HC Deb 28 April 1875 vol 223 cc1780-93

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. M'LAREN

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that, looking at the time of day—4.15, P.M.—and the importance of the question, he should be unjust to hon. Members holding opinions different from his own if he made a long speech. He should, therefore, be brief, in order to give those who were opposed to his views an equal time with himself. Lest any hon. Member of the House might suppose he had been anxious to bring this question forward, he begged to say he had done everything in his power to induce the Government to bring a Bill themselves. When the question was brought before the House last Session, nearly all the Members who spoke on his side of the House urged the Government to bring in a measure of their own. With that sentiment he cordially concurred, expressing, at the same time, his opinion that it was not a question which a private Member could carry, but was a question which could only be carried by the Government. It had been said that he and his hon. Friends who supported him were anxious to bring this question before the House with a desire to make political capital. If any hon. Member thought that of him, he was much mistaken. The people of Scotland intensely felt the grievance under which they now laboured. The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) proposed last Session, in an able speech, views which he (Mr. M'Laren) now ventured to bring forward in his Bill. The hon. and gallant Member said, the Resolution he then proposed pledged the House to find a remedy for the existing state of things, and asked the Lord Advocate to undertake the duty. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who seconded, expressed similar views. Again, the hon. Baronet the Member for Peeblesshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) said, that a disagreeable feeling undoubtedly did prevail in Scotland with regard to this question; and he thought no Member of the House more competent to deal with it than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House urged the Government to bring in a Bill on this subject; and before he (Mr. M'Laren) replied, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) told him that if he would not insist on a division, the Lord Advocate would publicly pledge himself to bring in a Bill next Session. He then said he should be willing to withdraw his Bill on that assurance. What, then, did the Lord Advocate do, as the Representative of the Government? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said— It shall be my endeavour to bring in next Session such a Bill as will meet, if possible, the difficulties which have been stated in the course of this discussion …… If it does not give complete satisfaction, I hope it will at least approach that result. Under the circumstances, I trust my hon. and gallant Friend, to whose industry and information we are so much indebted, will not press his Resolution, and that the hon. Member for Edinburgh will withdraw a Bill which, in any case, could not usefully be proceeded with during the short period that remains of the present Session."—[3 Hansard, ccxx. 1322.] In place of making a long speech in reply, he (Mr. M'Laren) said only a few words—that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that he intended to bring a Bill, he should be quite content to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, because he admitted it was a question which ought to be dealt with by them rather than by a private Member. That was how the question stood at the end of last Session of Parliament. At the commencement of the present Session he was, unfortu- nately, through illness, unable to be in his place, but the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was good enough to introduce the Bill, and he then told the hon. Member that whatever might be the chance of his ballot for an early day, he was not to fix one within two months of the commencement of the Session, in order to give the Lord Advocate time to bring in his Bill. At a later day, he put a Notice on the Paper to ask what day that Bill would be brought in, and before it came on, his right hon. and learned Friend asked him to postpone the Question some little time, as he had not yet got instructions from the Cabinet. He did postpone the Question, and he postponed the second reading until that day, when nearly one-half of the Session was passed. He said this, not to upbraid his right hon. and learned Friend in the matter, but to show that he had not been pressing the measure unduly on the House. On the contrary, he had been most anxious that the Government should take it up, and he would give them every possible facility in his power. Having made that preliminary explanation, he must revert to some of the objections which were made last Session regarding the Bill. He had obtained facts since that time to show that these objections were ill-founded. He might state some of the alleged cases of hardship. Excessive rates had been levied on poor people, as he would show by the result of careful inquiries made by competent authority. In the case of the Orkney and Shetland Islands, which he particularly dwelt upon, it was denied that there were hardships he had stated. He had mentioned one case where the rate levied was 12s. 5d. in the pound. Doubts were thrown on that fact; now, he had most undoubted authority for stating that the rate of 12s. 5d. in the pound was levied in one of those Shetland parishes, and the Free Church minister whose manse and garden were rated at £159s., was assessed at £9 16s. In Orkney he heard also, from a gentleman of undoubted authority, that the heritors of St. Andrews—six miles from Kirkwall—had just built a manse for the minister of that parish at a cost of £655, and office-houses £210—in all, £865. A handsome sum to pay for the accommodation of a minister having, according to his own showing, not more than 45 communicants. Most of the people in the parish preferred walk- ing a distance of six miles to Kirkwall, and had done so for 40 or 50 years, rather than worship in the parish church. In the parish of Lady in the Island of Sanday, a manse, &c, had been put up at a cost of over £700. The Rev. John Dangerfield, the minister of this parish, said he had 25 communicants; the average attendance at his church was about 12, and never exceeded 24; while in the immediate neighbourhood the Dissenting Churches were attended—the Free Church by 300 persons, and the United Presbyterian Church by 500, the membership of the former being returned to the General Assembly as 358, and of the latter to the United Presbyterian Synod as 507. Rather than build a new manse the heritors of the parish of Evie had, during the past few months, put repairs costing £469 upon the manse. The average attendance at the parish church of Evie was not more than 90, while that of the Free Church congregation, almost next door, considerably exceeded 200. Indeed, the membership of the Free Church was given at 265, while that of the Established Church for the combined parishes of Evie and Rendal was given in the Return presented to the House of Commons at 213. Was it not hard that poor people who supported their own ministers should be fleeced for ministers of the Established Church? It was called the Church of Scotland, but it was not the Church of Scotland in any sense whatever, more particularly in those parishes; for as he had shown the congregations there were in most instances smaller than those in the Free Church. With one other case, and one only, he would trouble the House, because it was one that was particularly used last Session. In the course of the debate last Session, a statement was made to the effect that the Clerk of the Cairston Presbytery had informed the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire that the manse of Harray, which had cost the heritors £1,800, had cost so much in consequence of the heritors having disputed among themselves, and further, that Lord Zetland had paid almost half the amount. He (Mr. M'Laren) had made inquiry into this matter, and found that the buildings did actually cost the heritors £1,800; that there was no dispute among them, except in so far as the parish minister, who was also a land- owner in the parish, desired, along with the Presbytery, to compel the heritors to build a manse which would have cost nearly £3,000. This the heritors refused to do. The Presbytery were afraid to go into Court, and the compromise of £1,800 was agreed to. Lord Zetland acted along with the other heritors all through in this matter, and simply paid his legal proportion of the cost; the other proprietors, chiefly very small and poor, had many of them to sell their pigs and cows to meet this most iniquitous demand. A case such as that showed how much existed of hardship and injustice which ought to be remedied. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) last year went fully into the origin and incidence of this question. He showed that church rates in Scotland were optional under the Act of 1649 just as much as church rates in England were optional; but that in course of time it became otherwise. He showed also that the Parliament of Scotland imposed a maximum amount, that no more than £83 6s. 8d. should be imposed for erecting a manse; but by a decision of the Courts in Edinburgh—Judge-made law—the sum was raised to £1,000, or more, as might be thought fit from time to time. Even if a man's house was rated at only £4 a-year, he was legally liable for his share, under the present law as interpreted by the Courts, for erecting a manse for the minister of the parish. When it was said that the cases of the two countries were not exactly the same, let him remind hon. Members that in England the incumbent was not entitled to a manse at all at the cost of the people. He was bound to pay for keeping up his dwelling himself, and if he left it in a dilapidated state, his successor could proceed against his heirs, and compel them to put it in a proper condition. All the Scotch ministers had to do was to declare the manse was not in a proper state, and they could get an assessment to put it right. One great evil had been the extension of this Act to small proprietors—feuars, as they were called—in Scotland. It was not intended, but was so construed owing to the ambiguity of an Act passed for regulating the mode of defining assessments in 1856. It enacted that no burden should be imposed on any man, or on any property which was not formerly legally imposed in respect of the property; but one clause provided that all assessments thereafter should be levied in conformity with this new valuation, and, in practice, the latter clause had been held to overcome the former. If a declaratory Act were passed, stating what was the real effect of the Act of 1856, all the smaller people would be exempted. His right hon. and learned Friend had said the passing of this Bill would have disendowed the parish ministers, by depriving them of a portion of their income. He (Mr. M'Laren) begged altogether to deny that impression. All the Bill did was to transcribe the clauses of the English Act passed in 1868. That Act was passed after many years' battles, and although church rates might still be levied, no legal proceedings could be taken to enforce them. What had been the result? Plenty of money had been raised. There was no difficulty at all about the matter; neither would there be in Scotland. One religious body alone, the Free Church, since 1843 had erected 900 churches. There were only about the same number of original parish churches in Scotland altogether. Suppose all these were overthrown in one year by an earthquake, the Church of Scotland would be able to re-erect them for themselves, as were the Free Church congregations. Surely, then, the voluntary efforts of the friends of the Church would be amply sufficient to keep the fabrics in repair. The Free Church had erected nearly as many manses, and besides that they had erected colleges and schools. The United Presbyterian Church also had 500 churches erected at the expense of those worshipping in them. There had never been any difficulty in getting money for those churches, and he presumed there would be no more difficulty with regard to the Establishment. The Church of Scotland was, however, in a decided minority of the people of Scotland. There were disputes whether that Church had one-third or two-fifths. Most people thought two-fifths was nearer the case than one-third, and he doubted whether it came to two-fifths. Taking the attendance on the Census Sunday, the numbers attending the non-Established Churches were about 60 per cent more than those attending the Established Churches. Presuming he had not misstated these facts, he would ask, was it fair to impose a compulsory rate on poor people who entirely supported their own churches, manses, pastors, and schools, to compel them to contribute towards another Church? His right hon. and learned Friend and various other hon. Members had admitted that was a grievance, and having done all he could himself, he now called upon the Lord Advocate to fulfil his promise and bring in a Bill. He had implicit faith in the good intentions of his right hon. and learned Friend, and he did not believe if it was in his power to do what they desired to be done, it would be left undone. It was the Government which was to blame. He should not further allude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Glasgow; but he did say that the Government had entered into an undertaking and had failed to fulfil that undertaking, and the people of Scotland would resent this failure. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. M'Laren.)

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

said, the difference between himself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was that, while the latter doubted the promise made by the right hon and learned Lord Advocate, he (Sir Graham Montgomery) believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring in a Bill. There were difficulties in the way; but if he did not do it this Session, he would do it next. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not without hope they would have it this Session. However this might be, the hon. Member for Edinburgh had elected to proceed with the second reading of his Bill, and he (Sir Graham Montgomery) must state the reasons which induced him to move its rejection. The hon. Gentleman had always proceeded on the assumption that assessments in Scotland were the same as church rates in England. That proposition he entirely denied. He would endeavour to show what church rates were in the early history of England. It was stated that their origin was lost in antiquity, and so great was the uncertainty in reference to church rates in the early history of England, that it was felt necessary to have some definition of the law. The consequence was that 13 learned doctors of civil law met in conclave at Doctors' Commons, and endeavoured to put forth to the country definitions as to church rates, and how they were to be levied. These learned doctors issued several directions, but these, he was sorry to say, in course of time were all pronounced to be wrong by the Courts of Law. He then tried to find a definition of church rates, and he found a book in the Library of the House of Commons which defined that church rates were not a Common Law charge, neither were they a charge on land, neither were they a definite permanent charge, but depended on the pleasure of the vestry. The question came up in 1837, in the Braintree Case, when the vestry would not raise a rate, and the churchwardens proceeded to raise one themselves. This was decided by the Court to be illegal. After that a minority of the vestry proceeded to put on a Church rate, and that also was declared to be illegal. Another authority stated, that the Braintree Case completely altered the law, and that church rates, instead of being a burthen on land, became a voluntary payment dependent on the majority of the ratepayers. For many years after 1837 the question of church rates was debated in that House; and, at length, Parliament decided that, though the vestry might continue to impose the rate, payment should not be compelled. With regard to Scotland, he was quite willing to admit that before the Reformation the laws of the two countries were pretty much the same. The parishioners supported the fabric of the church, and the parson the chancel; but after the Reformation, the two countries proceeded in totally different directions. The church rates in England were voluntary assessments; in Scotland they were a charge upon the land. The highest authority on the subject in Scotland stated that the heritors were bound to provide and maintain the church and manse, and burial-ground, for parishioners. This was done by Acts of the Scotch Parliament in 1572 and 1663. The heritors had no option in this matter. It was a burthen on their land. If they failed to do it, there was power to compel them. It was a power inherited by the Presbyteries of the Church from the Bishops, and if the heritors failed to perform their duties, the Presbyteries could appeal to the Sheriff, and then to the Court of Session; so that the payment was in no sense voluntary. He thought in what he had said he had succeeded in showing that this burthen fell entirely upon property, and it was not, he thought, a burthen from which the heritors of Scotland should be relieved. They were not seeking to be relieved from that burthen. He had seen the list of Petitions presented in favour of the hon. Member's Bill, and none of them came from the heritors of Scotland, and he was quite sure that they did not seek to be relieved in the manner proposed by the Bill. The question of commutation had been referred to; but, individually, the more he looked at it the more difficulties he saw in that question. If commutation would have the effect of separating the owners of the land from the Church, as he believed it would, he should oppose it on that ground, although he had formerly expressed an opinion in favour of commutation. Of course there were persons in Scotland who objected to compulsory payments for the support of religion; but it appeared to him that those persons were in possession of property bearing legal burthens which they ought in justice to pay, and there surely could be no objection on their part to pay what was really their legal dues. They took their property upon the understanding that they would have to pay them, and why should they be relieved from them? He objected to such a relief being given, and should consequently move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Graham Montgomery.)

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

MR. ERNEST NOEL

said, he would at once acknowledge that church rates in Scotland were, as a legal matter, on a very different footing from that on which church rates in England had been. In the case of Scotland they were a charge laid upon property, while in England they had been levied upon the individual. But although there was a difference legally, he thought it could be shown that the incidence of the tax became practically the same as it had been in England prior to 1868. So far as church rates were concerned, he would say that since they had been abolished in England, not the slightest difficulty had been found in accomplishing without them all that had formerly been done with them. Indeed greater facilities were found in raising money for Church purposes, and in his opinion, the same result would happen in Scotland. Not only had it been possible in England to do more than could be done when church rates were compulsory, but the sense of irritation and soreness that had existed was at the same time removed, and he believed that the Church of England was really stronger than it had been before those rates were repealed. He would acknowledge at once that church rates in Scotland were assessed upon the land for the building of manses and the building and repairing of churches, and he would also acknowledge that the heritors generally did not wish to be relieved from these charges; but they had heard from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Graham Montgomery) that the more he inquired into the question the more difficult did he find it to bring about any commutation that would be satisfactory. He (Mr. Noel) ventured, however, to point out to hon. Members who were unacquainted with the subject that, as a tax on the feuars, this assessment fell very heavily, and nearly in the same manner as the old church rates had done in England. A most admirable speech on this subject was delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) last Session. It was a speech that should be read by every hon. Member who wished to become acquainted with this subject. That hon. and gallant Member pointed out to the House distinctly that there were three classes of parishes, and he read a list of parishes where there had been no assessment since the memory of man—or, at all events, for a very long time. He then gave the number of parishes where there was no assessment, or where, at all events, it was not paid by the feuars; he also gave cases in which the feuars were assessed, and he quoted instances of parishes in which there had been no assessment—in some for 60 years, some 20 years, and in some none at all. If these discrepancies existed, it did not appear that this was a charge that could be commuted, but one that ought to be removed altogether. When a man took a piece of land, how could he tell how much it was likely that he would have to pay, when in some parishes there had been no assessment for 60 years, and in some there was none at all? Yet, directly he built upon the land, an assessment might take place, and in the following year he might be called upon to pay 4s. 6d. or 5s. in the pound. When they considered that some of these feus had been used for building manses, he asked, was it a reasonable and a fair thing that a heavy tax, quite an irregular tax, a tax that was so irregular that no reliance could be felt as to whether it would be raised or not—was it fair that such a heavy tax should be placed on the feu, when the sum thus raised might be applied to the building of a manse be-longing to a sect different from that which he who paid it belonged? They had been told of the parish of Inveresk, which enjoyed an unenviable notoriety for putting on an assessment, and other instances showed that an absolute want of uniformity existed, and surely it was necessary that they should remove the want of uniformity by taking off the tax forthwith. He thought that in these days they were all agreed upon the general principle that it was not only very unjust, but very unwise to tax persons of one creed for the maintenance of another creed, in which they did not believe, and that such taxes should be at once repealed. This was not like a fixed charge upon property in the way of tithes. A tithe could be estimated, and was estimated, in the purchase of land; its amount was perfectly well known, and could be said to belong to the property. But in this case it was perfectly clear that the charge was, in many instances, falling upon the feuars, so that it could by no means be termed a fixed charge upon property. That it caused a great amount of soreness in Scotland no one could deny, and he asked whether it was wise, in the interest of the Church of Scotland, that it should any longer be maintained? Some might think it was wise, but he ventured to say that no wise statesman would resolve to continue it. Although he would admit that the hon. Member for Edinburgh was not looked upon as a friend to the Established Church, yet he (Mr. Noel) thought that by the passing of this measure that Church would receive a real accession of strength. Both as a religious body and a Christian Church it would find itself much stronger should the feuars be relieved from the burdens imposed upon them.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, he could not endorse the principle of the Bill, which he believed was framed in the interests of a comparatively small number of people; but he was ready to admit that there were cases of grievances which ought to be remedied, in some parts of Scotland, and more especially in the Orkney Islands. His own experience, moreover, convinced him that in the majority of cases the Church authorities showed no disposition to impose the rate on people who objected to it. But to say that they were to entirely remove an impost which had been for many years on the land of Scotland, merely to alleviate the evils complained of by a few persons, was a matter which he did not think the House of Commons would sanction. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had said that the Church of Scotland embraced only two-fifths of the people; but he (Mr. Stewart) differed from that statement, and thought there were more people connected with the Established Church than the hon. Member seemed to think. He should like to quote a few statistics. According to the Return of the Registrar General, 82.02 per cent of the people of Scotland were married by the clergy of the three leading Presbyterian Churches. In 1870—the last year, he believed, for which Returns were published—the numbers were 44.76 per cent in the Church Scotland, 22.91 in the Free Church, and 14.35 in the United Presbyterian Church. Then, as regarded education, the Commissioners in their Report for 1867 showed a Church connection of about 2,000,000 out of the 3,000,000 of the population of Scotland, or 81.3 per cent. connected with these three Churches, of which 44.4 per cent were Church of Scotland, 26.1 the Free Church, 10.7 the United Presbyterian, and 10 per cent were unclassed. In the Return given to the General Assembly, in May, 1874, of the adherents of the various Churches, out of a population of 1,704,837 embraced in the Return, 813,149, or 47.7 per cent. belonged to the Established Church. As to the number of communicants, he was speaking from memory, but he believed that in 1871 there were something like 436,000 belonging to the Established Church, 285,300 to the Free Church, and 165,000 to the United Presbyterian. These figures showed that the Established Church was much stronger than the hon. Member wished to make out. As regarded the Bill, he would repeat that he was perfectly ready to relieve the grievances which were justly complained of, but he was not prepared to give into the hands of the heritors that money, the payment of which they did not at present grudge. They should recollect that the Established Church possessed 1,160 churches throughout the country, and they should also recollect that the present incumbents of parishes had taken their livings believing that their manses, churchyards, and churches would be properly kept up but, if the Bill passed, they would leave those incumbents in a difficult position. That was not a proper thing to do, especially at a time when they were promised a Bill by the Government. As grievances did exist, however, he would willingly give what assistance he could to the settlement of the question on an equitable footing, and he had no hesitation in believing that the Lord Advocate was sincere in his intention to deal with this subject, and therefore he should vote against the Bill.

MR. VANS AGNEW

said, he was unwilling that the House should go to a division on the Bill, because they were aware that the Lord Advocate had promised to deal with the subject. He was quite ready to remedy any legitimate grievance which might be complained of, but he could not agree with the remedy proposed in the Bill, and he would therefore rather wait for the measure of his right hon. and learned Friend. He believed his right hon. and learned Friend intended to settle the question not perhaps, entirely in accordance with the wishes of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, but in a manner satisfactory to Scotland generally. He admitted that there existed some hardships with reference to the feuars, and they were all anxious that they should be removed, though not in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh—namely by the total abolition of what he termed church rates. He would not enter at length into the question, but he would point out that church assessments in Scotland were not the same thing as church rates in England; they were, in fact, more like the tithes than church rates. He thought it would be very much better if they tried to lay their heads together and come to some understanding which would be a practical settlement of the question. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to give some pledge that he would be able to bring in a Bill which would settle the matter, and he hoped the House would not be called upon to express an opinion upon the subject then. To abolish the charge according to the terms of the Bill would be to rob the Church of the value of these assessments and put the money into the pockets of the heritors who did not ask for it. It was not the original intention of the law that these feuars should be assessed, and what he would suggest was, that they should revert to the original intention of the law, and let the tax fall upon the land, and if the land had been feued, let the feuar pay upon the ground rent and not upon the houses. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh would accept this settlement, he would get a great deal of what he asked for, and he believed it would remove the grievance which he admitted was at present complained of.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he was of opinion that the Bill was one which it would be best to leave in the hands of the Government. Indeed, it ought not to be dealt with by a private Member at all.

MR. M'LAREN

gave Notice that on an early day he would again bring the Bill forward.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.