pride as an institution, to submit to this; and doubtless they conscientiously thought that it was a diminution of the means of religious instruction in Edinburgh. But nevertheless they acquiesced in it. They acquiesced in having their stipends fixed at £600. Therefore we had the inhabitants on the one hand, and the ministers on the other, agreed upon these general principles. Upon one matter only did they differ. The Town Council meeting had asked that the seat rents should be valued, rising from £1,600 to £2,500. I found that the Church would not consent to that, because they thought it would diminish their stipends. The consideration I had, therefore, was whether I would surrender the Bill altogether, and thus have a war for another thirty years. I came to the conclusion that it was my duty not to allow the opportunity of a settlement to be lost; and I did so the more for this reason, that the whole difference in the amount of seat-rents, promised on the one hand and refused on the other, was far more than compensated for by the fact that, at that moment, there were two vacancies not filled up in the city churches, and if the Bill was lost that year those vacancies would have to be filled up, and thus the city would be saddled with two more lifeinterests. Now, that was the position of the Act of 1860. Great opposition has undoubtedly arisen to that Act; but, on the other hand, I must say that I think the town has received very great benefit. The question is whether we ought to go back? For my part, I think we ought not to do so. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last appears to think that the ministers levy this tax for their own support. Now, the ministers have nothing to do with it. The settlement of 1860 was a settlement of this kind: the ministers were no longer paid by the tax, but their stipends were saddled upon the property of the town, and the tax was intended for the purpose of filling up the void made in the municipal funds. And this leads me to remark that I do not think my friends of the Council have been administering the town funds in the spirit of the Act. I find that they have been paying off debts; and I do not believe that they are entitled to levy this 3d. in the pound for municipal purposes and to pay off the debt. In conclusion I will say that it is an unfortunate matter that we should be still embroiled in this question; but I should have been discharging my duty very inadequately were I to give my countenance and support to the Bill under the circumstances which I have endeavoured to bring under the notice of the House. COLONEL SYKES said, that some most scandalous scenes had taken place in Edinburgh in connection with this subject. The police tax was levied upon all denominations of Christians and Jews, so that the ministers were paid out of a tax contributed mainly by those who did not receive any religious benefit in return. He considered the case exactly analogous to that of church rates in England. He contended that it was most unjust to compel those who did not derive any advantage from the ministratious of these clergy-against whom, as, a body, he did not wish to say a single word; on the contrary, very many of them were distinguished for their piety, zeal, and ability; but what he did say was, that persons of other religious persuasions should not be called upon to pay towards their maintenance and support. No Dissenter ought to be compelled to contribute to this tax. What had been the result of the present state of things in Edinburgh? The Dissenters had offered to pay the tax collector the amount levied upon them for police purposes, but not the proportion which went to the clergy annuity. course the tax collector would not receive this, and the arm of the law was brought in; and he would quote to them instance of what had followed. A respectable shopkeeper was told that the power of the law would be brought to bear against him if he did not pay, and that a distress would be levied upon his goods. He put armour plates around his shop and door; but the local authorities were too strong for him, for they came with a posse of constables, who, armed with sledge-hammers, beat in his door, his goods were carried off to an auction room and offered for sale, amidst tumult and execrations; and such scenes had been often repeated. Was not this a scandal to a Christian country? Could anything be more irreconcilable with the principle of peace and good-will to all men? Well, the question for the House to consider was, whether they desired to have these scenes repeated? He hoped they did not. It was to be regretted that the proposition made by his right hon. Friend in 1860 was not acquiesced in. Of an He MR. M'LAREN rose to reply. said, in respect to the alleged compromise, I will just mention a fact, rather is out of order. If he has anything to say, he must reserve his explanation until after the hon. Gentleman who is now in possession of the House has concluded his remarks. MR. M'LAREN: I am referring to the hon. Member's own father, who was a most anxious promoter of this Bill. Well, now, let me refer to another subject. I have been twitted with my opinions in 1853. That is a long time ago; and I have got wiser since that time, not only upon this, but upon many subjects. But let me say this much, that I was then in favour of household suffrage, and the abo Gentlemen have made good speeches on these subjects now, while they were strongly opposed to them at the time I speak of. We live in changing times. It is said that by this Bill we are placing the Church on the voluntary system. But hon. Gentlemen who say so would appear not to know the meaning of the voluntary principle. Now, what is its meaning? Why, it means finding everything for themselves. But does this Bill propose anything like that? Certainly not. Under this Bill the clergy will get their £4,000 for seat-rents, and the £2,000 from the than enter into any argument. When the Bill was before the House, there was a petition presented against it, signed by 14,000 inhabitants; and after the Bill had received the Royal Assent, there was a public meeting held to protest against it. A memorial to the Town Council was got up, which was signed by none but householders. It received 7,600 signatures; there being no less than 3,000 of these Parliamentary electors. I now come to the question touched upon by the hon. Member for Leith. Thirty years ago it was thought desirable to take the harbour of Leith out of the hands of the Cor-lition of the Irish Church; and yet hon. poration of Edinburgh, who held it by a charter from Robert the Bruce. In what I am about to say I speak from personal knowledge; because I held the honorary office of City Treasurer at that time, and came to London to get the Bill carried through. Well, the Government of that day sent down the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (now Lord Taunton) to value the interest of the city of Edinburgh in the harbour, and he valued the interest of the city of Edinburgh in the harbour at £7.680 as an annuity. A Select Com mittee was appointed to consider this proposal, and many of the first men in Par-city of Edinburgh. Surely, then, this Bill liament of that day were appointed Members of that Committee - Sir James Graham being amongst the number. I gave evidence before the Committee; and they unanimously approved of the proposal which had been made. A few years since the same process was adopted in Liverpool; but the Corporation of that town got an annuity of £75,000 for their interest, as against our getting £7,680. The Select Committee in our case said-You must, however, pay £2,000 to the clergy out of the £7,680, and abolish a rate levied for their behoof, called the Merk per ton. All this was done as recommended by that Committee, and it is, therefore, a pure delusion to think that this payment is a burden on Leith; because, if the Established Church were abolished to-morrow, the city of Edinburgh would continue to draw this £2,000. The whole of the public bodies of Leith have petitioned in favour of this arrangement. I had the personal friendship of one who was nearly related to the hon. Gentleman Mr. Miller. - he then being the Treasurer to the Borough of Leith. MR. MILLER: I must claim the indulgence of the Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot be the introduction of the voluntary system. The Lord Advocate knows well enough that this question will never be settled except on some such basis as that which I now propose. It is of no use blinking the matter. The attempt to put a stop to this grievance must ultimately succeed; and I think it would be a wise thing for the Lord Advocate to withdraw himself from the position which he has taken in connection with the matter. If the Bill fails once or twice, you may be sure the agitation will be continued; and ultimately you may find a measure carried going much further than the one at present under the consideration of the House. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will consent to read the Bill a second time. MR. MILLER desired to make some observations upon the speech which had just been delivered; but MR. SPEAKER said, that it would not be competent for him, in explanation, to reply to the speech just made. He must confine himself to any point on which he might himself have been misunderstood. MR. CRAUFURD said, he had voted against this Bill on a former occasion, because he thought a compromise had been entered into between the parties; but since Goldney, G. Goodson, J. that time, having given the matter a fuller Forester, rt. hn. General Question put, "That the word 'now stand part of the Question." Greenall, G. Hamilton, Lord C. The House divided:-Ayes 59; Noes Howes, E. 86: Majority 27. Huddleston, J. W. Liddell, hon. H. G. Words added. Moffatt, G. Paget, R. H. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Somerset, E. A. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir W. TELLERS. Montgomery, Sir G. Miller, W. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Bill put off for six months. House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock. Gaselee. Serjeant S. Glyn, G. C. Grenfell, H. R. Smith, J. B. Stacpoole, W. Stansfeld, J. Stuart, Col. Crichton- Taylor, P. A. Thompson, M. W. Young, R. TELLERS. M'Laren, D. Ewing, H. E. Crum NOES. Cox, W. T. Fane, Lieut.-Col. H. H. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, April 23, 1868. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingIndustrial Schools (Ireland)* (69); Local Government Supplemental (1868)* (70); Petty Sessions and Lock-up Houses* (71); Prisons (Compensation to Officers)* (72). Second Reading-Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (55). Third Reading-Inclosure (61), and passed. ASSASSINATION OF MR. D'ARCY M'GEE. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, that though their Lordships had come to a Resolution, requiring Notice to be given before Questions were asked, he nevertheless hoped that, inasmuch as he had no opportunity of placing on the Paper a "I have the honour-with feelings of regret Notice of a Question he desired to ask in and horror, to announce to your Grace the assassination of the Hon. T. D'Arcy M'Gee, M.P., at reference to a matter of some importance, about two o'clock on the morning of Tuesday, the the House would permit him now to put 7th instant. Mr. M'Gee had left the House of the Question to the noble Duke at the Commons, which had just adjourned, and walked head of the Colonial Department. Their to his own residence, which was situated close by. Lordships were all aware that an excep-sert a latch key in the door of his house the asIt would appear that while stooping down to intionally atrocious crime had recently been sassin must have come behind him and put a piscommitted in Canada. Mr. D'Arcy M'Gee, tol close to the back of his head, the bullet from a public man of great eminence in the which passed right through and out at his mouth, colony, after leaving the Parliament causing almost instantaneous death. The general House, had been most cruelly and foully cious crime has been the work of some member of impression, in which I concur, is that this atroassassinated in the streets of the capital the Fenian organization, prompted, most likely, of Canada, and while on the door-steps of by the eloquent and vigorous denunciations which his own house. He deeply regretted the Mr. M'Gee persistently launched against that conloss of Mr. D'Arcy M'Gee, not only on spiracy. personal grounds, but because he thought that gentleman's services would at the present moment especially have been most valuable, in connection with the recent constitutional changes in Canada. Mr. D'Arcy M'Gee was the leader of the Irish Roman Catholic party in that colony, and on more than one occasion he had, by his remarkable character, and by the influence he exercised over his Irish fellow The Government of the Dominion has offered a reward of 5,000 dollars; those of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec 2,500 dollars each; and the cities of Montreal and Ottawa respectively 5,000 dollars and 4,000 dollars for the discovery of the perpetrator. The city of Montreal has decided that the funeral shall be a public one, conducted at the expense of the citizens; and it is the intention of my Ministers to recommend to Parliament that a provision shall be made out of the public purse for the widow and orphans of Mr. M'Gee." In a private note written on the same day, just as the mail was closing, Lord Monck stated "I think we have the perpetrator of the crime custody, and as we have every reason to believe that several persons were privy to the act, I hope the large reward which has been offered will induce some of them to give evidence." subjects, rendered essential service to the THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM said, that it was unfortunately too true that Mr. D'Arcy M'Gee had fallen a victim to assassination on leaving the Parliament House at Ottawa. Little was known of the details beyond what had already appeared in the ordinary channels of information; but within the last twelve hours he had received from the Governor General Lord Monck, a despatch, a few passages from which would constitute the best Answer he could give to the Question addressed to him. The despatch was dated the 9th of April, 1868, and in it Lord Monck stated He could add nothing to what had been COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL. SECOND READING. (NO. 55). Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill. The reasons for the Bill, are contained in its Preamble. It is stated that the collection of church rates has ceased to be made or collected in a great number of the parishes in the country, and that in others their collection has given rise to litigation and ill-will, and it is pleaded that it is advisable that the abolition of compulsory church rates should take place. The first part of the Bill is exccedingly clear and exceedingly plain, and practically puts an end to the compulsory payment of church rates. Your Lordships will see from the provisions of the Bill that, so far as the objection to church rates is concerned, the grievances complained of are entirely abolished, and entire satisfaction is given to those who have hitherto opposed the levying of church rates. The first clause of the Bill enacts that henceforth no proceeding shall be instituted in any ecclesiastical or other Court to enforce the payment of church rates. The next clause of the Bill provides that where money had been borrowed on the faith of church rates, or in cases where the parish is liable for an extra rate, the re-payment of the money shall continue to be secured by means of church rates. Provision is also made in regard to particular cases. The words are very general; and if they do not completely answer their object, I should be ready to assent to the introduction of any words to carry that object into effect. The object is to preserve the sum or allowances made in certain places and parishes where sums which are not applicable to the building or repair of churches, or to any purposes for which church rates are usually levied, have been, by Act of Parliament or otherwise, set apart for the purpose of giving a salary or allowance to the minister of the church in lieu of other claims that he might have. There are several cases in this metropolis-Bishopsgate and Bethnal Green for example-where by Act of Parliament the tithes have been commuted for an annual sum collected upon houses, and those sums are called by the name of church rates. It is evident that it would be inequitable to abolish the collection of such sums; and persons deriving an income from such allowances would have a fair right to complain if their income was put an end to by Act of Parliament. The second part of the Bill, which begins at the 5th clause, is by no means of the same nature as the first, and is intended solely for the purpose of keeping up the machinery of church rates where it may be considered a convenient mode for obtaining the sums necessary for the repair of the fabric of the church. Your Lordships are aware that the circumstances in connection with the levying of church rates is very different in different parishes. I remember some years ago asking an archdeacon what his experience was in relation to church rates; and his answer was that generally in towns there was a good deal of difficulty, and very grave disputes, and that very often church rates were altogether refused; but that in country parishes his experience was totally different, that with a rate of a d., d., or a 1d. in the pound the repairs of the church were satisfactorily effected, and there was no difficulty in obtaining the vote for the rate, or in its collection. Now, the object of the clauses which commence with the 5th clause is to maintain the existing machinery in force where parishes would think it a convenient mode of collecting sums for the repair of churches; but the rate to be levied by means of that machinery will be entirely voluntary. Still, I should suppose there were a great many country parishes in which that machinery is very convenient, where there are few or no Dissenters in the parish, and all the Churchmen are willing to vote for a rate, and where therefore it would be very convenient that things should, as far as possible, be allowed to go on as usual without any disturbance of the existing system. There are further clauses in the Bill the object of which is prevention; and which declare that persons who do not happen to have subscribed to a former voluntary rate shall not be entitled to vote with respect to the levy of that which is about to be collected. Besides these there is a clause empowering owners to take upon themselves the burden of the charge instead of tenants and giving them power to vote accordingly. Such are the general provisions of the Bill, which are exceedingly simple, and which, having been brought in by Mr. Gladstone in the other House, has been received there with almost unanimous support. I trust, therefore, |