Commons Sitting of 2 March 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Steam Boilers Inspection* [58].
Second Reading—Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) [62], debate adjourned; Railway Travelling [37], put off.
Committee—Life Assurance Companies* [2]—R.P.
Considered as amended—East India (Laws and Regulations)* [27].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH) BILL.
(Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Miller, Mr. Crum-Ewing.)
ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH) BILL.

  [BILL 4.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'LAREN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said: I shall occupy the time of the House as shortly as possible in explaining the object of the Bill. It is to reduce the number of ministers by three in the city of Edinburgh, and thereby to effect a saving of £1,800 a year. The population of the Old Town is only 30,000 at

  1089
  present, and of that number about 13,000 are Roman Catholics, and at least one-half of the remainder are Dissenters. It will not therefore excite surprise that we seek to reduce the number of ministers for so small a population as remains—namely, about 8,000. These are claimed by the Established Church only because they do not belong to any other; but, in point of fact, the Old Town is the poorest and most destitute part of the city—the part where poverty is greatest and the criminal classes most abound. There is not one-half of the 8,000 resident in that part of the town really connected with the Established Church. The number of ministers for that small population is now eight, and we propose to reduce thorn to five; and if any hon. Member present will say that five ministers is not sufficient for that population, I can only say he has a curious notion of ministerial labour. But besides those eight ministers in the Old Town, there are live in the New; and with those five we do not sock to interfere. They have all tolerably good congregations, and no change is proposed with respect to them by the Bill. The ministers are now supported by pew-rents and by payments fixed by Act of Parliament—one of £2,000 and another of £4,200—the last-mentioned sum being raised by a local tax of 3d. in the pound on the rental of less than one-half the city. The Bill proposes, but only as vacancies occur among the ministers, to abolish three of the eight charges, no change, as I have said, being proposed respecting the New Town churches. The Bill does not propose to interfere in any way with the stipends of the ministers—nine are to remain as now at £600 a year, and four at £550. If the proposal as to the reduction of the three ministers as vacancies occur be agreed to, then we shall be happy to arrange the other parts of the Bill to the satisfaction of any impartial person. It has been objected that the Security Clause of the Bill is so worded as not to be perfect in its operation. I can only assure those who think so that it was intended to be perfect; and if it can be shown that the words do not convey the meaning intended, I shall be most happy to agree to such alterations in Committee as shall make the question free from all doubt. Having thus explained the main design of the Bill, I shall not trouble
  1090
  the House at any length with its details; but I may mention some facts with a view to make the object of the Bill more intelligible and definite. There are 127 churches in Edinburgh of all kinds—Protestant and Roman Catholic included. In that number are twenty-eight Established churches, and ninety-nine churches belonging to other denominations. Of these twenty-eight Established churches there are only thirteen that are at all connected with the objects of this Bill—only thirteen out of the twenty-eight receive any portion of the annuity tax. It will thus be seen, in the first place, that the Established Church in Edinburgh forms a small minority of the population; and, in the next place, from the Established churches being less filled than the others, the disparity in the number of churches does not even give a sufficient idea of the relative numbers of the members of the different Churches. The Tree Church alone has thirty-six churches, as against twenty-eight Established ones; but I will undertake to say that each of those thirty-six, taking an average, contains one-half more sitters than the Established churches. I have no doubt whatever that the Free Church alone has, in this way, double the number of sitters as compared with the Established Church, and double the population attached to it which the Established Church has. It is this fact which has made the ecclesiastical impost so galling to the inhabitants of Edinburgh. It is not merely the sum of £4,200; for in a large and rich city, with a rental exceeding £1,100,000 a year, even when we take the portion of the city upon which it is levied, that sum is not a very large one. But we object to the principle of the great majority of the inhabitants being obliged to contribute by local taxation for the Church of a small minority who are quite able to maintain the ministers of their own churches. But we do not ask that they should maintain them; we give them the whole of the pew-rents—which amount now to £4,300 a year; we give them £2,000 from another source, and we propose by this Bill to give them a farther sum of £1,200 a year for miscellaneous expenses from the church-door collections, which are now by Act of Parliament devoted to the support of the poor; and to give power to the poor who now receive aid

  1091
  from those collections to get equal sums from the parochial board appointed for the management of the poor. Further, we do not propose that this shall take effect at once. We interfere with the rights of no man. We merely propose that, as vacancies occur, three of the ministers should have no successors. It has been said that great relief was given to the community of Edinburgh by an Act passed in 1860, and very exaggerated statements have been published to that effect. The relief then given was exactly £3,000 a year. There were five churches each of which had two ministers, and by that Act it was provided that as the second minister in each church died he should have no successor. In that way the sum required was smaller by £3,000 a year; but no further relief was given to the city. No doubt, there were various ingenious devices resorted to for the purpose of making it appear that much greater relief was given by that Act; bur those ingenious devices did not succeed in blinding the inhabitants. The people of Edinburgh saw perfectly through them. One of the devices was to take away the pew-rents, which from the time of the Reformation—or, at least, from the time when pews were put in churches—for at the Reformation there were no pews—but from the time when pews were put in, the pew-rents were always drawn by the Town Council of Edinburgh for the behoof of the community. And when the settlement took place in 1838 with the creditors of the city, who had lent large sums of money for the building of now churches, amongst other purposes, the seat-rents were made over to them in security. One of the devices under the Act was to take the pew-rents from the city and give them to the ministers, and then to levy a municipal rate, as it was called, in lieu of the pew-rents—pretending that this rate had nothing to do with ecclesiastical matters—that it was merely a rate for municipal purposes. The people were far too observant to be taken in with this device, for they knew that if the seat-rents were taken out of the city purse, and money derived from rates substituted, it came to pretty much the same thing as if the rate were given directly to the ministers. The inhabitants considered it an insult to their understanding to be told that, after the passing of the Act of 1860,
  1092
  there was no longer an annuity tax for ministers levied in Edinburgh. At a very large and influential meeting of the ratepayers held in Edinburgh, a protest signed by 7,600 inhabitants of the city was drawn up against the whole measure, declaring that they never would be satisfied with letting the matter rest, and praying the Town Council to endeavour to get them relieved of the grievance which was then imposed upon them. It is in pursuance of that request that we appear before you here this day, to ask you to agree to the second reading of this Bill, and allow it to go into Committee—that by diminishing the number of ministers, and other arrangements which I will not now take up the time of the House in explaining—get rid of this grievance. It has frequently been said that the clergy, through the passing of the Act of 1860, made great sacrifices, and that the sum levied previously for each minister was £900 a year. This had been stated in a paper circulated in this House. Now, when we hear of a sum of money being levied, we understand that somebody has got hold of it. But what is the fact? A large portion of the annuity tax for ministers' stipends for some years before the passing of the Act of 1860 could not be levied at all. Having resisted the demands, hundreds of persons allowed their furniture to be taken and sold rather than pay it, and many respectable citizens—including two magistrates—were put in gaol for several weeks because they would not pay this tax. In fact, it could not be enforced in a very large number of cases, without a strong police force; and, upon several occasions, a military force had to be called out to back the police force in levying this rate. I challenge any hon. Member of this House, or anyone else, to show that the ministers of Edinburgh ever did get so much as £600 a year, during any average number of years, until the passing of the Act of 1860. It is an entire delusion to say that they ever did receive any such sum. Another contrivance adopted was, that whereas members of the legal profession were not called upon to pay the old annuity tax, by the Bill of 1860, the rate substituted was laid upon them, which gave great satisfaction, because it was a measure of justice to place all the inhabitants upon the same footing. That in-

  1093
  fluential body occupied houses and offices of a large rental; and, of course, the sum they contributed, first by a rate of 5½d. in the pound, and latterly by a rate of 3d., was large, and that necessarily reduced the amount required to be raised from other parties. But that was not a sum which the ministers lost, nor one with which they had any concern. The real question was, what amount of money was raised in the city, and what amount did the ministers receive, and not the class of persons from whom the money came, in order to make the new rate look smaller than the old. Another device was, that whereas the former rate was chargeable only at the rateable rental, the new rate was levied on the rack-rent; and in that way a rate of 3d. in the pound now, and 5½d. a few years ago—together with the seat-rents and the £2,000 from the port of Leith—was sufficient to pay the ministers the stipends; and they have all been paid since that time better than before the passing of the Act of 1860. It was an entire delusion to say that they had sacrificed anything of the amount which they formerly received, or could levy, in any proper sense of the word. To show that the number of ministers is excessive, and ought to be reduced, it is only necessary that I should read to the House a few lines from a speech of the Rev. Dr. Wallace, one of these ministers. At a public meeting of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, when discussing this Bill, that rev. gentleman, who was then opposing the opening of an additional church in the Canongate Parish, said, referring to the promoters of the present Bill—
  "If the promoters of the measure hostile to the interests of ministers in Edinburgh learned—as he supposed they could not help learning—that in the lace of the fact that there were 2,000 un-let sittings in the Old Town at the present moment—not taking into account 1,200 free sittings for the poor—that, in the face of the fact that there were three churches literally empty in it, the Commissioners were insisting upon creating what they called a life-interest in some of their surplus for the purpose of getting up a new church—which, to all appearance, there was no call for whatsoever—the effect upon their minds must be extremely irritating indeed."
  Nothing additional is needed to prove the fact of the excess of the church accommodation than that statement of the rev. gentleman—who is no mean authority, being a gentleman of great influence in the city, and one of the deputation now in London to oppose the Bill.
  1094
  This admission makes it unnecessary to offer any further evidence on that subject. But I may mention that a Return has, within the last few days, been laid on the table, which corroborates and strengthens in a remarkable degree the statement of the Rev. Dr. Wallace. The Return shows that in place of 2,000 un-let sittings—which appears to have appalled the rev. gentleman—there are 3,672 in the thirteen City churches; and in place of 1,200 free sittings there are—including free sittings in the New Town churches—2,430; making in all over 6,000 unlet and free sittings. Now, I put it to any candid man whether it is just to the community of Edinburgh to require them to raise by direct taxation £4,200 a year for the stipends of ministers to churches which are not required by any section of the people? The three churches which the rev. doctor referred to as "literally empty" are the High Church, the pew-rents of which for the last year amounted to only £46; St. John's, which yielded £60 16 s.; and the Tolbooth, which yielded only £26. This church has since been closed, and made a mission station. Under these circumstances, I think a very strong case is made out for asking the House to intervene and say that we shall be relieved of part of the burden which we have now to bear. The fact is, that notwithstanding all the alterations made by the Act of 1860, we pay more for the Established Church than we did thirty-six years ago. In 1833, the pew-rents in those churches amounted to £7,530, and the whole of that sum went into the coffers of the municipality to pay the interest of money borrowed for the erection of new churches and the maintenance of those already in existence. The ordinary expenses may be taken at about £2,000 a year, and the result was that in the year ending 1833, out of the whole £7,500 received, nearly £5,500 went into the coffers of the city. At that time, the annuity tax produced as nearly as possible, £8,000 a year; and if you compare these figures together, deducting the one sum from the other, you will find that the whole burden of the Established Church in 1833 was about £2,500. What is the state of matters now? You give them the whole of the seat-rents without calling on them to account, and, after deducting expenses, these now amount to about £2,500

  1095
  a year. You next give them £4,200 by the Act of 1860, making £6,700 with which the city is burdened, besides the £2,000 from Leith—common to both periods—for the support of a Church which is attended by a very small minority of the inhabitants—as compared with about £2,500 in 1833. The burden has now increased nearly in a three-fold degree. The whole cost, including the £2,000 from Leith, is upwards of £8,700 a year. How, then, can it be said that the burden has of late years been greatly reduced? According to my arithmetic it has been greatly increased, and yet we are daily told of the sacrifices the Established Church has made, and the great lightening of the city burdens to the ratepayers. The last point to which I shall allude is one which, in order to prevent mistakes, I shall quote first from Returns which have just been laid on the table for last year, and second from the figures given in the Report of the Select Committee of 1867. It is a comparison of the pew-rents at different dates. In order that the comparison may be perfectly fair. I shall take three churches in the Old Town and three churches in the New, and compare them for the purposes of my argument. In the Old Town the Tolbooth Church in 1832–3 produced £477 by pew-rents, and last year produced £26. The New North Church, which is still administered by an able and influential clergyman—the Rev. Dr. Nesbet, who is now in town as one of the deputies to oppose the Bill—now produces £170 of pew-rents; whilst in 1833, under his predecessor, it produced £679. The High Church, which in 1833 produced £633, now produces only £46; so that these three churches of the Old Town, which in 1833 produced £1,839 by pew-rents, now bring only £242. We urge the House to consider such a state of things, and all we ask is that the families who attend those churches that ought to be suppressed should attend others next door almost in order that those useless ones may be shut up. In the New Town, where the most wealthy inhabitants reside, and where since 1833 the rents of property have nearly doubled, and the population has considerably increased, we find that in St. Mary's Church, which cost the city £16,000, the pew-rents now yield £227 against £834 in 1833; St. Stephen's, which cost £26,000, now produces £743 against
  1096
  £1,739; and St. George's, with an able and influential minister, now in London to oppose this Bill—the Rev. Mr. Stevenson—which was built in 1818, and cost about £35,000, now produces £502 against £1,807 in 1833. The result is that in these six churches the pew-rents have fallen during the time I have mentioned from £4,380 annually to £1,472, and the rich people who attend them come here and entreat you to make no change in this state of affairs, but to allow a local rate to be levied on the whole community, down to the £4 renters, in order that they may pay only one-third part of the pew-routs which their fathers paid in 1833. Why, Sir, this is nothing but a sort of outdoor relief to the individuals who worship in those churches. I hold that those persons are, in fact, to be as much out-door paupers as the men who get relief from the poor rate. They ought to be ashamed of their position. The proposal which has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, respecting the payment of a capital sum of £60,000, has no connection with our Bill, and even if it had been in our opinion a good arrangement—which is not the case—it would not be in my power to adopt it. This Bill has mot with the approval of the Town Council, and of the great body of the inhabitants. We advocate the Bill on its merits. We are willing to remedy any proved defects; but we hope that it will now be read a second time in order that the clauses may be discussed with patience and impartiality in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not rise with the intention of defeating the Bill, but for the purpose of making a statement upon the subject of the measure; and he would conclude by moving that the debate be adjourned. His motive in taking this course was his desire to bring about a settlement upon some lasting and satisfactory basis of a question which in the past had produced much angry discussion; and he thought that nothing could less conduce to such a result as a possible settlement—which must be a reasonable settlement—than a superfluous debate and a mischievous division to-day upon the Bill which his hon. Friend had placed before the House.

  1097
  To-morrow he would, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, move for leave to bring in a Bill with a view to settle tins question upon what they believed to be a satisfactory basis; and it was to enable the Government to make such an attempt that he proposed to take his present course. He had witnessed with as much concern and regret as his hon. Friend himself the use which had been made of certain features of the local provision made for the parochial clergy of Edinburgh—a use which had stirred much strife and angry feeling, the more bitter because there had been imported, not merely ecclesiastical, but political and even personal considerations. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had devoted his energy for many years to remedying this matter and to place it on a better footing. In doing so, he had been actuated by the most disinterested motives, and had put forward only proposals which were fair and reasonable, according to the light he had upon the questions, and upon his views of it. But, at the same time, it could not be disguised that he had formed and expressed a very decided conviction upon the question in very strong terms; and had acted so much as a partizan in the expression of the opinions which he maintained conscientiously, that these considerations to some extent, as he (the Lord Advocate) could not but think, disqualified him from being the most suitable medium for effecting a settlement of this matter upon the principles of concession and conciliation. He now desired to make, in justification and explanation of the course which he was taking, such a statement as would put the House in possession of the simple facts of the case, and the present state and condition of the controversy. Now, in the first place, as to the legal provision and maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland. For this there was, in fact, only one source—namely, the tithes; and those tithes, he said, with perfect accuracy, and sufficient authority, stood on precisely the same legal footing as the tithes in England did. These tithes had been found to afford a sufficient and moderate provision for the clergy of the country parishes; but in towns that provision had been found to fail from a consideration which was usually well understood—namely, the disproportion between the population of
  1098
  the towns and the titheable value of the property in the towns. This consideration rendered the case of burghs exceptional; and accordingly from the time of the Reformation provision had been made for the clergy of the Established Church within burghs by payments out of the property of the community or corporation of the burgh, or what was technically called in Scotland the "common good." With regard to small towns which were situated in parishes of which, in point of area, they formed a very inconsiderable part, the stipend or income of the minister was made up from two sources—in the first place, from a tax drawn from the country portion of the parishes—from the titheable land; and, in the second place, from contributions made by the magistrates and guardians of the burgh property out of the burgh fund. Now, in order that the House should have a full understanding of this question, it was necessary that they should bear in mind that it was undoubted law and custom in Scotland, that it was a proper application of the burgh property to provide not only for the temporal but for the spiritual welfare of the community, by providing means of religious teaching and public worship. Accordingly in every burgh provision had been made from this source; for the maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church in the burghs. Churches were instituted by the magistrates and council, in concert with the courts of the Church; sometimes by the authority of the court alone, and sometimes under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Provision was made out of the burgh property, that was, "the common good;" and provision being thus made once and for all for the Church so established, must be continued—because it was illegal to transfer an imperative and irrevocable obligation simply because the common good was not the common purpose. In Glasgow there were no less than ten churches maintained from this source at the cost of the common good—that was to say, the property of the Corporation of Glasgow, as representing the community, was made liable to the extent of £3,800 for this purpose. Similar provisions were made in the case of Aberdeen, Dundee, Fife, and Stirling—and, in fact, in almost all the considerable towns of Scotland. But there was one exception—he did not know how it

  1099
  happened, nor was it at all necessary to the present matter to inquire how it had come to pass, that Edinburgh was from a very early period in an exceptional position with regard to the parish clergy of the city; but provision was made for the maintenance of public worship, instruction, and the transaction of Church business in this way—the town was from time to time divided into parishes, the divisions and sub-divisions proceeding according as its extent and its population increased; and in 1636, without the authority of the Legislature, and in 1661, with the authority of the Legislature, provision was made for the maintenance of the Church in those parishes by the imposition of a tax on the inhabitants. The probable fact was that oven at that early period the property of the burgh of Edinburgh had been so improvidently managed that there was not sufficient to enable them to maintain the clergy in the same manner as was done in other burghs. However that may be, in 1661 the magistrates, on behalf of the community, addressed themselves to the Parliament of Scotland, praying for legislative authority to enable them to impose a tax on the inhabitants for the purpose of maintaining the churches; and that authority was given by an Act brought in and passed in 1661. That was the origin and, until it was abolished, the authority for the annuity tax. There was one other, and only one other, source of any considerable amount, and that was in the form of a tax, not on the inhabitants, but on the imported goods of Edinburgh. The Legislature in the same year ratified a Royal charter, whereby the magistrates of Edinburgh were authorized to impose a certain tax per ton upon all goods imported into Leith or Edinburgh for the behoof of the clergy of the Established Church. This double provision continued down to 1838, but he could easily understand that such a tax as that would be borne with very great impatience; and occasion was taken of the introduction of a Bill into Parliament for the purpose of erecting Leith, which is the chief seat of the imports, into an independent municipality, and transferring to commissioners the port and harbour, which, hitherto had been vested in the magistrates of Edinburgh. As he had said, occasion was taken of this Bill for abolishing the tax upon goods imported into Leith for the
  1100
  support of the clergy, substituting, however, in its place a payment out of the dock and harbour dues of £2,000 a year, which was calculated to be the amount which the ministers had before received. By that Act of 1838, the commissioners were required to pay annually into Her Majesty's Exchequer in Edinburgh £2,000 a year, which sum the proper officer was required to hand over to any persons appointed by the clergymen to receive it. That £2,000 a year was a commutation by the Legislature of the tax on goods, and was of precisely the same antiquity, and substantially of the same origin as the tax on the inhabitants, which was at present one of the main resources of the clergy, and a burden which his hon. Friend proposed by the Bill to relieve them of. Considerable dissatisfaction was felt with regard to this annuity tax, as it was called, which was imposed upon the taxpayers, not in the shape of an impost upon the inhabitants, or the houses, but out of "the common good" of the burgh itself; and in 1860 a proposal was submitted to this House, which resulted in the Act of that year, by which it was declared that the annuity tax ought to be abolished; and accordingly the first clause provides that from and after the term of Whitsuntide, 1860, the impost or tax levied annually under the name of the annuity tax, within the ancient and extended royalties of the City of Edinburgh, should cease to be imposed; and from that time till now there has been no annuity tax in Edinburgh. No tax whatever had been levied either upon the houses or the inhabitants with the name of the annuity tax, or for the purpose of maintaining the clergy. On the contrary, the view with which the Act of 1860 was passed was to place Edinburgh in the same position as other burghs in this respect—namely, that the estate of the burgh, which we call "the common good" of the burgh, should provide for the burgh clergy. He had stated that up to 1860 Edinburgh was in an exceptional position. After 1860, therefore, Edinburgh ceased to be in that exceptional position in which it had been up to that year. Now, as to what was substituted in lieu of the annuity tax so removed. It was neither a tax upon persons, nor a tax upon property. The 8th clause—of which I may remark a singular paraphrase is to be found La the Bill of my

  1101
  hon. Friend—provided that the Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh shall, on or before the 11th of November, 1860, execute and deliver to Commissioners appointed for the purposes of this Act a perpetual bond of annuity in the terms of the Schedule for the annual sum of £4,200, under the conditions expressed in the said Schedule. It was, in fact, a bond obliging the community to pay in all times to come the annual sum of £4,200 to the Edinburgh Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the maintenance of the clergy of the city. This bond, however, contained a condition to which it was necessary to advert—namely, that this annuity should be redeemable only on payment at the rate of £100 for each £3 10 s. of annuity—which therefore represented a capital sum of £120,000. But Clause 9 provided—
  "That the whole property belonging to the Magistrates and Council, as representing the community of the City of Edinburgh, is hereby disponed and made over to the creditors in the said bonds in security for the payment of the said annuities, subject to the provisions hereinafter enacted."
  No one who read that clause could fail to see that it was almost parallel to the present proposal; because certain other bonds had ceased to exist or be available for the clergy in whose favour they were granted. The whole property, therefore, of the city was pledged as a security for the payment of this annuity of £4,200 a year for the behoof of the clergy. Well, one would have supposed that by this settlement of 1860 there was an end of the annuity tax; but an objection was taken. The Corporation of Edinburgh said that the revenues of the municipality might prove insufficient to meet the charges for which the Corporation had to provide, and that, consequently, the Corporation might be unable to pay the £4,200 a year. In order to meet this alleged difficulty, a clause was introduced, which enacts—
  "That in order to enable the Magistrates and Council to provide for the purposes to which the income and revenue derived from the said property and funds are at present applicable, and for the further security of the said annuities, it shall be lawful for them to levy and apply to the said purposes any increased assessments under the provisions of this Act in the same way and with the powers and authorities of the Acts of 1848 and 1856, to an extent equal to but not exceeding 3d. in the pound."
  Now, that provision had been repre-
  1102
  sented as continuing the annuity tax in Edinburgh under another name; but it was in reality no such thing. Edinburgh was in that put on the same footing as every other burgh in Scotland. The obligation to maintain the clergy within the city was put on the property of the community in Edinburgh in 1860, as it had all along been on the community properly of other burghs. It was said this was an additional power of assessment to meet the ordinary requirements, and that it was neither more nor less than an annuity tax in another form—he believed his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) called it "ministers' money." Now, this was a very general term, and he (the Lord Advocate) did not care to argue it. Then his hon. Friend called it "a device," which it was easy for anybody to see through, that it was a mere counterfeit, and that it was to a great extent a renewal of the tax itself. But if his memory did not deceive him, his hon. Friend was himself to a great extent, the author of this device. And now as to the views upon which this arrangement was carried out. The Established Church in Scotland had not then recovered from the exhaustion consequent upon the great Disruption of 1843. To a very great extent the congregations of the Established Church had seceded and gone over to the worship of the Free Churches; and probably the Established Church was then at its extremest state of exhaustion. Accordingly it was proposed that the number of clergymen—theretofore eighteen—should be reduced to thirteen, provision being made for them as he had before explained, so that they should have a stipend of £600 a year each—the total annual sum required being, therefore, £7,800. This was provided in this way—£2,000, the commutation of the levies on the port of Leith, which it was arranged should be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; a bond of annuity for £4,200, to be granted by the Magistrates and Councillors; and it was estimated that the pew-rents would yield £1,600, after the expenses had been paid. Obviously, one only of these sources, the pew-rents, had the quality of elasticity. The contingencies of their increase or decrease was provided for by the Act. It was provided that in case the income fell off, the ministers appointed after the passing of the Act

  1103
  were to suffer the diminution; and in case it should increase the Commissioners should, at their discretion, apply the surplus to paying a salary to some other minister within the city, or to augment the salaries of existing ministers, or to other ecclesiastical purposes within the city. That was the settlement of 1860. He begged the House to consider the position of the town of Edinburgh under that arrangement. That perpetual bond of annuity had been granted for £4,200, redeemable at 3½ per cent, in substitution of the annuity tax which had been in existence since 1661, and winch in 1860 yielded a net revenue of close on £10,000. It was a settlement proposed to Parliament as one that would be satisfactory to all. It was sanctioned, and the legal obligations under it were granted. What was now proposed in the Bill of his hon. Friend? It was to cancel those obligations—to cancel that bond—it was to ask Parliament to cancel and annul it, in the face of the urgent protests of the creditors. The Bill, indeed, professed to give £2,000 back to the clergy again; but they had it secured to them already, unless Parliament repealed the provision it had made in their favour. The Bill proposed also that the bond of annuity for £4,200 ought instantly to be reduced to £2,500, and that as soon as three clergymen die or quit their livings it ought to be extinguished altogether. The House could not be surprised when he said he could not find in any of the provisions of the Bill the materials out of which could be constructed a settlement of this question at all likely to meet general approval. He objected to the principle of it altogether. He objected to Parliament interfering with an arrangement of this character, involving interests of such importance, ten years after it had been made, and without substituting for it any other arrangement likely to be satisfactory to both parties—the Bill, indeed, was brought forward against the urgent remonstrance of one of the parties, and was nothing short of a proposal to cut down the obligations of the debtor in defiance of the creditor. He was far from saying that settlements such as this were to be binding for all time and under all circumstances; but only ten years had elapsed since this arrangement had been agreed to by all parties. He had every reason to believe that the Church was willing—upon terms which, he con-
  1104
  ceived, would be highly advantageous to the community of Edinburgh—to enter into a new arrangement with the authority and sanction of Parliament. It would be for the purpose of endeavouring to promote that settlement, and to procure for it the necessary legislative authority to put the matter on such a footing that there might be a reasonable expectation that it would not be again disturbed, at least in their time, that he asked the House to assent to the course he had indicated—of allowing this debate to be adjourned now, in order to afford the opportunity for the introduction of a measure of a substantially different character—one modifying, no doubt, the arrangement of 1860, but modifying it in a manner that may prove to be satisfactory to both the parties that were legitimately interested in the question.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman it would be unnecessary for him to press his Motion for the rejection of the Bill. He had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, for he had condemned in unqualified terms the Bill of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, at the same time that he had expressed his earnest desire for an equitable settlement of the question, in which he (Mr. Dalrymple) cordially joined. He trusted that the measure the Government were about to bring in would settle the question once for all. He could almost regret, if that were done, that some hon. Members might never know what the annuity tax question was. The greatest ignorance prevailed in the House on that and on other Scotch subjects, and he was asked last year by an English Member whether the right of hypothec and the annuity tax were identical. [Laughter.] He did not mention that for the purpose of raising a laugh, but for another object. He humbly ventured to say that at present subjects connected with Scotland were far too much relegated to the Scotch Members alone for discussion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh deserved whatever credit was due to perseverance in the matter. As long as he (Mr. Dalrymple) remembered anything the hon. Member's name had been connected with the subject, and therefore the statements which he had made that afternoon were truly surprising. He could almost regret that it was now unnecessary for

  1105
  him to reply to some of these statements, but one point he would briefly notice. The hon. Gentleman had spoken lightly of the sacrifices that had been made by the ministers of Edinburgh in 1860; but a former Member of the House, who was a great authority on this question, had spoken of them in a very different spirit. He desired to refer to Mr. Moncreiff, in connection with the subject, with the utmost respect. Mr. Moncreiff's connection with it had been as close and at the same time as disinterested, as that of any man living. He rejoiced that Mr. Moncreiff's long services in the House had received their reward in a position of great dignity in Scotland, out of the reach of political injury from any miserable local squabble. Now, what did Mr. Moncreiff say about the ministers in 1860? Speaking in Edinburgh, in February, 1867, he said—"In 1860 I made a bargain with the ministers of Edinburgh, and with the friends of the ministers, and with the Conservative party. They met me half way." And in the House of Commons, in the following year, in answer to a near relative of his (Mr. Dalrymple's), who asked whether it was not entirely in the expectation that the settlement was to be conclusive that the Established Church went a great deal beyond any point to which they had been prepared to go, Mr. Moncreiff said—"Most certainly, and I should not have proposed it to them except on that footing." As was said last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Kilmarnock, this was, in fact, a policy of repudiation, and as such he (Mr. Dalrymple) felt convinced that the House would not sanction it. He rejoiced that the Government were prepared to deal with the question, and hoped that hereafter, not only in the House but in Edinburgh itself, the annuity tax as a grievance, small or great, would be heard of no longer.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, the constituency which he had the honour to represent felt great interest in the Bill now before the House. Being neighbours, they desired that Edinburgh should be relieved of its grievance. Leith had a grievance that had been adverted to by the Lord Advocate which they desired to see removed at the same time. It claimed justice in respect to its interests—he might say their interests are national. He was much pleased that Government was
  1106
  taking the subject into its own hands, and trusted that the measure to be produced would clear away both grievances. Legislation falling short of that would be unsatisfactory. He therefore hoped Government Mould give the Leith grievance consideration, and determine that it should be removed, or at least allow the people of Leith an opportunity of stating their case, in order to show reasons why relief should be afforded. In the Bill before the House there was a provision well worthy of appearing in the Government Bill—the abolition of Church, patronage within the city of Edinburgh.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Bill, but the nature of its provisions had driven him to take that course. He fully agreed in what had been said against the annuity tax, and there was no one who would be more pleased to see it abolished; but this result must be accomplished in a fair and equitable manner; whereas the present measure was the very reverse. He had never in his short experience known a Bill more wanting both in honesty and justice than that now under discussion. By its title it professed to abolish the Canongate annuity tax, which was in reality no more than £250 a year; but that small tax was made a stalking-horse, tinder cover of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh desired to enable the Magistrates and Corporation of that city to repudiate their bond for the payment of £4,200 a year. It was, in fact, a Bill for disendowment without compensation, and as such he could not but strongly oppose it, although he was by no means prepared to say that endowment in itself was desirable, or that if the Scotch Church were offered terms as liberal as those which had been granted to Ireland she would not do well to accept disendowment. In favour of this remarkable Bill the hon. Member for Edinburgh and his Friends had established a small "whip" of their own, for he, like other hon. Members, had received a circular requesting the attendance of hon. Gentlemen, urging them to support its provisions, on the plea that it was a Bill to abolish ministers' money; but that circular said not a word about the fact that it would disendow the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh and authorize the Town Council to repudiate their bond, or about their scheme of disendowment

  1107
  without compensation. As to the compensations the hon. Member for Edinburgh proposed to offer in exchange for all which he took away, the Lord Advocate had clearly shown that with the exception of a small annuity of £50 a year to each minister, they were already enjoyed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The proper mode of settling this vexed question was obvious, and had been suggested to the magistrates of Edinburgh by himself and his friends. They might redeem the bond in accordance with the powers of the Act, which made the bond redeemable by the payment of £120,000, and there was another smaller fund which was also redeemable. The friends of the Church, however, had proposed to the city of Edinburgh to allow these burdens to be redeemed at half the Parliamentary price. He would appeal to the House whether this would not be a fair settlement of the question. Under these circumstances, he appealed both to Liberal and Conservative Members to support the Lord Advocate, and to give the Corporation of Edinburgh a lesson in equity.
  MR. CRAUFURD: We have had two descriptions of this Bill. The hon. Member has said that it affects generally a local squabble, but if that be so, I ask why the Government has interfered to aid the Conservative opposition to the Bill? If it be otherwise, how is it that—if the Bill be dishonest and unfair as it has been described—Mr. Moncreiff last year (when a stronger Bill of this character was before us) walked out of the House rather than vote against it? I think my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh has great reason to complain of the Government. Last year, when he brought in a Bill that was far more adverse in many ways to the interests of the Established Church than this one is, it received the support of Cabinet Ministers and of a large section of the Government; but now the Lord Advocate opposes him in an extraordinary and special manner. He attacks both the principle and details of the measure, and yet he declines to move its rejection; but he asks for an adjournment, in order that a future day we may hear what the intentions of Government are on the subject, of which no indications are now given to us. I really think, if we were over expected to accede to such a proposal, the right
  1108
  hon. Gentleman ought at least to have been frank, and to have told us his intentions. The question is no new one. My hon. Friend took the earliest opportunity this Session of bringing it forward, and it was only two days ago that he was asked by the Government to forego his advantage, and to postpone the Bill for three or four weeks, in order that the Government might have time to prepare and announce its intentions. Sir, everyone acquainted with the House must know that such a request to my hon. Friend was equivalent to asking him to take the Notice off the Paper altogether. I think it would only have been reasonable if the Government had allowed the Bill to be read the second time, and they could then, by means of Amendments, have dealt with it according to their views in Committee. I cannot but consider that the course they have adopted is most unfair. We know nothing of their intentions. I cannot, indeed, say whether the hon. Member for Glasgow is better informed, or whether he spoke with authority on what he said respecting the opportunity that had boon given for the redemption of the bond at "half-price." Really this is not a question to be settled on principles of bargain and sale. I challenge the utmost ingenuity of my hon. Friend to show that this is not, in fact, substituting one tax for another, and giving the Corporation of Edinburgh a charge upon the inhabitants in order to pay the charge which he says ought to fall on the common good. The Lord Advocate said that if you deal with Edinburgh you must deal with every other locality. I hope I may take that as an indication that he is going to deal with this question throughout the length and breadth of the land. The common good of no burgh should be bound to pay for imposts which are levied by Act of Parliament, but under circumstances totally different from those which now exist. There is, however, this difference between Edinburgh and other corporations. These corporations have a common good sufficient to meet the charge of the maintenance of their clergymen, and they took the property subject to that burden; but here you create a burden—you put a tax on the inhabitants, and ask us to believe that this is not to be looked on as a commuted annuity tax but only as a police rate. I challenge the Govern-

  1109
  ment, and especially my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was one of the eleven Members of the Government who voted last year for the Bill of my hon. Friend, to maintain some consistency on this question, which is not a question of a paltry local kind, but virtually affects religions matters throughout the length and breadth of the land. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to apply to Scotland what is proposed to be done in Edinburgh, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh will be quite prepared to give up the Bill in favour of a Bill on the broad principle of putting the Established Church on the same footing as all the Presbyterian Churches—freeing it from the trammels of the State, and putting it, like the Irish Church, in perfect freedom. Then we would see their means of supporting the clergy increasing manifold. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate seemed to imply this extraordinary position, that the Act of 1860 was passed to sustain the Established Church in extremis—in a state of utter exhaustion. [The LORD ADVOCATE made a gesture of dissent.] I took down, the words of the learned Lord. He said that "the Established Church had not recovered in 1860 from its exhaustion." Was it recovered yet? He did not condescend upon that point. I must say his words struck me as very remarkable, and I do trust he will take means to restore animation to the Church by giving it the freedom which has placed the Irish Church in what its best supporters have begun to acknowledge as a most advantageous position. And I hope the Government will allow this Bill to be read a second time, and that they will then table their proposal—either as a separate Bill, or by giving notice of Amendments on the Bill of my hon. Friend. I trust they will not deprive my hon. Friend of the advantage which he has gained by a proceeding which is tantamount to rejecting the Bill.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that after the challenge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished to say a few words. He believed that the object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was the same as that of the Government—to effect a fair settlement of this question; he thought, however, that the settlement proposed by this Bill was not a good one. It was true that last Session several Members
  1110
  of the Government voted for the second reading of a Bill similar to the present; but it was with the clear understanding that it would not receive the assent of the Government in Committee unless very considerable changes were made in it. The Government had since deliberated as to the course to be pursued during the present Session, and they had come to the conclusion that the best means of attaining the desired object was for the Lord Advocate to bring in a Bill founded upon a different principle from that advocated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, which he believed would receive almost universal assent, both in Edinburgh and elsewhere. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) said, that to adjourn the debate would be to deprive the hon. Member for Edinburgh of the advantages he had obtained from being ready at so early a stage. That was, no doubt, the case to a certain extent; but no time would be lost. On Friday next the Lord Advocate would ask leave to bring in his Bill, and in a few days it would be in the hands of Members. He entertained sanguine hopes that it would command the support of the great majority of that House, and that it would be acceptable to the great majority of Liberal Members. There would be nothing in the principle of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh could object; and it would, he hoped, likewise be acceptable to the clergymen and members of the Established Church of Edinburgh, who would, he was certain, be willing to make any sacrifice compatible with justice for the final settlement of this long-disputed question. Instead of opposing the second reading, it was thought to be less offensive to the hon. Member for Edinburgh to move that the debate be adjourned, so as to give the House an opportunity of considering the proposal about to be made by the Government.
  MR. STEVENSONregarded it as a great misapplication of harbour revenues to take £2,000 a year from the port of Leith, and, instead of applying it to shipping purposes, to appropriate it to the payment of ministers in Edinburgh. Parliament had dealt with many cases of this nature, and he hoped that the Bill would provide for an arrangement of this anomaly on equitable terms.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that after the appeal that had been made to him, he saw no other course but to consent to the adjournment of the debate; because the influence of the Government was so great on that side of the House that it would be useless to go to a division against the Amendment. If the city of Edinburgh were placed in the same position with respect to this matter as Glasgow its inhabitants would be satisfied. Regarding the Bill as being virtually rejected, he threw the whole responsibility upon the Government.
  MR. HADFIELDexpressed his disapprobation of the course which had been taken by the Government with respect to this Bill. To satisfy the people of Edinburgh the Bill must be complete and thoroughgoing, and if this measure were rejected the next movement of the people of Scotland would be not against the annuity tax, but against the Established Church of Scotland.
  Debate adjourned till Wednesday 16th March.

GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 7.]
(Mr. Loch, Sir Robert Anstruther, Mr. Parker.)
GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 7.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that he had an appeal to make to the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Loch) upon the subject of this measure. At the close of last Session the Government had undertaken to deal with the difficult question of the Game Laws of Scotland; but although the Bill was in a forward state, it was not yet in a condition to be laid before the House. He had therefore to request the hon. Member to be kind enough to postpone the second reading of his Bill until that of the Government had been laid before the House. He would undertake, on the part of the Government, that the hon. Member would lose nothing by consenting to this proposition.
  MR. LOCHsaid, he was not unprepared for this application on the part of the Government, because he had been informed yesterday by the Lord Advocate that, in the event of his not consenting to postpone the second reading of his Bill, the Government intended to throw it out. Under these circumstances, he had no option but to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PARKERsaid, that as one whose name was on the back of the Bill, he consented to its postponement with, reluctance, and he wished to remind the Government that by the step they had taken they made themselves responsible not only for the principle of their measure, but also for the time at which it might be brought in. They had lost a Game Bill, and they lost the Scotch Education Bill, last year, from this tendency to put Scotch business aside in favour of Irish and English business; and he therefore hoped that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Loch) would impress upon the Government the importance of introducing and pressing forward their Bill in time to be considered and passed in the other House.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 16th March.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING BILL— [BILL 37.]
(Mr. Plimsoll, Mr. Alderman Carter, Mr. Richard Shaw, Mr. Rylands, Mr. Candlish.)
RAILWAY TRAVELLING BILL— [BILL 37.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. PLIMSOLL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it was an endeavour to secure the comfort of eight-ninths of those who travelled by railway. In so doing they would consult not only the advantage of the passengers, but would promote the pecuniary interest of the railways themselves, as all improvements were certain to do in the long run; and therefore by providing foot-warmers for the use of their second and third-class passengers railway companies would increase instead of diminish their profits. Twenty-five years ago third-class carriages were open and without seats, and the consequence was that there were but few passengers; whereas now that they were covered and had seats and windows the number of passengers was enormously increased, and the revenue of the railways was correspondingly augmented. Let the railway companies, therefore, go on diminishing the discomforts of their third-class passengers, and they would find that they had more and more to divide among their shareholders. To prove the serious consequence of neglecting to provide some apparatus for warming the second and third-class carriages, he might mention that an official on one of the largest railways in England had informed him that during the recent

  1113
  severe weather the traffic upon his line had diminished by £2,000 per week, and, doubtless, there had been a similar reduction in the receipts of all other lines in the kingdom. He had been informed that the only obstacle that prevented many of the companies from adopting the method he suggested of adding to the comfort of their passengers was that they had entered into an agreement with other companies to provide foot-warmers solely for the use of first-class passengers, and were that restriction upon their free will removed, they would at once supply them, when necessary, to their second and third-class passengers. He was also informed by a railway authority that the expenditure involved in the matter would be comparatively trifling, because it was only the first cost of the bottles that was worth speaking about, the expense of providing hot, water at the various stations being next to nothing, while not a single extra servant would be required. It had been stated that if the third class were made too comfortable it would deplete the first class of its passengers; but people rode in the first class in summer, when no hot-water bottles were required, equally as they did in winter. Another objection that had been raised to his proposal was, that its object was beneath the dignity of Parliament. Well, but, Parliament had not thought it beneath its dignity to direct that smoking-carriages should be provided and to care for the comfort of cattle when travelling on a railway; and, surely, the comfort and the health of men, women, and children were of equal importance with that of cattle? The amount of suffering endured, especially by women, children, and invalids, was very great, especially in Lancashire, where the operatives were accustomed to work in a moist atmosphere the temperature of which was usually 70 degrees, which rendered them less able to resist the cold than hon. Members, who rode exclusively in the first class. By the latest Return, that for 1867, he found that while the first class passengers in that year were 31,000,000, the second and third-class passengers, taken together, numbered 254,000,000, and therefore his cause was respectable, inasmuch as it concerned the comfort of such a vast number of people. The remedy for the evil was perfectly easy, and many of the best
  1114
  companies were anxious that the Bill should pass. Believing that the change, if carried out, would be extremely beneficial to the public, he trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he gave the hon. Gentleman full credit for the best possible motives in introducing the Bill; but he was surprised that it did not occur to him that if the principle of the Bill should be once established it would be necessary to go much farther. The evils complained of arose more from want of warm clothing and proper food than want of foot-warmers, the allowance of two of which to each carriage would go a very short way indeed to relieve them. If the proposition now before the House should be agreed to, companies might for all he could see soon be required to supply their third-class passengers with hot brandy and water, hot luncheons, and railway rugs. He objected to the principle of the Bill, and for the reason that the railway companies had obtained their Acts subject to certain conditions which had been well considered with a view to the protection both of public and private interests. The bargain had been made; Parliament had already sealed its conditions, and shareholders had invested their money under them, and it would not now be right to impose additional liabilities upon them, and take money out of their pockets, to carry out the object of the hon. Member. The companies had been constantly adding to the comfort of their passengers of all classes, and they might safely be allowed to follow up that course without Parliamentary interference. Under these circumstances, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out I the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsupported the Amendment. He did not see the necessity for imposing any new restrictions on companies, and thought it undignified for the House to waste its

  1115
  time so long in discussing whether warming pans should be placed in railway carriages.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLremarked that the fact of railway companies having of late years, of their own accord, greatly improved railway carriages where there were deficiencies in point of comfort, was a proof that they intended to go on in that course, and were determined to provide additional comforts where it was practicable. The present Bill would upset the systems on which railway companies had hitherto acted, and he believed that an examination of its details, as for instance, among many others, the requirement to provide these foot-warmers at stations where they could not be kept ready, would show that its working was totally impracticable.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 108: Majority 82.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  STEAM BOILERS INSPECTION BILL.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the periodical inspection of Steam Boilers.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY B. SHERIDAN and Dr. LUSH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 58.]
  House adjourned at a quarter alter Five o'clock.