The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

THIR D EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(Tins DAY).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The London and North- Western and other Railway
Companies (Working and Traffic Arrangements) Bill was
read a third time and passed, and the Norwich New Street
Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented praying for the rejection
of the Government measure of reform; in favour of the
principles embodied in the scheme of reform propounded by
Mr. Bright ; from Dissenting congregations praying for
the same privileges with reference to endowed schools as
members of the Church of England.
CHURCH RATE ABOLITION BILL.

Sir J. YitElaiVSiF gave notice that he would move
the postponement of the further progress of the bill until
the 30th inst.
HIGH SHERIFFS' EXPENSES BILL. _

Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved the second rea gof the
bill. He said.the object of the bill was to reduce the ex •
penses in connection with the office of sheriff, and was
founded on the bill of 1839, which was thrown out in the
House of Lords, owing to one of those accidents that some-
times occur in the transit of bills through Parliament.
That bill proposed to discontinue javelin men, and the
change which took place in rural police, and other
alterations in the country, rendered the retention
of such a body quite unnecessary. (Hear, hear.) The
power possessed by a sheriff did not enable him to get
rid of the unnecessary expenses which his office imposed on
him. When the statute of Charles the Second was passed,
which imposed obligations on the sheriffs of counties, the
state of the country was totally different to what it was at
present, and it was necessary at that time to adopt mea-
sures for the safety of the judges. The present system that
prevailed was most cumbrous and expensive, and a sheriff
did not know what his actual duties were. At present a
sheriff of a county was liable for very heavy expenses in-
curred by election proceedings; and a high sheriff of the
county of Kent had at the last election to pay £l5O for such
expenses, because a person of straw thought proper to con-
test the county. The hon. and learned member alluded
also to the disagreeable duties which the high-sheriff of a
county had to dischaige in reference to persons convicted of
capital offences.
Mr. BOOTH seconded the motion.
Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT said the bill Would not
remedy the hardships which the hon. mover stated were
inflicted on high-sheriffs of counties, for it was simply a bill
to do away with the necessity of their supplying javelin
men to attend upon the judges. As the police could per-
form the duties of that body he had no objection to their
being substituted for them.
After a few words from Mr. S. CHILD and Col. FRENCH,
the motion was agreed to, and the bill was accordingly
read a second time.
EDINBURGH, &c., ANNUITY TAX BILL.
Mr. BLACK moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE moved, as an amendment,
that the bill be read a second time this day six months. He
regretted the measure should have been revived, as he con-
sidered it one of the most unblushing spoliation and rob-
bery that ever was compressed within the four corners of a
bill. The effect of the bill Would be to disestablish the State
Church so far as Edinburgh was concerned. Although he
was not a member of the Established Church of Scotland,
he could bear testimony to the services that Church ren-
dered to the cause of education and Christianity. Occu•
piers paid less in consequence of this tax, and therefore
it was as positive an act of injustice as could be proposed to
the consideration of Parliament. He did not stand there as
the advocate of the clergy of the Established Church of
Scotland, who were able to defend themselves. Taking an
average of the last 10 years, the sum to which the
clergy of Edinburgh were entitled to was £lO,OOO a-year, of
which they collected only about £9,500, which showed that
they were not very rapacious, and their average income did
not exceed £6OO a year, while if they received what they
were entitled to it would amount to £7OO a year. He was
strongly opposed to diminishing the number of ministers in
Edinburgh, which was only 18. He did not think that
£6OO a year was too much for these ministers to receive,
considering the expenses attendant in living in a city like
Edinburgh, and the demands that were made on their
charity. He thought that the greatest injury would be
inflicted on religion in Scotland if they abolished the State
Church, towards which this measure was a first step.
Mr. BAXTER supported the bill, which he regarded as
entitled to the favourable consideration of the house. The
measure, which had been introduced on a former occasion,
was withdrawn because it had neither advocates nor friends,
but that was not the case with the present bill. This
bill was supported by the majority of the ratepayers
of Montrose and Edinburgh, and was opposed
only by the clergy of Edinburgh and a section of the laity,
who considered' that if it became law it would have the
effect of doing away with the Established Church in Scot-
land, by depriving the clergy of Edinburgh of an adequate
provision. The bill would also be supported by the Irish
members, whom they had assisted to get rid of ministers'
money. He denied there was any danger to be apprehended
to the maintenance of the State Church in Scotland, and
that any loss the clergy might sustain by the passing of
this bill would be compensated from other sources.
Mr. BLACKBURN said that without pretending to be
the exponent of the Government views on this question, he
felt constrained, as a Scotch member, to oppose the bill, to
the details of which he could not consistently consent.
Mr. HORSMAN supported the bill and appealed to the
house to affirm the principle. He had heard with great
pleasure that the Government proposed to introduce a bill
on the subject, but he thought notwithstanding that it
would be satisfactory if they consented to the course sug-
gested, and then the hon. mover would probably consent
not to proceed further with it until the Government mea-
sure was introduced.
Mr. STEWART said he believed her Majesty's Govern-
ment would deal with the question satisfactorily, and he
would oppose the present bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that when so many
persons of superior talent and learning had taken
up the question on former occasions, he felt some
timidity in attempting to deal with it. However,
occupying the position he did at present, he felt
it was impossible to avoid doing so, and accordingly he had
prepared a bill, which he had brought with him to London.
The principle of that bill had been approved by the Govern-
ment, and he would introduce it shortly. (Hear.) As this
bill required great consideration, he could not then state to
the house the principle, but he would endeavour so to deal
with the matter that, if he did not satisfy the hon. member
for Edinburgh on the voluntary principle, he would satisfy
a considerable number of the inhabitants of that city. He
could not agree in the bill of the hon. member, because it
proposed to abolish the annuity tax without providing an
adequate substitute. The hon. and learned gentleman en-
tered at some length into the history of the tax from its
imposition in 1661, and contended that it reflected no
hardship on the inhabitants of Edinburgh, and
that it was not imposed without their knowledge.
The hon. member's bill proposed to abolish the tax alto.
gether, and one of the modes he would substitute to meet
the deficiency was to levy seat rents. Although he was
opposed to levying such a rate, which he considered to be
inconsistent with a State Church, he admitted there might
be such peculiar circumstances as to form a ground of ex-
ception. However, he strongly objected to such a course be-
inq adopted in the present case, and pointed out different
evils to which it would be likely to give rise. He could
not approve of other provisions of the bill, and he suggested
that the best course would be to postpone the bill until the
Government measure was before the house.
Mr. MONCRIEFF approved of the principle of the
bill, namely, that the annuity tax should be abolished. He
did not think that there was anything in the payment of
that tax that was justly opposed to conscientious scruples,
but as a large body of the inhabitants of Scotland were of a
different opinion, he thought their sentiments should be re-
spected and influence the house in deciding this question
as others of a similar character had been decided. In his
opinion the Government ought to allow the bill to be read a
second time, and when their own measure was laid on the
table they could both be discussed in committee.
Mr. COWAN supported the bill, and contended that

...
was quite a delusion- to suppose that the passing of tha,
measure would deprive the clergymen of the Church oi
Scotland of the means of support. To show the re-
liance that might be placed on the voluntary prin-
ciple on this point, he alluded to the Society for
Spreading Christianity Abroad, which had trebled
its income since it depended on its own resources.
He cited also the Free Church of Scotland, of which he
was a member, whose annual income was £300,000, of
which no less than £lOO,OOO was appropriated to the sup-
port of clergymen who were not adequately provided for.
He concluded by calling on the right hon. gentleman (the
Lord Advocate) not to oppose the second reading of the bill.
Mr. BAILLIE said that this tax was as just an impost
on property as tithes, and what would they think of a gen-
tleman coming to that house, stating that he had conscift-
dons scruples to the payment of tithes, and then introdu-
cing a bill to exempt his property from such payment.
When they abolished ministers' money they provided a
substitute, but the present bill made no such provision, and
therefore he felt bound to resist its further progress.
Sir W. DUNBAR defended the bill. He had no hostile
feeling to the State Church, but he considered the continu-
ance of this tax alperpetnagng anainjustice do a wrong.
There was nothing to be dreaded with respect to the main-
tenance of the clergy by the removal of an impost that was
unpopular, but, on the contrary, the effect would be
the reverse. They should not act differently in re-
gard to this question to what they had done
with reference to ministers' money. That latter
tax was opposed to the feeling of the Roman Catholic mind,
and was done away with in concession to the demands and
agitation that ensued. Now, was it fair to grant to Irish
importunity, clamour, and violation of law a boon which
they withheld from the people of %Aland ? On these
grounds he would vote for the second reading of the bill.
Mr. F. SCOTT opposed the bill, which he considered was
justly designated a measure of confiscation and spoliation,
for it proposed to deprive a body of their rights without
giving them any equivalent, and without the consent of the
creditors, who surely should be in some degree consulted.
There was no analogy between church-rates and this tax,
for the former was a voluntary and local assessment, but
the latter was a statutory enactment, imposed 200 years ago,
and quietly acquiesced in by the people of Scotland till lately.
Besides, one of the grounds of opposition to church-rates was
that they were not applied to the purpose for which they
were levied, and therefore the difference between the two
imposts was still greater. For these reasons he could not
agree to any measure like the present, which proposed to
rob the poor, and defraud just creditors.
Lord ELCHO considered it was most desirable that this
question should lie settled, as it gave rise to heart-burnings
and discontent. He thought, however, that the hon. mem-
ber's bill would not accomplish that result, and that the
disbussion should be postponed until after the introduction
of the Government measure.

Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the tax should be abo-
lished, and, therefore, ho would vote for the second reading
of the bill. Ho had occasion some years ago to look into
this subject, and ho could state that the bill would not
defraud any creditors, and he thought the question of a
substitute should be deferred to a futuro occasion, while they
were called on at present to affirm the principle of the justice
of abolishing the tax.
Mr. MACKIE opposed the bill on the ground already
urged by hon. members.
Mr. BRIGHT strongly advised the hon. member (Mr.
Black) not to adopt the recommendations that had been
given him to withdraw his bill, for they had sufficient ex-
perience to induce them nate expect that the Government
would introduce a satisfactory bill on this question. He
thNtiolfedthiins tax.Ed inWburitghht,hite
g
.vas onreligious
sguffaitoeur all
thought there was no fear of the clergymen of the Church
Scotlandof
suffering
g feelingflirkoen y which
iachboli prevailed
would allow their clergy
rn
to be unprovided for. He had been in that
city, and he could state that the people of that