The Press. — London, England, 1853-07-23 00:00:00

JULY 23, 1853. dominion over the invaded principalities, asking whe ther it was true that they had occupied the capitals and seized on the whole administration of affairs in those provinces, and also whether their forces were advancing towards the Danube? The Earl of CLARENDON gave the negative infor mation that no intelligence of such matters had reached the Foreign-odice. To the various state ments which had appeared in the papers respecting occurrences such as those alluded to he opposed his own inferences, drawn from the published manifestoes of the Russian generals : " No such information, however, has reached the tio veniment ; on the contrary, we have every reason to be lieve that no advance towards the Danube has been made, but that the Hospoder is still in the exercise of his finial tions. The manifesto of Prince Gorgtachakotr on entering the principalities enjoined the people to obey the existing authorities, and promised that there should be no disturb ance of the existing institutions. I therefore think it is not probable that, so very shortly after the issue of that proclamation, the proceedings to which my noble friend alludes could have taken place. ' Lord BEAUKONT : You are very sanguine. (A la ugh.) SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL. The motion for the third reading of this bill, which stood for Monday, was opposed by Mr. LlD btu., the newly-elected member for Liverpool. Not having enjoyed a seat during the earlier discussions of the measure, the hon. member took this last op portunity of recording his protest against its various injustices : " Ho complained that it was most unjust towards the lauded interest, upon which the stamp duties on convey ances and other taxes already bore most severely ; and that it would be unequal, and consequently unfair, in its operation. That part of the bill which affected trusts and trustees would occasion infinite embarrassment and diffi culty ; and then the inquisitorial nature of the tax was a ground for grave objection. There would be the greatest dilHculty iu estimating the value of successions to mines, tolls arising from rights of way, and property of that de scription, which varied in value according to circum stances. Arguments in favour of the imposition of a suc cession duty because there was a legacy duty were of little weight. They did not avail to enable Mr. Pitt to cc aarr rryy such a tax after he had carried the legacy duty, although those duties were proposed at a time when the country was in a position to require every available means to raise the necessary supplies during a period of war, whereas this was a time of peace and prosperity, when it should be the business of a Chancellor of the Exchequer rather to relieve the country from odious taxation than to impose it." As Mr. Liddell did not divide the house, however, the bill was read a third time. Upon the question that the " bill do pass," various suggestions for amendments in detail were offered or revived. Mr. SrooNnt moved a proviso to the effect that where ar estate for life was given to the father, or in fee, or remainder, or reversion, to the son by the same deed, that the son shall pay only the duty as the lineal descendant of the father. Mr. Maus moved the total omission of the clause by which a succession duty would be levied upon timber; and afterwards another amendment to the clause directing the production of documents, from the operation of which he moved that all title-deeds should be excepted. Sir J. PAKINGTON moved to the clause respecting incumbrances an amendment depriving that section of the art of its retrospective character. All these amendments were discussed at length and carried to divisions, when they were successively negatived by Ministerial majorities varying from 85 to 41. The last suggestion of amendment being disposed of, the question itself was proposed from the chair, and without further debate the house divided: — For the bill Against Majority —72 The bill then passed its final stage in the Lower House. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. The Earl of DONDVOHNoRE on Monday called at tention to the present condition of the system of na tional education in Ireland; moving at the same time for a copy of the resolution lately adopted by the Board of National Education, excluding the use of certain books for the schools under their manage ment; and asking whether, in consequence of that resolution, any and what members had resigned their seats at the board? The Earl of ABERDEEN defended the national sys tem, which he maintained to have worked well. He considered that an erroneous construction had been placed upon the resolution, which excluded only one book, and had not caused any change at the board. Some discussion, turning chiefly upon the details of circumstances connected with the Irish Board of Education, ensued, in which Lord 3IosrEAGLE, and the Earls of DERBY and HLRROWBY, took part. The subject then dropped, the returns asked for being or dered. THE PRESS. INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES. Befbre resuming the discussion of this topic on Wednesday some preliminary inquiries were made regarding the condition in which Mr. Chambers's bill on the subject (entitled the " Bill for the Recovery of Personal Liberty in certain Cases") was left by the last division. It wax then explained by the Speaker that the defeat of Mr. Bowyer's amendment had left the word "that" as the sole notice of motion on the paper, and the adjourned debate must be taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bath Mr. Minn). On this subsidiary motion, which suggested the appointment of a committee of inquiry, the bill itself having been negatived, a debate was commenced by Mr. BALL, who treated the question as practically decided by the house in their previous votes, but nevertheless expatiated at much lenvth on the libels which he declared were systematically circulated against the Roman Catholic religion and the cha racters of its professors. Mr. E. BALI. remarked that all religion was founded on charity, and charity forbade our giving needless offence to members of a different communion, or in sulting those who differed on some points of faith from ourselves, without having had a single fact substan tiated to warrant us in interfering by a commission of inquiry. He detailed the results of a tour of in spection over several convents, which had led him to the conviction that they were most useful establish ments, notwithstanding all the slanders and calum niations that had been propagated concerning them. Mr. WHITENIDE argued for the necessity of the inquiry, and cited decisions in the Irish courts of law and equity showing that the inmates of these monastic establishments required protection from undue influence. The course pursued by the clergy of the Roman Catholic religion with respect to the Irish colleges was a proof that Catholicism was not friendly to the spirit of education. He was disposed, however, to look at the question as one relating to property, and iu that view, sooner or later, whatever might become of this motion, an inquiry must take Mr H. DRI'MMOND ridiculed the simplicity of Mr. E. Ball in forming his estimate of conventual estab lishments, and announced his determination of opposing the pretensions of the Church of Rome and the doctrines of her priests as subversive of order and incompatible with constitutional govern ment. Mr. P. O'BatEN, Mr. ROCHE, Mr. FITZGERALD, and Sir J. TYRELL prolonged the discussion until ten minutes to six, the hour of adjournment, when, upon the suggestion of Lord PALMERSTON, the debate was postponed until August 10. THE EDINBURGH AND CANONGATE ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION BILL. In moving the second reading of this bill, on Tues. day, the LORD ADVOCATE gave some historical details respecting the tax which it was designed to modify, and which had produced much bickering and ill feeling, in Edinburgh. The tax was first imposed in 1601, to replace the revenue formerly derived from the bishopric of Orkney as provision for clergymen in the Old. Town of Edinburgh. It consisted of a rate of 6 per cent, on house property within the dis trict, the College of Justice, judges, barristers, and attorneys being exempt; and there were eighteen ministers, who drew incomes of 000/. a year from its produce. The present proposition, which was founded on the report of a select committee, and re sembled very closely a bill brought in with the same object by the late Government, comprised the follow. ing changes :—The exemptions were to be abolished ; the number of ministers diminished to fifteen, and their incomes to 5(K)1. per annum ; the amount of rate reduced to 3 or 4 per cent.; the tax converted into a regular municipal tax, and any deficiency that might arise paid out of the Consolidated Fund ; but this anticipated loss was to be made up hereafter from the revenues of the deans of the Chapel Royal, which, on the deaths of the present holders, were successively to fall into the ministers' fund. Mr. J. B. SMITH moved the rejection of the bill, which he denounced as being an attempt to perpe tuate, under a modified form, a system whose injus tice demanded utter abolition. He advanced a variety of statistical considerations to prove that the members of the Established Church in Edinburgh were too few to justify the continuance of a public provision on so extravagant a rate to the number of ministers which the bill contemplated to maintain. When the tax was first imposed the thirty thousand inhabitants of the royalty to which it referred were all of one religion ; but now, although the number of the ministers and their salaries had been largely increased, the churches of the Establishment were empty, there not being more than 5,0(X) out of the 30,0(X) inhabitants attached to it, while the remainder were either Catholics or Dissenters, or belonged to the Free Church. Mr. HADFIELD, who seconded this amendment, called the bill "detestable." "It was terrible," he added, " to think hew the religious discussions in that hoses influenced the minds and exacerbated the feelings of the best and kindest members. There eras the honourable member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), a mau of the gentlest and kindest sympathies en ordinary subjects, and yet he would boil Catholics alive it he dared." (Laughter.) An Hux. Mammas: Oh no! mast! (Laughter.) Mr. MACAULAY, regarding the truest interests of his constituents, warmly supported the bill. If not the best possible measure that could be devised on the sultject, it was at all events the best practicable measure. He intended in this case to pursue the same course which he had adopted, and in which Mr. O'Connell had concurred, tegardiug the Irish bishoprics. Though believing that the Irish Church was too large, and wishing to have its reform and retrenchment carried much further, they had nevertheless supported the measure introduced by the tiovernment on that occasion under a belief that uo stronger bill could have been carried through Parliament. So now, therefore, he should vote fur the present bill, believing it could be passed, while a more extensive measure would be defeated. Mr. Macaulay then detailed the peculiar grievances which his constituents sustained under the existing system : " lu the first place, the cost of the Church Establish. went in Edinburgh is anomalous. It is out of proportion with the spiritual wants of the people, and with the general scale of the Church Establishment in Scotland. The district which is liable to the annuity tax contains 60,000 inhabitants. The other great Scotch towns which contain about the same number of inhabitants are — Dundee, Aberdeen, and Paialey. At Dundee the whole charge of maintaining the clergy dues not exceed 3,00 W. a year ; at Aberdeen it averages the rams sum ; and at Pais ley it averages between 1,0001. and 30001. At Edinburgh it nuts up to between %MN. and 10,0001. if my hon. friend the member for Montrose were in his plan, be would be able to tell us that the annuity tax, though it is the cause of great discontent in that burgh, does nut there exceed 4501. a year, paid by 17,001) inhabitants. (Hear, hear.) In Edinburgh it is 100101. a year, paid by 66,000 inhabitants, being a ithierrnee of one to five rat &lin. burgh. And in other parts of Scotland the 'proportion is equally pet oeptible ; for I am told that in the royalty of lilisgow, where there is a population of 150,000 persons. the charge of maintaining the clergy does not exceed 4,4501. a year ; so that the Church of Edinburgh costs, in proportion to the population, more than three times as much as that of the other great towns of Scotia d. That feet were in itself rufficient to explain the great discontent with which the annuity tax is regarded in Edinburgh. But this is not all ; there is another injustice, and a most oppressive one, connected with this grievinicie— namely, that the College of Justice is exempted trots the operation of the tax. Whom does that exemption include? In includes all the judges, all the officers of the courts of justice, the whole faculty of advocates, the writers of the signet, and all the solicitors of the superior mute. (Hear, hear, hear.) Edinburgh is not a place of great trade. It has no great commercial resources. Shine it has ceased to be the seat of the Court—since Parlia ments and Privy Councils have ceased to assemble there, its aristocracy has chiefly consisted of members of the legal profession. (Ilear, hear.) In our age, it is in the College of Justice that you must seek for the aristocracy of Edin burgh. But the College of Justice is exempt from the annuity tax, so that you have a system under which the moat opulent part of the community is released hem a vexatious tax, which is rigorously exacted from the poorest. There is yet another view of the question which renders urgent the necessity fur remedial legislation. Edinburgh is one of the few places in Scotland in which the burden of the ecclesiastical establishment is nut borne to a larger or greater extent by the ancient revenues formerly belong ing to the Roman Catholic Church. A portion of those revenues, very considerable in value, was granted, in 1641, to the city of Edinburgh, in the most solemn form, fur the maintenance of the clergy. That was the time when Charles the First had been compelled to establish the Presbyterian form of church govenimeut in Scotland ; and this grant was made to the city of Edinburgh on account of the special charges and peculiar expenses to which that city, as the capital of the kingdom, was liable. But in latir times, namely, in the reign of Charles the Second, the grant was taken away, without reward or compensation, and the lands lapsed to the Crown, and have remained with the Crown ever since. This resumption by the Crown of the Church lands, formally assigned to the city of Edin burgh, was greatly instrumental in bringing about the state of things which this bill is designed to remedy. Edinburgh complains, first, that the State has laid on it the charge of a too great church establishment ; secondly, that the State hex exempted from the expense of that fatal). lishment the people best able to pay ; and, thirdly. that the State has taken away, and appropriated to its own pur wsH es, the ancient Church lauds which ought to have borne the burden of the clergy." The right hon. member concluded by imploring the house to pass the bill for the sake of the honour of the establishment and the peace of Scotland. The discussion was prolonged until the hour came for the adjournment of the morning sitting. Mr. Boit:rem and Mr. COWAN supported the bill. Col. Burn and Sir A. CAMPBELL, opposed it., as infringing the rights and retrenching the numbers of the estab lished clergy; Mr. J. M'Oaxoott, Mr. Mui.t., and Mr. Cowsx because it perpetuated a tax upon the majority in order to endow the religion of the mi nority; and Lord SEYMOUR and Mr. E. Et-tact; because they objected to pay the clergy out of the Consolidated Fund. On Thursday Lord ELCHO with. drew the bill, the advanced period of the session al lowing no chance of its being carried.