The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(This Day.)
The SPRAYER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX BILL.
Mr. A. BLACK moved the second reading of this
bill. Its ol.ject was to remove an enormous grievance,
and to abolish a tax that was opposed to the moral and
religious interests of the people of Scotland. He denied
that it would injure the Church of Scotland, but, on the
contrary, he believed it would confer a material advan-
tage upon that establishment. After referring to the
establishment of the tax by Charles I. and its being ap-
plied to Edinburgh by the " merry monarch," the pro-
vision in 1661 was for six ministers, and was calculated
to yield about 1,0901 , and in every subsequent act down
to 1809 the amount to be collected was for six ministers.
In 1809 a change took place, and the magistrates and
ministers tried to get the tax each for themselves. The
former, however, were successful, and they had to levy I
the tax and pay the six ministers their six per cent.
The House had heard a groat deal said with reference
to this tax having been existence for 200 years, but he
happened to be iu business in 1810 in Edinburgh, when,
to his surprise, and that of the inhabitants, they found
the tax for the first time laid on the citizens. The tax
was raised solely and entirely ott the occupiers of houses.
Having shown the unhallowed heritage of the tax, he
proposed to speak of its fruits in the shape of burthens.
This tax was now double the amount of the present in-
come tax, and supposing a man to have en income of 3001.
he would pay 61, se. per annum,when, if he lived in a house
worth 50/. a year he had to pay double that amount. Toe
tax was levied upon all tenants, and also upon charitable
institutions. The tax produced about 10,6671, of which
about 2,2871. were paid by the followers of the Church,
and the balance, about 8,0001., by parties who had
really no interest in that Church. Two-thirds of the in-
habitants of Edinburgh did not belong to the Church,
and many believed it was contrary to the Gospel to pay
this tax, and that iu doing so they were doing something
like compounding a felony. In one year 846 persons
were prosecuted for not paying the tax. He was unable
to state how many had their goods sold ; but five were
imprisoned for not paying the tax. He read tde opinion
of Dr. Arnott, of the High Court of Scotland, and some
others, who believed the tax was bad, and should be
abolished—that it was injurious to religion, but they
objected to the tax being removed unless a substitute to
the full amount was provided. The church-rates of
England was a very small evil compared with the col•
lection of the tax in Scotland. The house bad very
properly passed a bill for the abolition of the church-
ate'', and on a former session they abolished minister's
money
,in Ireland. They were not bound to provide an
equivalent for this tax, but this measure proposed to
devote the 2,0001. now derivable from the revenues of
Leith, together with the money raised by the seat rents
in the City Churches, as a substitute for the present ob-
noxious tax. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. BAXTER siconded the motion. This bill was
supported by the rate-payers of Edinburgh and Mon-
trose, and by every man in the United Kingdom who
objected to Dissenters being taxed for the Established
Church. He called upon the Irish members to assist
Scotland in getting rid of this tax in return for the
assistance the latter gave the former in abolishing
Ministers' Money. The only opponents to the bill were
the Protestant clergymen and their followers. Under
the new system the clergymen would be amply pro-
vided for. This tax was imposed in Montrose in
1689, and was then considered objectionable. it
was now collected on every man who paid
93. a week rent. If her Majesty's Government opposed
the bill they were bound to devise a satisfactory scheme
for getting rid of this tax.
Mr. BLACKBURN said he had been instructed on
the origin of this tax different to the personal experi-nce
of the lion member for Edinburgh. He (Mr. Blackburn)
had been informed that this tax was granted to the town
of Edinburgh for ecclesiastical property granted in the
time of Mary and James. The hon. member had dwelt
for some considerable time on the grievances, but he
never touched on the details of the bill. He (Mr. Black-
burn) admitted some iujustica existed in the levying of
the tax, but he doubted if the bill would remedy it. He
moved the second reading of the bill this day six months,
Mr. BUCHANAN seconded the amendment.
Mr. J. B. SMITH supported the bill. He believed
it was founded on justice to all classes.
Mr. COWAN c.tusidered the annuity tax an obnoxious
church rate, levied upon the humbler classes to the ex •
elusion of those who were in good circumstances, and
were best able to pay the tax. This bill, whilst it pro-
tected vested interest, would give the relief required..
Mr. F. SCO IT opposed the bill. After reviewing
the history of the imposition of the tax, and the subse-
quent legi-lation on it, he called upon the house not to
assent to the principle of the bill, which would
ioffict injury to the Church and to the population,
who had a right to attend the church without
toe payment of pew rents. He considered
this bid an insiduous attempt to subvert the Church
Establishment in Edinburgh, and by so doing to give
an immense leveri to those who won!cl oppose that
Church,l the,arnicablej rivalry of which with the Free
Church of Scotland had done each an essential service
to that country.
Mr. GILPIN compared the discussion to the old
discussion in reference to Church-rates in England,
Ministers Money in Ireland, and by a similarity of
reasoning Ministers Annuity Tax fA- Scotland. He
believed the pressure of the tax was felt more in Edin-
burgh than was Church-rates in England, or had
Ministers' Money in Ireland. So far from this bill die-
establishing the Church in Scotland, he believed that
Church had already done it herself.
Mr. C. BRUCE differed from the hon. member for
Montrose, that the clergy of the Establishment in Scot-
land and its members were the only persons who opposed
the bill. It ;as objected to by all those who contended
against the principle of confiscation, of wrong, and of
injustice. (Hear, hear.)
Sir E. COLEBROOKE thought the bill did not pledge
the house to those extreme principles that appeared to
excite alarm iu certain quarters. The tax was most ob-
jectionable and injurious to the Church in its present
form, and whilst he wished to afford relief to Edin-
burgh, he was not disposed to go into the opposite
extreme, and place Edinburgh in a different
position to any other place in Scotland. In com-
mittee the bill coul I be modified. If the Uovern-
relent refused a reduction of the city clergy, and impose
a tax more moderate in its amount and bsariug on a dif-
ferent class of the people, he was prepared, looking •at
the injustice, to adopt the bill even as it new stood than
continue a law so injurious and dangerous to the Church.
(Hear, hear.)
The LORD ADVOCATE could not assent to any
bill that proposed to take away the provision for the
Established Church without an adequate and ample
equivalent were provided. The question which solved
into this was whether the equivalent proposed by the
bill was such as was, or ought to be, satisfactory to the
clergy of the Established Church, or those who maintained
ber rights in that house. The tax as it was now levied, all
were agreed was levied in a most unfortunate manner.
The present system was a most inexpedient one, and no
man would rejoice more than he would to see a measure
devised that would have the effect of abolishing this
obnoxious tax altogether consistent with providing an
equivalent. The noble lord then enteredta aatdc ,tnhe
widdeer:
able length into the origin, &0., of this x and
tails of the bill, in comparison with the details of former
bills. It was a bill cf absolute abolition, and the funds
fur the maintenance of the clergy were to be supplied in
this way--2,000/. from the revenue of Leith, which he
thought unjust, and was objectionable to the
people of Leith. The next was the produce of
the seat rents of the City Chambers. That
be thought objectionable, as well as seat
rents.
He was favourable to an alteration of the pre-
sent system, and when he was in office in 1852, though
not in that house, he had prepared a bill for Lord Derby's
Government for its settlement. He would never consent
to such a sham and delusion as this bill was for the
settlement of this vexed question.
Lord DUNCAN regretted the Lord Advocate had
not pledged her Majesty's Government to introduce a bill
upon the sutject, after having expressed his oljection to
its continuance in its present form. He should support
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. HORSMAN appealed to her Majesty's Govern-
ment, after the admission of the learned Lord-Advocate
in favour of the principle of the abolition of the tax, to
agree to the second reading, and let the consideration
of the details be discussed at a future stage. He (Mr.
Ilursman), though ho agreed to the principle, had some
of jection to the details. His voting for the second read-
ing of the bill would not commit him to an approval of
its details. (Divide.)
The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading 129
Against it
nst second reading —l
The bill wls Majoritygai
consequentlya lost.
HEIRS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
This bill was withdrawn.

From the London Gazette of Last ight.