they depended mainly upon that voluntary principle to the application of which to the Established Church of Scotland his noble Friend objected. If he (the Lord Advocate) believed, as had been said, that this Bill involved anything hostile to the Established Church of Scotland, he, for one, would not give it his support; but he did not think there was a word in the Bill which justified such an objection. The question was, not as to the principle of the Bill, but whether his hon. Friend had or had not proffered a substitute adequate for the purpose, and he thought that was a very proper matter for consideration in Committee. His hon. Friend proposed that the tax should be retained during the lifetime of the present incumbents, and that did not, therefore, amount to its immediate abolition; but it was quite open to the friends of the Established Church to say that in their view a sufficient substi- tute was not proposed, and that subject deserved most careful consideration from the Government and the House. As the Bill could not be passed this Session, he would advise his hon. Friend to accept the proposal of the Government; and in the meantime it would be his (the Lord Advocate's) duty to consider the question with a view to a settlement which would be just to the inhabitants of Edinburgh on the one hand, and to the Established Church on the other.

LORD ELCHO

explained that he had not objected to the application of the voluntary principle in any way in support of the Established Church; but he had complained that, according to this Bill, the churches of Edinburgh would in future be dependent upon the voluntary system.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the principle of the Bill was the unconditional abolition of the annuity tax, which had hitherto been appropriated to the maintenance of the clergy in Edinburgh. He, for one, must decline to vote for this abstraction of means that were not excessive, without some substitute. The Bill aimed at the very principle of an Established Church. He was far from saying that the voluntary system was not a proper system upon which the means of religious accommodation for the poor should be extended; but we all know this, that great as the extension of such accommodation was, and had been of late years, it was inadequate to the demands of the poor, and he was therefore strongly opposed to leaving the Church entirely dependent upon the casual and uncertain benevolence of individuals, instead of upon some fixed and assured means of support. By voting for this Bill Her Majesty's Government could not escape from this position; they accepted service under the hon. Member for Birmingham. Those who believed that the Church Establishment should be maintained out of public funds, and not left dependent upon casual charity, would vote against this Bill; and if the Government would take service under the hon. Member for Birmingham and the advocates of the voluntary principle, by voting in its favour, the country would take care that the Government wore a livery appropriate to that service. The hon. Member for Birmingham governed the Government, or at least those Members of it who wished to qualify that principle, and there was therefore no resource for those who maintained the principle of an Established Church but to adopt a course equally firm and unmistakeable. The country would be called on to say, would they support those who would abandon the means of support of religion, furnished by the law and by custom from public funds, or would they support those who would defend an Established Church, but who were ready at all times to consider a proposition for the abandonment of those means when an adequate substitute was provided.

MR. BAXTER

hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would accede to the proposal of the Government, and abstain from proceeding further with his Bill that Session than the second reading. At the same time he had no confidence that any compromise would be effectual on the subject.

MR. MURE

thought that, the Government having promised to introduce a measure of their own next Session, the wiser course would be to allow that discussion at once to drop. There was no use, under such circumstances, in going to a division to affirm the principle of the Bill if there was to be no further progress.

MR. BLACK

said, he was quite willing to surrender his "stock-in-trade" in this question into the hands of the Government after his measure had been read a second time; but he trusted that the coming Bill of the Government would abolish the tax altogether.

MR. BRIGHT

said, they were told on high authority not to put their trust in princes. Let him advise the hon. Member for Edinburgh not to put his trust in Governments. This was just one of those questions which a Government never dealt with satisfactorily until it had been driven to the last extremity, and it was not clear that that extremity had in this case yet arrived. What had been their experience in regard to church rates? Ever since he had first sat in Parliament, now sixteen or seventeen years ago, they had had Governments proposing to settle that question; but they had never touched it except to make a complete mess of it, and to disgust both sides of the House with their attempts. The consequence was, the subject was now left in the hands of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) just as it stood many years since; and that hon. Gentleman, and those who went honestly along with him for its principle, had alone any chance of passing a proper measure through the House. He would not, however, ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh to reject the suggestion now made to him, because the same course must probably have been taken after the second reading even if there had been no such recommendation from the Treasury bench. But the hon. Gentleman, between the present time and the next Session, bad better not believe for a moment that the Government would bring in a Bill so satisfactory as the present one to those who were opposed to the annuity tax. Without in the least disputing the goodwill of the Home Secretary, there were difficulties in the way of a Government handling that matter which would not attach to the task if undertaken by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. When it came to be discussed in the Cabinet, and the Lord Advocate had to prepare a measure, there would be all sorts of schemes contrived for warding off the objections of those who wished to have some substitute for that tax, which would be hardly less obnoxious than the impost it superseded. That tax, like church rates, must be clean abolished; and therefore the hon. Member should stand on the principle of his Bill, relying on the support he had from the people of Edinburgh, as well as on the previous decisions of that House on the same subject, and also on the larger question of church rates. Without obstructing any honest effort on the part of the Home Secretary to settle this matter, the hon. Member would arrive more surely at his end by taking the straight line to his own object than by trusting to a Government.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, the difficulty of finding a substitute for that tax was admitted on all sides, and it was impossible for any private Member to deal with that question effectually. As, therefore, the Government were ready to take the subject into their own hands, and to introduce a measure upon it early next Session, nothing could be gained by pressing the present Motion to a division. On the other hand, such a step might prejudice the prospect of a reasonable compromise when the subject came to be discussed in another year.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

in explanation, said, he had not asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh to withdraw his Bill. What he stated was, that he was prepared to vote for the second reading, and that the Government would be prepared, if in office next Session, to introduce a measure of their own which would propose a substitute, and that it would be for the House to decide whether they would prefer their measure of that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He wished also just to remark that there was a very wide distinction between church rates in England and the annuity tax in Edinburgh. The church rate was for the maintenance of the fabric of the church, the annuity tax for the stipend of the ministers.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 108: Majority 54.

List of the AYES.
Acton, Sir J. D. Ferguson, Col.
Adam, W. P. Fermoy, Lord
Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F. Fox, W. J.
Agnew, Sir A. Freeland, H. W.
Alcock, T. French, Col
Andover, Visct. Gaskell, J. M.
Ashley, Lord Gavin, Major
Ayrton, A. S. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Bagwell, J. Gilpin, C.
Bailey, C. Gower, hon. F, L.
Baines, E. Greenwood, J.
Ball, E. Gregson, S.
Bass, M. T. Grey, R. W.
Bazley, T. Gurney, S.
Beamish, F. B. Hadfield, G.
Biggs, J. Banbury, R.
Bonham-Carter, J. Handley, J.
Brady, J. Hankey, T.
Brand, hon.H. Bardcastle, J. A.
Bright, J. Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.
Bristow, A. R. Heneage, G. F.
Browne, Lord J. T. Henley, Lord
Butler, C. S. Hennessy, J. P.
Buxton, C. Hutt, W.
Byng, hon. G. Ingham, R.
Caird, J. James, E.
Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Johnstone, Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. W. Keating, Sir H. S.
Clay, J. Kershaw, J.
Clinton, Lord R. King, hon. P. J. L.
Clive, G. Kinglake, J. A.
Cobbett, J. M. Kingscote, Col.
Cobden, R. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Cogan, W. H. F. Knatchbull-Hugessen.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Laing, S.
Collier, R. P. Langton, W. H. G.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Lanigan, J.
Crawford, R. W. Lawson, W.
Crossley, F. Leatham, E. A.
Dalglish R. Leatham, W. H.
Davie, Sir H. R, F. Levinge, Sir R.
Deasy, R. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Denison, hon. W. Locke, John
Douglas, Sir C. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Duff, M. E. G. Lyons, Dr.
Dunbar, Sir W, Lysley, W. J.
Duncan, Visct. M'Cann, J.
Duncombe, T. Maguire, J. F.
Dundas, F. Martin, J.
Dunkellin, Lord Massey, W. N.
Dunlop, A. M. Matheson, A.
Dunne, M. Merry, J.
Dutton, hon. R. H. Mitchell, T. A.
Esmonde, J. Mills, T.
Ewart, W. Milnes, R. M.
Ewing, H. E. C. Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.
Fenwick, H. Monson, hon. W. J.
Morris, D. Smith, J. B.
Noble, J. W. Staniland, M.
O'Donoghoe, The Stansfield, J.
Ogilvy, Sir J. Steel, J.
Onslow, G. Steuart, A.
Owen, Sir J. Stuart, Lord J.
Packe, G. H. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Paget, C. Thornhill, W. P.
Paxton, Sir J. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Pease, H. Turner, J. A.
Peel, Sir R. Vivian, H. H.
Perry, Sir T. E. Watkyns, Col. L.
Peto, Sir S. M. Wemyss, J. H. E.
Pilkington, J. Western, S.
Pryse, E. L. Whalley, G. H.
Proby, Lord Wickham, H. W.
Robartes, T. J. A, Willcox, B. M' G.
Russell, A. Williams, W.
St. Aubyn, J. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Salt, T. Wise, J. A.
Schenley, E. W. H. Woods, H.
Scholefield, W.
Scott, Sir W. TELLERS.
Seymour, H. D. Black, A.
Shelley, Sir J. V. Baxter, W. E.
Sheridan, R. B.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Hood, Sir A. A.
Baring, T. Hope, G. W.
Barrow, W. H. Howes, E.
Bective, Earl of Hunt, G. W.
Beecroft, G. S. Ingestre, Visct.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Jervis, Capt.
Blackburn, P. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Booth, Sir R. G. Joliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.
Bridges, Sir B. W.
Bruce, Major C. Kekewich, S. T.
Buchanan, W. Kelly, Sir F.
Burghley, Lord Lefroy, A.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Legh, W. J.
Cartwright, Col. Lindsay, hon. Col.
Cecil, Lord R. Lovaine, Lord
Cobbold, J. C. Lowther, hon. Col.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Lyall, G.
Codrington, Sir W. Lygon, hon. F.
Cole, hon. J. L. Mackie, J.
Cross, R. A. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald. Mildmay, H. F.
Davison, R. Miller, T. J.
Deedes, W. Mitford, W. T.
Du Cane, C. Montagu, Lord R.
Dunne, Col. Montgomery, Sir G.
Du Pre, C. G. Morgan, hon. Major
East, Sir J. B. Mundy, W.
Estcourt, rt. hn. T. H. S. Mure, rt. hon. D.
Fellowes, E. Newdegate, C. N.
Galway, Visct. Nicol, W.
Gard, R. S. Papillon, P. O.
Garnett, W. J. Parker, Major W.
Gordon, C. W. Paull, H.
Gore, J. R. O. Peel, rt. hon. Gen.
Gore, W. R. O. Pennant, hon. Col.
Graham, Lord W. Potts, G.
Greaves, E. Powys, P. L.
Gray, Capt. Quinn, P.
Grey de Wilton, Visct. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Hamilton, Lord C. Robertson, D.
Hanbury, hon. Capt. Rogers, J. J.
Hardy, G. Salt, T.
Heathcote, hon. G. H. Selwyn, C. J.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Smith, M.
Herbert, Col. P. Smollett, P. B.
Spooner, R. Vernon, L. V.
Stirling, W. Walcott, Admiral
Stewart, Sir M. R. S. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Stuart, Major W. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Stracey, Sir H. Whitmore, H.
Taylor, Col. Woodd, B. T.
Thynne, Lord E. Wyndham, Sir H.
Torrens, R.
Upton, hon. Gen. TELLERS.
Vance, J. Elcho, Lord
Vandeleur, Col. Miller, W.
Vansittart, W.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for this day mouth.