HC Deb 05 July 1871 vol 207 cc1166-85

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. M'LAREN

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was exactly the same as the Bill of last year, and which, although it was unsuccessful, received the support of no less than 108 independent Members. It was an exact transcription of the English Act for the abolition of church rates, with the exception of the substitution of such Scotch phrases for English expressions as were necessary for our Courts of Law. In all other respects the Bill was identical with the English Act now in force. Its principle was not to abolish church rates in Scotland, but to take away the power of enforcing payment of those rates by any process of law; and they know, from the experience of England, that the English Act had worked admirably, and that many who were before opposed to the compulsory payment of church rates, now paid them voluntarily; and that, so far from there being any difficulty, on the contrary, in the great majority of parishes, the Church was far better supported than it was before. Seeing, then, the good results which had followed the abolition of church rates in England, those who promoted this Bill hoped the same results would follow in Scotland, and that the irritation which now undoubtedly existed in Scotland on account of church rates would be done away with. The reason why he had delayed the second reading to so late a period of the Session was that the Lord Advocate, in addressing his constituents before the meeting of Parliament, had indicated his intention of bringing in a Bill on this subject; and he had therefore stated his intention that, though it was his intention to introduce the Bill at the earliest possible period of the Session, he should reserve the second reading to such a period as would give the Government an opportunity of introducing any Bill which they might think proper on the subject. But since his expectations had been disappointed in that quarter, nothing remained for him but to proceed with his own Bill. The objections made last year to this Bill were various. It was said that the assessment in Scotland for the erection of churches and manses was in its incidence totally different from the incidence of church rates in England; but having paid considerable attention to this, both in Scotland and England, he altogether denied that. He knew of no argument which would support the proposition that the payment of money for the erection of churches and manses in Scotland was not identical with the payment of church rates in this country. He admitted that in Scotland it was commonly called an "assessment." But it might be argued, on the same grounds, that there was no poor rate in Scotland, because this Act did not direct that a "poor rate" should be levied, but that an assessment should be made for the support of the poor. The fact, however, was that for years these rates were known in Scotland as "church rates," and nothing else. Again, it was argued that the English church rate was levied on the occupier, while the Scotch was levied upon the owner; and therefore the two things could not be compared. But take the case of the poor rates. In England, as everybody knew, the poor rate was levied on the occupier—but did anyone contend that the rate was not essentially a burden on land? And was it not self-evident that the poor rate was always taken into account by the occupier in taking a lease? But in Scotland the poor rate was paid half by the occupier and half by the owner. But did anyone in the slightest degree acquainted with the elementary doctrines of Adam Smith contend that that made the slightest difference in the actual incidence of the tax? Did it make the slightest difference between the incidence and the burden of the poor rate in England and Scotland, because only one-half the rate was paid by the tenant in Scotland, and the whole was paid by him in England? Was it not, then, equally certain that it made not the slightest difference that in Scotland the church rate was levied directly upon the landowner, and not upon the occupier? Then it was said that the people of Scotland did not know the rate by name of a church rate. He had already said that, properly speaking, it was a "church assessment;" and he could assure the hon. Member who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the measure (Mr. Gordon) that if his objections could be got over by the substitution of the word "assessment" for the word "rate" in the Bill, he (Mr. M'Laren) should be most happy to make the change; but although those imposts in the main were called assessments, they were known in Scotland as church rates, and nothing else. Then it was said that they were a charge upon land alone, and not upon persons in towns, and therefore that persons in towns should not bother themselves about the question. But there could be no greater mis-statement. The fact was, that under the existing law, church rates were leviable upon every acre of land and every cottage and workshop, and every manufacturer or occupier of any kind of tenement whatever throughout the whole of Scotland. With reference to the argument that the question did not concern towns, but only counties, and therefore that borough Members had less to do with this question than county Members, hon. Gentlemen who took up that line of argument would soon be convinced of its fallacy if they only inquired a little into the facts. If they looked at the last census they would find the population of the towns of Scotland put down at 2,000,000, and the population of the counties at less than 1,500,000; and he must remind them that to make up the population of the counties there had been included an element which ought to have been excluded—namely, the population of towns of 3,000 and under. If the population of those towns were deducted, and the population of towns in rural districts added to the town population, the disparity between the population of the towns in Scotland would be much greater. Hon. Gentlemen also seemed to think that the only valuable property in Scotland consisted only of their own broad acres; but there could be no difficulty in showing that the property in towns was of far greater value, and yielded much more rates for local purposes. Take the county of Edinburgh for an example. The county was 16 miles long by 13 broad, and was assessed at £483,000, and on that amount it was assessed to the rate for building manses and churches. But the towns of Leith, Portobello, and Musselburgh, covered an area of nine square miles, and were assessed at £1,480,000—five times the amount of the county. With respect to Leith alone, the rental had advanced in 15 years from £117,000 to £234,000, or just double. He doubted whether the rental of land had advanced a shilling an acre. Portobello had advanced from £16,000 to £30,000, Edinburgh from £452,000 to £1,250,000. What was the effect as regarded the question between land and houses—giving the land every possible benefit? Assuming that 350 acres of land had been taken and covered with houses and gardens, and that the rental—they being in the near vicinity of towns, was £10 an acre—the land would have lost an agricultural rental of £35,000, and gained a building rental of £250,000. Even supposing all these buildings assessed to the church rate, there would still be a part of the parish not built upon, which would have to pay a mere trifle, the real burdens falling almost wholly on the towns. Yet they were gravely told this was not a question for the towns, but for the rural parishes. The hon. Member then read various statements showing how oppressively this burden fell upon the poorer classes. At Riccarton, for instance, the heritors, without giving the smaller proprietors any intimation of their intention, repaired the manse at an expense of £700; resulting in a rate of 8¾d. per pound, for which the poor miners of Hurlford were suddenly summoned. At St. Ninians, the heritors having imposed an assessment of £1,300, the collector raised actions in the Small Debts Court against those who had conscientious objections to pay, and sold their clocks and furniture. At Cambusnethan, a whole year's valued rent had been paid in 12 years; and 10 per cent of the total rental of the parish had been expended in repairing the manse in the present year. Nor was it only from the poorer owners that these representations came. The great and important body the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland had presented Petitions—one of which the hon. Gentleman read—declaring that the levying of such rates was felt by many to be a heavy burden and a great grievance, and especially by that undoubted majority of the Scottish people who did not belong to the Established Church, and who supported their own religious institutions, and praying Parliament to pass a Bill which proposed to enact, that no action should be raised or diligence used to enforce or compel a payment of any church rates or assessments made in any parish or place in Scotland. The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Town Councils of Edinburgh, Dundee, Greenock, and other large towns, had presented Petitions to the same effect. If the Established Church were a large majority some defence might, perhaps, be made for it; but when it was a small minority of the whole people on whom those unjust exactions were made, the case was very bad. He had received a great number of letters on the subject, but he would only read one, written by a gentleman from one of the Western Islands. He stated there were four Established parochial churches in his island— One church has no congregation but the parson and his wife and parish teacher. In another there are only the parson, his two servants, and the parish teacher and his young family; in a third, about a dozen hearers; in a fourth, the parson, his sister, and three hearers; and in a fifth, the parson, and wife, and family, and fifteen of a congregation. No. 2 has a good manse, and church, and glebe, but, forsooth, because they don't come up exactly to the most recent of modern requirements, the minister has applied to have a new manse and church built for him. If he succeeds, two Free Church ministers and congregations, as small heritors holding pews, will have to contribute. Could flesh and blood stand such a thing as that? The hon. Member then read some statistics of the Highland and northern parishes of Scotland, showing the extraordinary disproportion, of the church accommodation and the attendance. For instance—

Population. Churches. Attendance.
Orkney 5,869 5 87
Caithness 16,000 6 85
Ross-shire 32,000 16 186
The Established Church, in short, scarcely comprised five out of every hundred, and yet for the support of this caricature of a Church there was expended of national funds in those districts between £25,000 and £30,000 a-year. Another abstract had been given to him, showing the funds voted to the Established Church of Scotland from the public funds. There were 14 churches which received £1,606 out of the public taxes of the United Kingdom. The aggregate attendance was 133, and in two churches there were no attendants at all—one of these was well known to the Home Secretary, the appointment to which he filled up about two years ago, as he was bound to do by Act of Parliament. He was compelled to make this appointment, and find a stipend to a man who had not a single soul to preach to. He thought he had now said enough with regard to the evils attending the present system. Having considered the various suggestions made with the view of avoiding his present proposition, he had not been able to find one that appeared to him feasible. It had been proposed to exempt the feuars; but he thought it would be impossible to do that, on account of the conditions under which an immense proportion of the estates were held. To exempt the whole of the feuars was manifestly impossible; and he thought it would be equally impracticable to exempt the smaller feuars, because wherever land was disposed of for building purposes there was a clause inserted in the agreement to the effect that the party took it into his possession for ever as to relieving the original owner from all burdens—the minister's stipend, the schoolmaster's stipend, local rates, &c. How, in such a case, could Parliament interfere for such a purpose? Again, it had been proposed to tax the land upon which a building was erected, without taxing the building itself. That might have been very equitable a century ago; but it would cause dire confusion and most absurd consequences if it were carried out now, because every new addition made to the rental of the towns took so much burden off the country generally. In 1809, Lord Chancellor Eldon pronounced a decision in the Peterhead case, to the effect that when a house had been built it was not to be distinguished from the land on which it stood, but to be assessed as part and parcel of the land; therefore if they were to undo a state of things which had existed for 60 years, and upon the basis of which a large number of bargains had taken place, they would throw burdens most unjustly upon other persons. They would not get ten men in the House to vote for such a proposal. Nothing therefore, remained but just to do the same manner of justice for Scotland as had been done for England. In England those who had the management of church rates still sent round the papers to the ratepapers; they did everything, in short, that used to be done, with the exception of enforcing payment by seizing furniture. Let the House do for Scotland what was done for England, and he had no doubt that in the great majority of the parishes of Scotland it would be perfectly easy to collect rates. He should have been delighted to leave this question in the hands of the Government — he was anxious that they should at least print their Bill; but it seemed as though nothing would induce them to show their plan—or they might fear that it would be rejected. But even if that were so, if they only introduced their Bill it would have been some evidence of action next Session. But as they had done nothing, he had no course to pursue but to move the second reading of his own Bill.

Mr. CARNEGIE

, in seconding the Motion, said, that the more he had considered this question, and the more he had heard it discussed, the more he was convinced that the present state of the law tended to cause great unpopularity to the Church of Scotland—an unpopularity which was, to a certain extent, reflected upon the Court of Session. He thought the feeling against church assessments was increasing not only amongst the smaller, but also amongst the larger proprietors. An attempt had been made to draw a distinction between church rates in England and those assessments in Scotland. It would, perhaps, have been better if the title of the Bill had been "The Ecclesiastical Assessments Bill;" but that was a mere question of name, and hardly worth mentioning. The question was one of principle. Whatever might have been the difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland as to the maintenance of ecclesiastical buildings, they were essentially the same in principle—that principle being that ecclesiastical buildings should be maintained by assessment leviable upon people whether they liked it or not. In England the system had been changed, and now it was not compulsory on anyone to pay anything on account of any ecclesiastical building. If, then, there was any difference before, the divergence was now greater; and if the principle which was carried out some years ago with regard to church rates in England were sound, the principle on which ecclesiastical assessments were founded in Scotland must be unsound. He did not see how the one could be right, and the other right as well. He therefore called upon the Government, in the name of consistency, either to support this Bill for Scotland, or to bring in a Bill to repeal the Church Rates Abolition Act passed for England.

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

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh and the hon. Member who seconded his Motion had attempted to show that there was no difference between the case of English church rates and that of similar rates in Scotland. It appeared to him, however, that there was a very great difference. If he understood what was the law in England before the alteration, it was this—that a church rate could not be levied where the majority of the ratepayers refused to vote a rate — even though the fabric of the church might fall to pieces in consequence, the majority could not be compelled to make a rate. In Scotland the case was quite different. The owners of land in that country were bound to repair the churches—they had no option in the matter. If the heritors would not do their duty as regarded the repair of a church, the Presbytery, in the first place, had power to compel them to do so; and in the event of a difference between the Presbytery and the heritors, there was an appeal to the sheriff, and the sheriff had power to decide that the church should be repaired, or even another erected. As to the hon. Member's statistics as to the broad acres of the country and houses in towns, it seemed to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) most unreasonable to refuse to pay the charges on property because that property had become infinitely more valuable. He did not know on what authority the hon. Member's statistics rested—nor how he came to the conclusion that the members of the Church of Scotland were in a minority. It was his (Sir Graham Montgomery's) belief that the Church of Scotland numbered more adherents than all other religious denominations together. He believed that the majority of landowners in Scotland—even though the great majority of them were Episcopalians—were quite willing to continue to pay this tax. It would be most unfair to take the endowments of the Church of Scotland and hand them over to the heritors. They were a charge upon the land, and there was no reason whatever for excusing parties who bought their property with a perfect knowledge that it was so; there was no reason for allowing them to go scot free, escaping from a burden which properly belonged to them. He hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. GRAHAM

believed that at least one-half of the people of Scotland were deeply imbued with the principle of religious equality, and felt that to compel a man by law to support a religious system to which he conscientiously objected was altogether wrong. There was such a wide-spread feeling of dissatisfaction with regard to church assessments that they must sooner or later be abolished; and he thought it was lamentable that a Government professing such principles as the present Government had professed with regard to religious equality should, in order to avoid differences of opinion, be maintaining in that case a principle which on questions of a similar nature it long since abandoned. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Graham Montgomery) had stated that the landlords were willing to pay this tax. If that were so, why should they throw the burden upon the feuars? There was scarcely a landlord in Scotland who granted feus who did not do so on the understanding that the feuar should take the responsibility of the payment of this tax. He looked upon this matter as one simply of principle, and he objected to being compelled to pay for the support of a system of which he did not approve. Unless the Government gave some assurance that they would bring in a satisfactory measure of their own, he hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that this was a matter of principle—the principle whether the Established Church of Scotland was to be disestablished and disendowed, and he submitted that the proper course to adopt would be to challenge the principle of the Establishment instead of nibbling at one of its incidents. But so long as the Church of Scotland was established, if the great body of the landlords of Scotland, who really paid the tax, and who, in the main, were Dissenters, did not object to pay this tax, where was the injustice? Every existing feu was granted on the distinct understanding that it was to be charged and subject to this assessment, and therefore where could be the injustice to the feuar? It seemed a most extraordinary thing to him that the feuars, having voluntarily accepted this arrangement, and with their eyes open, should come to Parliament and ask to be set free from it. He understood that the Government promised last Session to consider this question during the Recess; but up to the present time he had not heard that they had introduced any Bill, or were likely to do so. He should certainly like to hear from some Member of the Government what were their mature views on the subject. Believing that the principle of the Bill, as described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, was nothing more nor less than disendowment and disestablishment, he (Lord John Manners), as a Dissenter from that Church of Scotland, declined to accept the proffered boon.

MR. ANDERSON

was sorry to have to take up a position different to that of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Graham). If this was a question of religious equality, he would vote for it; but this assessment appeared to him nothing more than a simple question of the obligations of property. The property owners had bought, sold, and inherited it for generations, subject to this burden—the assessment belonged to the State Church, and if Parliament were to take it away from that Church they ought assuredly not to make a present of it to the individual proprietors. It was not only wrong, but very stupid, in his opinion, for the Dissenters to go in for this piece of Church robbery. If, as was very probable in the course of a few years, this House might think proper to disendow and disestablish the Established Church of Scotland, the more property they had to hand over to the State the better. No doubt the existing state of things caused a certain amount of irritation in a few places; but it was amongst the small feuars, and not elsewhere, and could be remedied in another way. He must express his regret that the Government had not brought in the Bill which they promised last year; and while he was prepared to offer all the opposition he could to the present Bill, as unjust and improper, he trusted the Lord Advocate would give the House some indication of what the Government intended to do next Session on this question.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, the reason he voted for this Bill last year was that he might have an opportunity of amending one, at least, if not more, of its clauses in Committee. At that time he was extremely anxious to express the strong opinions he held on this subject, but unfortunately the Bill was rejected. He wished to guard himself now, as he should have done then, against the supposition that he was in favour of doing away with the assessment upon land in Scotland for the repairing of churches and manses. He was a member of that Church, and he was also an heritor, and he should consider it nothing short of sacrilege to take the money which belonged to the Church of Scotland and put it into his own pocket. The position, however, as regarded the feuars was different, and he strongly objected to their being called upon to pay this assessment, because the burden had been laid on them since the introduction of the valuation roll. Some alteration, he thought, should be made with regard to them. Something had been said as to the relative numbers of the members of the Church of Scotland and the Dissenting Churches. Statistics were generally delusive; but there could be no harm in his expressing the opinion that one-half of the population still adhered to the Church of Scotland; but even supposing they were the majority, he did not think any feuar who belonged to a Dissenting Church should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of a Church to which he did not belong.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he was not one of those who wished to relieve the property of Scotland from the burden it had so long borne of maintaining the fabric of the church—and he was a Dissenter from that communion; but, at the same time, he must admit that there were grievances which called for a remedy. The question of church rates, as they were termed popularly, in England and Scotland had always been on a different footing. One great grievance in England with regard to church rates was that the property of the occupiers was called upon year by year to contribute to the ordinary worship of the Church. That was the real sore which contributed in no small degree to the overthrow of that impost. In Scotland it was quite different—they had no such charge; but with regard to the charge for the maintenance of the church, the position in Scotland was much worse, the charge falling most seriously upon the small proprietors. With regard to manses, if the law of Scotland was on the same footing with that of England, and the incumbents were required to maintain their houses in tenantable repair, one-half the grievance would disappear. With regard to the burden as respected churches, he thought that if the proprietors, in regard to one portion of the burden, were put on a fair footing, and if, in regard to the other, the sums which they were to pay were commuted in an equitable manner, and the administration of the fund left to somebody appointed by the Church of Scotland to act for them, the burden would be reduced to such slight dimensions that it would cease to be a practical grievance at all. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had given the Government every opportunity of producing their measure—and was even now willing to consider any Bill the Lord Advocate might propose; but he would venture to suggest that if any action was to be taken it must be prompt. If the Church of Scotland stood out tenaciously upon their rights and did not exert themselves, or those who acted in their interest, to produce a reasonable settlement, the present system could not last. But if Her Majesty's Government should see their way to propose something, he trusted it might be conceived in a conciliatory spirit, and put an end to that which, as at present levied, was certainly a very onerous burden, and called for an immediate remedy.

MR. C. DALRYMPLE

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet that there were certain grievances connected with this subject in the case of small occupiers of land which should be removed. But did the Bill of the hon. Member for Edinburgh seek only to redress that grievance? The fact was that the hon. Member for Edinburgh was the worst enemy of the cause which he professed to desire to serve. He introduced last year a measure which went far beyond the grievance which really existed, and the consequence was that the Bill was thrown out by a very large majority, and he trusted the present Bill would meet with the same fate. The hon. Member attempted by this Bill to undermine church property, very much in the same way as he attempted to do it in former years by his Annuity Tax Bill in connection with Edinburgh. He wished the hon. Member would raise the question openly, and make a direct Motion for the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member seemed to prefer to act as a sort of sapper and miner, rather than as a brave captain of a forlorn hope. Still, he had some sympathy with the hon. Member, who had, at least, proposed to remedy a grievance—but he had not a word to say for Her Majesty's Government, whose policy seemed to be, on this as on other occasions—"We cannot pass measures ourselves, and we are resolved nobody else shall." The Bill went far beyond what was necessary, and, therefore, he must oppose it.

MR. ELLICE

said, he entirely sympathized with those who held conscientious objections to be taxed for the support of a Church to which they did not belong. Of this he believed, during a pretty long career in Parliament, he had given ample proof, and on the present occasion he was guided by no different motive. But he thought this Bill went far beyond what its title indicated. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in the very just observations he had made—that the Bill simply handed over to proprietors the funds now legally chargeable upon the land for certain purposes. No matter whether those purposes were civil or ecclesiastical, the land was bought subject to the burden. If it was now relieved from that burden, the proprietors would put the money so saved into their pockets without giving consideration for it. There was neither reason nor justice in that. But he had listened to the observations made on both sides on this occasion. Certain grounds of complaint were admitted, and it seemed to him that a reasonable compromise might be come to which would satisfy all parties. That some arrangement should be come to was daily becoming more necessary for the sake of proprietors. They were subject to certain reasonable charges for the purposes of the church. But latterly the demands for increased accommodation had increased to a degree quite inconsistent with the circumstances, or with what in reason ought to be asked. But dealing with those so-called rates was really dealing with the Church Establishment. In that sense, another point of grave importance—referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh—had to be considered. What was to be done in those places where no charge for maintenance was necessary? His hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) alluded to a large area in Scotland—one third of the whole—where he said a "caricature of a Church exists." He (Mr. Ellice) feared he must concede the justice of that expression. His hon. Friend said that over that large district the Established Church was represented by only 5 per cent of the population. In the great centres of intelligence and industry, he (Mr. Ellice) believed the Established Church was strong in the attachment of a large body of adherents; but in the North it was far different. The state of things there was a reproach which the Government and the Legislature would do well, if even only in the interest of the Church itself, to deal with. He could not vote for this particular Bill, for the reason he had stated. He would not oppose it, because that might indicate an opinion that legislation was unnecessary; but he hoped, if some satisfactory assurance was given by Government that they would take up the matter in another Session, his hon. Friend would be content to leave it in their hands, and to withdraw the present Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh stated quite accurately that in the speech I made to my constituents in the course of the vacation I stated my intention in the course of the present Session to introduce a measure upon the subject of the provision laid down by the law of Scotland for the upholding of churches and manses. The intention I so intimated was expressed subject to the necessary condition that the state of Public Business was such as to permit of its being carried into effect. No one can regret more sincerely than I do that during this Session no opportunity whatever has been afforded for Scotch legislation. I should regret still more—indeed, I should have a very painful fooling—if I could charge myself with any responsibility in the matter; but I think all who hear me will sympathize with what I say, that not a single hour of any Government day since the commencement of the Session has been at my disposal for the despatch of Scotch business, except the very short time of one evening which was granted to us for the discussion of one great measure. I hope I shall not only personally be exonerated from all blame for this state of things, but that no one who considers the matter candidly will be disposed to place blame on Her Majesty's Government. I may have erred in judgment; but, acting in communication with those who are accustomed to advise me in these matters, I thought that with respect to a measure relating to churches and manses, and with respect to some other measures which I had not merely in contemplation, but which were actually prepared, that it was not advisable, with a view to the success of the measures themselves, to introduce them into Parliament without some reasonable prospect of being able to proceed with them. In the course of the speech to which my hon. Friend referred, and I think in addressing the House last Session, I expressed my own objections to church rate by whatsoever name it might be called. I gave my humble support to the Bill by which church rates in England were abolished; and I have, upon principle, an objection to any land being taxed to build or maintain churches and manses; and in so far as the assessments with which this Bill professes to deal resemble in any material respect the compulsory church rate which exists in England, I object to them in Scotland. But it is a wide step from the abolition of compulsory church rates in England to the measure which is now before the House. The assessments with which this Bill professes to deal are applicable, according to the interpretation of the Bill itself, to three distinct purposes—first, the building and maintaining of churches; second, the building and maintaining of manses; and third, for providing or enlarging any glebes—that is, the land given to the clergyman as a part of the provision for his maintenance. For all these purposes the laws of Scotland, from an early period, have made provision. Churches, according to law, are built and uphold by the parishioners—an expression interpreted by very old decisions, and always understood to mean the heritors or landed proprietors of the parish. Manses, in the same way, are provided and upheld as part of the provision of the minister by the same commissioners—namely, the heritors. Glebes in like manner are, under the compulsion of the same law, provided for by substantially the same parties. The law of Scotland, therefore, with respect to churches, stands in very obvious contrast with the law of England. The law of England makes no compulsory provision for building or upholding of churches, with the exception only of the chancel, the burden of upholding which was upon the proprietor of the tithes. As to the body of the church, for the maintenance of that the parishioners, or a certain number of them, were authorized, if they pleased, to impose a church rate, to be levied upon all the occupiers of land and houses in parishes, and that was the only church rate which might or might not be imposed, in the discretion of a certain number of the parishioners, and which, when imposed, was levied upon the occupants of all lands and houses in the parish, and was applicable to keeping in repair the body as distinguished from the chancel of the church. That was the rate for the abolition of which the Act was passed in England. The present Bill is a reproduction or transcript of the English Church Rates Act; but it would take away from the parish clergy their manses and their globes, these being matters with which the English Church Rates Bill had no concern. It may very well be thought by this House, on considering the matter, that the clergy are now very sufficiently and adequately provided for, and that it is no longer necessary for their maintenance that the heritors of a parish should also provide them with houses, to be kept in repair at the expense of these same parishes. This, however, is a subject which would require very careful consideration in connection with the provisions made for the parish clergy. A Bill to deal satisfactorily with this subject must deal with the whole matter, for I think it will be found almost an impossibility to distinguish between feuars and landlords, as my hon. Friend spoke of them in such a manner as to put the burden upon the landlords, and also exempt the feuars. You must find some other line of demarcation, as the House will perceive when I point out to them that, according to the law of Scotland, all landlords are feuars. Indeed, feu-holding is the highest title to property known to the law of Scotland, and what hon. Gentlemen really mean when they speak of feuars as distinguished from landowners, is smaller proprietors as distinguished from larger ones. You speak familiarly of a feuar as a person who has only a house with a garden or a field, and the proprietor of a villa which may be worth some hundreds of pounds a-year is familiarly and properly called a feuar. Therefore, in order to make a line of demarcation, you must say that below a certain amount of value feus shall not be liable to this tax. I do not think you will find perfect harmony between the landed proprietors in determining the exact line to be drawn, below which the liability shall cease to exist, and therefore some other mode of arriving at the result must be devised than any which has been suggested in that direction. I think that from the circumstance of this Bill being a transcript of an Act passed with a totally different object, it is not so prepared as to deal satisfactorily and practically with the subject. Yet, with the object which my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) has in view, I hope I have expressed my entire sympathy and also my resolution on the first opportunity which may be afforded me of attempting to deal with it by a measure introduced into this House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Ellice) when he says that it would be most desirable, in any measure upon this subject, to deal with what is undoubtedly cognate to it—that is, those Highland churches and manses provided by Parliament at a time when the Church numbered a larger portion of the population than it does now. So far as I have been able to ascertain, it would be in accordance with good sense to make provision whereby that accommodation, which is not profitable either to the kingdom or to the Church, might close. I do not know that I should not have been prepared to support this or any other measure which has for its object only the abolition of a tax, assessment, or rate imposed by men belonging to one Church for building or repairing the residences of the ministers of another communion with which they have no concern. I should have been prepared to support this or any other measure introduced for that object which was, in my opinion, a satisfactory and practicable measure on the subject. That, however, is not my opinion of this Bill, and I think it is not fitted to attain the end in view. Indeed, my opinion is that it would be found utterly impracticable; in some respects it would operate with the greatest injustice. As I am of opinion that this Bill is not a satisfactory measure on the subject, I cannot support it. By taking the course, however, of offering no opposition to the second reading, I hope I shall give some additional emphasis to the regret I sincerely feel at my inability to attempt myself to deal with the subject in the course of the present Session.

MR. GORDON

said, he thought fuller explanation was necessary from the Government to explain why this year they were not going to oppose a Bill which the Lord Advocate opposed last year. The hon. Member for Edinburgh was quite wrong in supposing that there was any similarity between church rates as they existed in England prior to 1858 and church assessments in Scotland. The burden in Scotland was so definite and well defined that it required no vote of the parishioners, as it did in England, to secure the payment of the assessment. He quite agreed with the junior Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that the effect of passing this Bill would be to put into the pockets of the landowner's money which did not belong to them. They might as well propose to do away with tithes as to abolish this assessment, because one just as much as the other was a burden upon property. At the same time, there was some grievance as regarded a portion of the assessment, and he concurred in the view which had been thrown out in the course of the discussion that there would be considerable relief in a more equal distribution of the liability. At present the assessment occurred at uncertain intervals, and if it were converted into a small fixed amount benefit would result to all parties. To preserve his own consistency, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. At the same time, he hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would not compel him to take this course, but would withdraw the Bill, leaving the whole question to be dealt with by the Government.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Gordon.)

LORD ELCHO

said, the course proposed to be pursued by the Lord Advocate in relation to this Bill was a most extraordinary though not an unprecedented one. He opposed the principle of the measure and said the Bill was impracticable, yet he would not oppose the second reading. Now, this seemed very extraordinary conduct. If the Government did not approve the Bill, why did they not manfully oppose it? If, on the other hand, they approved, why did they not use their influence in its support? Was the Government, then, going to offer the Bill as a sop to those below the gangway, who were opposed to all church rates, and all Churches and Establishments? He thought the Government were bound to stand up for their own opinions, and not run with the hounds and turn with the hare in this manner. He admitted that the Lord Advocate was not responsible for Scotch legislation presenting this Session a perfect blank; but the Government were to blame for having produced important measures in a shape which called for prolonged discussion while they persisted in refusing to give the House the information which was required in reference to them. The Bill practically meant disestablishment, and as such he opposed it.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, he regretted his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was not present to profit by the lecture the noble Lord had just read him. He thought that the course his hon. and learned Friend intended to take with reference to this Bill had been explained with sufficient clearness. His hon. and learned Friend had not disapproved the principle of the Bill; on the contrary, he approved it, and because he approved it and sympathized with the object of the Bill he would not oppose the second reading. At the same time, he said he did not think the Bill had been drawn so as to attain its object, and he hoped next Session to bring in a Bill which would be more fitly framed to attain its object.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, if the Lord Advocate would follow the practice of his predecessors, and consult with the Scotch Members, much legislation might be passed without troubling the House very considerably. He could not exonerate the Lord Advocate for the block in Scotch business which had taken place this Session, or rather for the utter absence of all legislation for that country. He would take the speech of the learned Gentleman as some amende for his past conduct, and he hoped that he would mend his ways in the future. As to the Bill, he cordially supported it, because it was only an act of justice that the law should not compel people to contribute towards the maintenance of a Church the principles of which they did not approve.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he would accept the promise of the Lord Advocate in the spirit in which it had been made; and if the House would agree to affirm the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time, he would consent not to press it further, but would withdraw it Next year he would also refrain from re-introducing it, leaving the entire responsibility of dealing with the subject with the Government. As to the statement that this Bill meant the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland, all he could say was that if it did, the English Church was already disestablished and disendowed, because this Bill was exactly the same in spirit, intention, and provisions, as an Act already in force in England.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 76: Majority 45.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for this day two months.