§ MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the riotous proceedings lately enacted in Edinburgh, arising out of the seizure and sale of the furniture of certain citizens who refuse to pay that portion of the local rates which, under the name of Police Rate, is (under an Act passed in 1860) levied to pay the stipends of the city clergy; whether it is true that several thousand ratepayers have resolutely refused to pay that portion of the rate, and that the arrears of the several local rates collected along with this rate are accumulating so rapidly as to have reached nearly £20,000; and, whether it is the intention of Government to propose any alteration in the Law?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that it was certainly not a fact that there existed any local rate under the name of Police Rate, or any other name, levied for the payment of the stipends of the clergy of the city of Edinburgh, Such a rate had been levied until the year 1860, under the name of the Annuity Tax, but an Act passed in that year provided that the, ministers of Edinburgh, being reduced in number, should be paid not by a local rate at all, but by a general charge made upon the revenue of the city. That arrangement was made at the desire of the opponents of the Annuity Tax, for the express purpose of avoiding the imposition of an Ecclesiastical Tax. At the same time, 362 the magistrates were empowered, by the Act of 1860, to levy an additional Police Rate for the supply of any deficiency which was, or might be, occasioned by the charge thus made upon the funds of the city, and the additional rate was, in all respects, a municipal charge for municipal purposes. No doubt some of the ratepayers, but not, he was glad to say, a large number, thought that, notwithstanding the municipal character of this additional rate, its payment was still open to conscientious objections. There was little doubt that on three or four occasions there had been some tumult occasioned by the sale of goods which had been seized for non-payment of the rate; but he had no official information excepting what had been communicated to him in a letter which he had received that day, from which he learnt that those proceedings had been very greatly exaggerated. The most conspicuous case was one in which the public were invited a few days before the event took place by means of handbills to attend and witness the sale of some furniture which had been seized. Under those circumstances, it was not at all extraordinary that a large rabble assembled, and that those engaged in carrying out the law were subject to much annoyance. After they had left, the rabble burnt one of the articles of furniture; but the inhabitants of the city themselves attached no importance to this incident. According to the information which he had received, the arrears consequent upon the refusal to pay the rate, amounted to about 3½ or 4 per cent upon the whole of the assessment. Usually 5 per cent was allowed as the amount which would cover the non-payments; so that in this instance the percentage would be increased to 8½ per cent, which, upon a sum of £50,000, was hardly a matter worthy of much consideration. He could not tell the exact number of those who had refused to pay, hut the average for the four years previous to 1860 had numbered 3,269, while the average of the four years since that date was 4,976, a difference of no great importance. In answer to the third part of the Question, he begged to say it was not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the law.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the date of the letter from which he derived his information, because he (Mr. Bright) had seen in the papers of that 363 morning a statement to the effect that no less than 10,000 persons assembled on one of the occasions referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had received his letter that day. There was no allusion in it to the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and the only information which he had received upon the subject was what had that morning been published in the newspapers.