SECOND READING.

HC Deb 16 May 1860 vol 158 cc1348-64

Order for Second Reading read.

THE LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading of this Bill.

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

MR. HADFIELD

said, he rose to express his very great surprise that a measure such as that proposed should have been brought forward, after the assurances which wore given last year that they would have a perfect and satisfactory settlement of this long-vexed question. So far from the Bill being a relief to the people of Edinburgh it seemed to him that it would impose a permanent tax upon them. It provided that the tax should be continued for fifteen years for the purpose of forming an accumulated fund to be applied to the support of certain of the clergy, but the Bill contained a further provision that if, at the expiration of the fifteen years, the requisite sum of money was not raised, the tax should be continued. Was that a satisfactory settlement of a long vexed question, which had led to outrage and violence being committed, and in I some cases the military even had to be called out? Meetings of inhabitants had been held to protest against this Bill. It was only so late as Monday last that resolutions had been adopted by the magistrates of Edinburgh entirely disapproving of the Bill. He was greatly astonished to find the lion. Member for Edinburgh, (Mr. Black) a gentleman whom he had always taken for a staunch voluntary in favour of this Bill—indeed he had hesitated to believe it was really the case until the hon. Gentleman rose and acknowledged it in his place. He advocated the voluntary principle, and to show the value of this principle, he need only mention that the members of the Free Church in Scotland had raised amongst themselves, for purposes of their own religious progress and instruction, a sum of money amounting to about four millions within the last sixteen or seventeen years. He stood there solely upon his lights as a member of the British community, and as a Member of Parliament, and he objected to perpetuate a tax upon any people for the purpose of maintaining any system of religious instruction of which they disapproved. Was the Ministers' tax in Ireland compounded for, or did the people listen to anything like a compromise? No; but they had persevered in a plain, positive, and direct principle, and the consequence was that the tax was abolished altogether. He could not allow a Measure so completely at variance with Nonconformist principles to pass without entering his decided protest against it, and he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. He, therefore, begged leave to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. PADMORE

seconded the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question,"

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

MR. CAIRD

said, he wished to explain the reason why he had withdrawn his opposition to the Bill. It was simply because the Lord Advocate had intimated that the most objectionable part of the Bill, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had referred, would be withdrawn by him in Committee; namely, the provision of an accumulating fund. That was a principle so objectionable that the whole of the people of Edinburgh raised their voice against it. Nearly all the public bodies had sent petitions to that House against it, and he had presented petitions himself, signed by 15,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh, against that principle. But that principle the Lord Advocate had signified his intention to withdraw, and he (Mr. Caird), in the exercise of his judgment, thought he might be promoting a settlement of this question by not opposing the second reading. The Bill contained many objectionable points; but he hoped when the House went into Committee they would obtain such a modification of those parts of the Bill which were now deemed objectionable, as would give satisfaction. In the first place, he thought that the establishment of an Ecclesiastical Commission, in a Presbyterian country, was a very objectionable step, and he trusted the Lord Advocate would reconsider whether some method more in accordance with their views in Scotland could not be adopted. He thought it would fare better with the Church in Edinburgh if it threw itself more on the goodwill and the voluntary efforts of its own people than it had shown a disposition to do. Not only the example of the Free Church, but the remarkable results that had attended the efforts of Professor Robertson in the Established Church, who had succeeded in raising near a quarter of a million of money, and in building more than 250 churches by voluntary contributions, showed that the Church of Scotland need fear no injury from relying on the good-will of its members. Under the circumstances he should not offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, it was a noteworthy circumstance that, so far, the only hon. Member who had opposed the Bill was unconnected with Scotland in any way whatever. The reasons on which that hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) had based his opposition to the measure might be urged with equal force against the maintenance of an Established Church in England. It was impossible, while recognizing the principle that an Established Church was to be maintained, to do more than was done in this Bill to lighten the burden which the maintenance of the Church involved; and, therefore, it was that he supported the Bill. The hon. Member had taunted the Lord Advocate with having abandoned the voluntary principles he professed in framing this measure; but any one acquainted with the learned Lord, and with the subject on which the House was now asked to legislate, would perceive that that taunt was wholly unfounded. His noble Friend was, in fact, endeavouring to lighten the taxation of the people of Edinburgh, and still to maintain at the same time the privileges of the established clergy in that city; and the temperate and conciliatory character of his Bill derived additional confirmation from the circumstance that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Caird) had withdrawn his opposition to it. The hon. Member for Sheffield had grounded his objection to the continuance of the provision for the established clergy in Edinburgh on the attendance at two churches there—the Canongate and the Tolbooth; but he (Sir James Fergusson) submitted that it was altogether unjust to take the amount of money collected in seat-rents in any church in a poor district as a test of the efficiency of a church establishment; for it was precisely in a poor district that there was the greater need for the Church being supported by the State. Besides, the poverty of attendants at the churches referred to was easily explained—it was entirely owing to the manner in which the patronage was exercised. He believed the present incumbents were forced on the respective congregations against their expressed wishes. The hon. Member had also said the Lord Advocate had rejected every suggestion for a compromise which had been offered to him. He (Sir James Fergusson) would rather say that the Town Council of Edinburgh had rejected every compromise that had been offered by the Lord Advocate. He believed that this measure was altogether one of compromise. It was a compromise to those who objected to the maintenance of a church establishment by endeavouring to terminate, after a certain number of years, that which they regarded as an obnoxious impost. The learned Lord had conciliated the Church, inasmuch as he had recognized the duty of the community of Edinburgh to support the established clergy, and the Church, too, had shown an earnest desire to effect a compromise of the matter, by consenting to a reduction of the present number of the clergy in that city from eighteen to thirteen. The hon. Member had likewise talked of this being a new tax; but it would be needless to show that it was a very old one, and one which it was the duty of the City of Edinburgh to pay. It was, however, by the Bill under consideration to be a lighter and a terminable tax. The learned Lord, in truth, in his anxiety to secure a compromise of this vexed question, had done everything short of stripping the clergy of their means of subsistence. But when he proposed a permanent tax, the Town Council objected to its permanency; and when he spoke of a temporary tax, thou straightway they were in favour of a permanent one. How was it possible to deal with people who acted thus? He (Sir James Fergusson) admitted there were objections to be taken to the Bill. It proposed, for instance, to reduce the number of the clergy; and he thought if such a proposal were made with respect to the clergy of the Established Church in London it would be met with a storm of disapprobation. It was certainly a strange course to take where the community was increasing and multiplying, especially in the poorer districts. It was a mistake to say that the Church of Scotland had agreed to any such reduction of the number of its ministers. Even in the presbytery of Edinburgh there was considerable difference of opinion upon that point. He thought it would be satisfactory to the House if the hon. Member for Sheffield were to withdraw his Motion, seeing that the hon. Member was opposed to those with whom he generally acted in the House, and especially to those hon. Members who were chiefly interested in this question.

MR. MACKIE

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, and the Bill be allowed to pass, as he believed it would go far to heal a religious sore of long standing in Edinburgh. As proofs of the strong feeling of hostility with which the annuity-tax was regarded in that city, he might stale that during the last two years no less than 112 summonses had been issued against persons for refusing to pay it, and that on a recent trial a jury had refused to convict in a case where it was shown that the accused had interfered to prevent the execution of a warrant issued to compel payment of the impost. He did not, however, sympathize with the persons who had refused to pay, for he held that no man had a right to set himself above the law, and that so long as it continued to be a law it was the duty of every lover of order to obey.

MR. BLACK,

after referring to the numerous attempts which had been made without success to obtain a settlement of this exceedingly disagreeable question, said, I last year introduced a Bill which was founded on principles which, I believe, were congenial to the spirit of the Christian religion; and because I support the Bill of my right hon. Friend I am now charged by the hon. Member for Sheffield with having departed from the principles I have always professed. I must remind him that in my Bill of last year, which was supported by the Nonconformists generally, I provided that the eighteen ministers of Edinburgh should have a vested interest in their stipends during their whole life; and the tax was therefore continued, not for fifteen, but for more than twice fifteen years before it would cease. It is questionable whether the burden upon the citizens would have been greater by it or by this upon the principle of a terminating tax. As far as the removal of the burden of the tax is concerned, it is only provided for by a different process, and this Bill, I hope, will receive the early sanction of Parliament, while the other might have continued the struggle and the strife for many years. On the first reading of the present Bill, I must confess I did not receive it with favour, because at the first it did not appear to me to accomplish the object aimed at, and perhaps I had some little partial affection for my own progeny. Upon duly considering, however, the great responsibility that lies on me as a representative of the City of Edinburgh, I felt that if on personal consideration, or on account of my own peculiar denominational views, I were to be accessary to frustrating a measure which would have a tendency to alleviate the burdens of my constituents, which would promote peace and remove a great scandal from religion, I should be pursuing a most unjustifiable course. I am, as is generally known, a Dissenter. I approve most heartily of the voluntary principle. But I have not been sent into this House merely to support any denominational views which I hold. I stand here as the representative of the City of Edinburgh, and feel bound to promote the best interests of that community by every means in my power. With that view, I have been led to believe that this measure afforded a basis on which we might come to a satisfactory settlement of the question. I must acknowledge that in coming to that conclusion I did not secure the approbation of a great many who formerly supported me. On the contrary, I experienced a considerable amount of obloquy and opposition. My learned Colleague and myself were assailed by a certain portion of our constituents in no very measured terms for bringing in and supporting this Bill. We thought it best to face our opponents, and took advantage of the Easter recess to meet them fairly, and discuss the question with them, and they at length acceded to what I consider to be the essential principle of the Bill. And it will be seen that the meeting unanimously acquiesced in the proposition that there should be ultimately thirteen ministers, and that the city should provide £600 a year, with undoubted security, for each of them. This is the essence of the Bill, which I consider my right hon. Colleague and myself bound to maintain, and rather than depart from what I consider the terms of agreement, to withdraw the Bill. Another part of the Resolutions agreed to by the meeting, referred to the question whether the tax should be continued at a higher rate for fifteen years and then ceases, or that the rate should be small but permanent; the meeting, and I believe the majority of the inhabitants, prefer the smaller rate, though it should be a permanent burden. I do not agree with them. I think the tax so objectionable that I should like to have the prospect of its speedy and total abolition; but as one great object of this Bill is to promote peace, I don't think it would be prudent to provoke agitation by thwarting them in the mode of providing for the clergy; and whether we approve of this mode or not, I feel bound to submit to the general decision, though I do so with regret, as I consider it a much greater violation of principle than the plan originally proposed in this Bill. Allow me here to say that an unfair representation was made to some Members of this House on this subject, and it is but right to undeceive them. It was said that this Bill proposed to lay a tax on the present generation, to accumulate a fund to provide for the clergy, and to relieve future generations from the tax. That was all a mistake. The fact is, this Bill did not propose to add a farthing to the taxation, but to give a certain amount of relief for fifteen years, and then to abolish it altogether. If this Bill does not pass, the tax will be heavier than the income tax so much complained of; and if it had passed, as originally proposed, it would have been at once reduced, and in fifteen years abolished. However, since the people will have it reduced, and permanent at 4d. or 3d., they should have it so. There is only one other question on which there may be some difference, that is the value of the seat-rents; but that may be left for calculation and adjustment in Committee, along with other details, which I will not detain the House by alluding to at this stage. This question is complicated by a variety of circumstances—first, in regard to the locality affected by the tax. Sometimes, when the City of Edinburgh is spoken of, it is supposed to mean the large community of 170,000 inhabitants, and sometimes the ancient royalty of 66,000; in the same way as the City of London sometimes means the old city within the walls, and sometimes the whole community of three millions. I mention this, because the eighteen ministers and fifteen churches are sometimes supposed to be appointed to the whole Parliamentary boundaries; whereas they resemble the cluster of ill-attended churches within the ancient City of London; of which common sense says some should be removed from where they are not wanted to districts where they are wanted Then it should be observed, that the burden of all these ministers and churches is laid exclusively upon the royalty, containing about 66,000 inhabitants; not one-fourth of whom belong to the Established Church; and those who live beyond the line of the royalty, have, if they choose, the benefit of ministrations paid for by others. Again, there has been another anomaly in the case. The lawyers, a numerous and the most wealthy class, have been exempted from the payment of the tax. I am happy, however, to say they have now agreed to waive the privilege which they have too long enjoyed, to enable the plan proposed by this Bill to be carried out, although a considerable minority object to the arrangement. Again, the seat-rents, which are really ecclesiastical funds, are the property of the Corporation, who were at the expense of building the churches; and to complicate this still further, these seat-rents are pledged as a security for payment of the city debt. This Bill proposes to make an equitable adjustment of all these complicated incidents. But there is another material point to be considered in our case. All these ministers were appointed by us, or by our representatives, under certain conditions, so they have a claim upon us, which we cannot ignore; and we are bound in honour to fulfil our obligations. The scheme, to be justly appreciated, should be viewed as a whole. To take one part of it, and distort and exaggerate it is only to alarm the timid and inconsiderate, and to prevent the settlement of a difficult question. The Bill proposes a compromise among all parties, on what I conceive to be equitable principles between the inhabitants of the royalty, the inhabitants beyond the royalty, the members of the College of Justice, and the Church. This compromise should be carried out honestly upon an understood basis; the agreement being that the number of ministers be reduced as vacancies occur to thirteen, and that the City shall secure a stipend of £600 a year to each minister. I must here glance at one clause of the Bill, which provides that £1,500 shall be taken from the police funds for the purposes of the arrangement. I am prepared to hear that this is to extend a portion of the tax for support of the Church over districts which were exempted by law from this impost. Now, this Bill does no such thing;—it only provides that the extramural districts shall pay their just debts in bearing a small share—indeed, a smaller share than they ought to pay, for municipal expenses incurred for their behoof. The seat-rents of the churches, which are the properly of the ancient city, were expended for the general purposes of the municipality; it is one of the objects of this Bill to apply these ecclesiastical revenues to their legitimate use—consequently to reduce the income of the Corporation by so much. It is therefore necessary and just that the districts which till now took the property of the City to pay for their expenses, shall henceforth bear their own burdens. The opposition to these propositions has been aggravated by the feud which has long raged between the Dissenters and the Establishment. The Dissenters, formerly a minority, now number at least two-thirds of the population, and the grievance of the Annuity-tax has been to them a powerful lever with which they have operated against the Church; some of them would prefer carrying on the war against the clergy, and hope, by increased resistance, to abolish the tax by force. But I am not disposed to carry on the war. I want to have peace among all sects and parties, and the time seems favourable. I believe the world is growing j wiser when the very clergy begin to be reasonable. The clergy are disposed to concede, the members of the College of Justice have agreed to surrender their exemptions, Leith has withdrawn its opposition, and the citizens are offered a great diminution of taxation: and should the citizens reject this compromise, the conflict may be continued for many years, during which they would have to pay a tax of 10¼d. instead of 4d. or 3d., and at last they may not be able to make so favourable a compromise as is now offered. As long as the clergy refused to make any advances towards conciliation, and the College of Justice insisted on retaining their exclusive privileges, the inhabitants of the royalty carried the sympathies of the public with them; but if these advances towards conciliation are rejected by them, and the war is carried on with increased rancour, they will lose the sympathies of the public, the tax will be rigidly exacted, and all chance of a favourable compromise may be lost I gave this warning to the citizens, and I would give a similar warning to the friends of the Establishment, if this compromise is prevented by their obstinacy, then, as the fault will be theirs, the danger to the Church will be increased. I am prepared to hear great objections to the reduction of the number of the City clergy, and that the quarter of the town where these are situated requires the superintendence of even more than at present minister in that district, and that provision should be made for the great extension of the town. Now, it should be borne in mind that the population cannot increase in that quarter any more than the population of London within the old walls can increase in the old town. The merchants are converting the houses into warerooms. I was myself guilty of evicting about a hundred of the most vicious of our population, and pulling down all the houses in the closes, and converting them into warehouses; and a new street is at present being made from the High Street to the railway station, which has caused the removal of a great many of the houses of the district, so that all this talk about providing for the extension of the town, and the necessity of maintaining such a staff of ministers, is mere moonshine. In the year 1841, Mr. Abercromby, then Speaker of this House, writing on this subject to the Town Council, says:— The question with regard to the number of the City clergy in Edinburgh may give rise to considerable diversity of opinion. I am decidedly of opinion that the number ought as occasion offers by the death of present incumbents to be reduced to thirteen. It is not contended by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, as I hear, that the collegiate charges should be continued.… If there had been only thirteen clergymen in Edinburgh, would the Presbytery have ventured to propose that an addition of five should be made to the number? I assert, with confidence, that no such proposition would have been made. I compare the provision made for the religious instruction of the population of the royalty with that made for the population of St. Cuthbert's, the different districts of Glasgow, of Paisley, and other places; and I find that it is much larger, with thirteen ministers, than in any of those important towns. The fact is, the Establishment is encumbered by a superabundance of ministers and churches in the ancient royalty. There is not population to fill them, and when they are only a half or a fourth filled it is like a wet blanket thrown upon both minister and people. It would be wise to reduce the number and increase the ardour of both. A late excellent minister in one of these churches, with a considerable clash of humour in his composition, in a speech before the Presbytery when complaining of the inappropriate positions he had been placed in, compared his congregation to Æneas' fleet after the storm—Rari nantes in gurgite vasto. Now, what are the facts of the case? In the ancient royalty there are ten churches and twelve ministers, and the population is 30,857—the great bulk of them Dissenters. I have here the last statement of the City churches, from which I could have shown how miserably they are occupied; but I will not weary the House by referring to it. Hoping that in Committee we shall be able to adjust the details to the satisfaction of all parties, I should be very unwilling to lose the present opportunity of getting rid of one of the most, fruitful sources of bitterness and strife and outrage; and trusting that this measure, if it become law, will tend to maintain peace and goodwill among the friends of the Church, the Dissenters, and the citizens of all classes, I cordially support the Bill.

MAJOR W. F. HAMILTON

said, he wished to remind hon. Members that this Bill might prove in future a precedent for further legislation, and therefore demanded the serious consideration of English as well as Scotch Members. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of the scandal and disgrace of levying a tax upon persons who had conscientious objections to the payment of it. He (Major Hamilton) had conscientious objections to the payment of the 10d. income tax; but would the hon. Gentleman withdraw his support from the Government because it imposed that tax in opposition to his conscience? The annuity tax was the result of a bargain, and a bargain which they were bound to maintain. It was a bargain for value received, there was a quid pro quo, and the City of Edinburgh bound itself to a perpetual payment of the tax. If the Bill abolished the tax without injury to the interests of those whom they were bound to protect he would give it his support; but if it passed through Committee without sufficiently guarding their interests, he would oppose it on the third reading. In the meantime he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that, although the measure might not go the full length which some hon. Gentlemen desired, it nevertheless offered a compromise. For the first time in the history of Scotland, a disposition was shown by the Established Church to make a concession upon that most important question, and it was, therefore, an occasion on which some concession ought to be made upon the other side. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, it appeared to him that the Church of Scotland made the great concession in accepting that measure. The sum to which it was at present legally entitled was over £13,000 a year, and the sum it had actually received of late years was £9,600 a year; but under the Bill it would only obtain a sum which, including the seat-rents, would at most amount to £5,800 a year. Yet the Church, for the sake of peace and quietness, was willing to make the sacrifice. But he did not think it was desirable to bind the Church down to reduce the number of churches within the city. The House ought to leave it to the Church to distribute the money in such manner as might seem desirable. He thought it questionable whether the patronage ought to be left in the hands of the Town Council. He hoped some Amendments in the measure would take place in Committee.

MR. MURE

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) would pause before he divided the House upon the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said the Bill proposed to levy a heavy tax upon the people of Edinburgh for fifteen years. But that was not the case. The Bill did not impose any additional tax upon those who were now liable to the impost. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) in deeming the proposed perpetual tax as extremely impolitic; but seeing that the people of Scotland offered no objection to the principle of the measure, it ought to be allowed to pass unanimously. He thought there were clauses which might be amended in Committee, and especially if the tax of 4d. was to be made perpetual it should not be levied on occupiers, but on proprietors. He wished also to see provision made for the maintenance of some of the charges in the poorer districts of the city. He should give his cordial support to the second reading, reserving all objections for the Committee.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

It is certainly very gratifying to me, and ought, I think, to be very instructive to the hon. Member for Sheffield, that not a single representative of a Scotch constituency has objected to the second reading of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accordingly not press his Amendment to a division—seeing that, whatever alterations he is desirous of making in it, there is a genera] feeling in favour of its principle among the representatives of Scotland. Under these circumstances, I shall not occupy the time of the House in answering objections which have not been made, but shall content myself with giving an explanation of what I propose to do in Committee. It is quite true that the Bill as it stands proposes to continue the collection of the existing tax for a period of fifteen years from the ratepayers who are at present liable, and from the members of the College of Justice, to whom its application is to be extended, in order to accumulate a fund by which a permanent endowment for the clergy may be secured. It is, however, altogether a mistake to suppose that this accumulation would be derived from the tax. It would be derived from the concession on the part of the clergy of the City of Edinburgh of a considerable portion of that to which they are now by law entitled, and from the reduction in their number, to which they are also willing to consent. It has been represented to me by a portion of the community of Edinburgh, and by the Town Council of that city, that they would prefer a reduced burden as a permanency to the continuance of the present rate for fifteen years, with the final abolition of the tax at the end of that period. I conceive that that is a matter wholly immaterial to the interests of the clergy. Whether they are to receive the interest on the sum of £120,000 in perpetuity, or whether they are to receive the capital sum within a limited period, is a question which does not affect the interests of the clergy; but I own I did think it material to the interests of the City of Edinburgh. And my own opinion was and is that the proposition of the Bill was the fairer and more advantageous of the two. I was the more encouraged to think so, because in 1857 I introduced a measure for the purpose of abolishing the annuity tax which was practically the same in principle as that now before the House. I proposed in that Bill to continue the tax at the full rate of 10d. in the pound, and to form a fund for the endowment of fifteen ministers, and that Bill received the full concurrence of the Town Council. I am sorry to find that there is a general feeling of preference for a reduced permanent rate, and cannot help thinking that the persons who entertain it most strongly have failed to consider the matter so thoroughly and carefully as it requires. I am sorry, I say, to find there is a general feeling among the inhabitants of Edinburgh that a permanent tax on a reduced scale would he the better of the two propositions. But still, in 1853 I brought forward a measure, also with the full concurrence of the Town Council of that day, for the purpose of establishing a perpetual tax at a diminished rate—the rate being 6d. in the pound for a temporary period, and 5d. in perpetuity. I acknowledge, therefore, that I can state no objection to the principle of a permanent tax. On going into Committee on the present Bill, I shall therefore be prepared to bring forward clauses, the effect of which will be, instead of accumulating the £120,000 as a capital fund for the en- dowment of the clergy, to secure by a permanent rate the payment of thirteen ministers at the salary of £600 a year to each. I think I shall be able to do that, as far as security goes, in a way that will be perfectly satisfactory to the Church. On the matter of the security to be granted, it is right that I should state what I shall propose. I received in April a communication from the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, in which he made a proposition to me, which, if not exactly the same in point of amount as the one I am going to propose, was at least substantially the same in principle, as far as security was concerned. The Lord Provost wrote as follows:— If such a modification were proposed, I would propose to give the Church the best and the only security we have—a preferable security over all our rates, postponed only to the city creditors, and in the event of bankruptcy, the right to a separate rate, to provide the amount for which the city is liable. Under the obligation, we should require the imposition of a royalty rate, in order to meet the deficiency upon our other revenues, which these payments would require, or a larger rate at present, and a smaller one eventually. Now, I read that passage for the purpose of saying that if I propose a permanent, instead of a temporary rate, I shall certainly take care that the security to the clergy is as good as the town of Edinburgh can afford, and is placed in a position that will, as far as practicable, put it beyond the reach of agitation for the future. I certainly could never consent to adopt a permanent rate as the principle of the measure, unless it were made perfectly clear that the fund for paying the ministers would be a debt on the revenues of the town, and that the additional rate should not constitute a tax with which the clergy were brought into immediate connection, but simply a means by which the town should reimburse itself for payments made. This proposition has been made to me, and I am ready to act on it. It is quite true the question has been raised whether it is right to take the seat-rents at their present amount of £1,600 a year or at the prospective amount of £2,500. I have considered that question with all the attention I could bestow on it, and the conclusion I have arrived at is that the town have no right to require that the clergy shall be debited with a greater amount, in respect of seat-rents, than they at present yield to the town. I shall now say a few words as to one or two other points. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. P. Blackburn) is under a misapprehension when he speaks of the suppression of the city charges. In point of fact they are not reduced. The Bill proceeds on the principle of providing only for thirteen ministers, as an equivalent for the Annuity tax, but the number of charges is left as it is, to be filled up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they have funds for that purpose. There is another matter which I should like very much to introduce into the Bill, provided that I could do so—otherwise I would not think of doing it—with the general consent of the House. The House is well aware that the Town Council of Edinburgh received from the North British Railway Company, for the rebuilding of Trinity College Church, a sum of money which now amounts to about £20,000. I would propose that that money should be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—that that body should be bound out of it to build a church, either now or at some postponed period, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Session—that the balance of the fund should go to maintain the minister of Trinity College Church, until the number of charges has been reduced to thirteen—and that whatever may then be loft should be handed over to the Commissioners to be applied to such ecclesiastical purposes as they may think fit. The effect of such an arrangement would be to confer a benefit both on the town and on the Church. The town would be immediately relieved from the burden of one of the supernumerary charges; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be put in possession of a considerable sum for the purposes of their trust. It is also deserving of consideration whether provision might not be made that the surplus fund should go to buy up the patronage of the town council. I cannot admit that the town council have done anything to forfeit their patronage. I have never thought so either as to the University or as to the Church. But at the same time, I think that if an arrangement could be made by which the patronage could be purchased, it would be desirable to do so. If the ease of Edinburgh can be satisfactorily disposed of, there will be no difficulty, I hope, in meeting the cases of the Canongate and Montrose. I can only say, in conclusion, that it is to me a matter of heartfelt congratulation that this long-vexed question is now to be closed by an equitable and satisfactory adjustment.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he could not re- sist the strong verdict in favour of the second reading which had been passed by the Scotch Members who had spoken, and he felt bound, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed, to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

House adjourned at half-after Two o'clock.