The House divided :-Ayes 74; Noes 51: Majority 23.

to the second reading of the Bill. The few| instances of inconvenience that had arisen were not sufficient to warrant the passing of this Bill. Believing the Bill to be unnecessary, and seeing its indirect effect upon the Irish Church, he could not support it.

MR. CRUM-EWING supported the Bill. As a Scotchman, he protested against the views of Gentlemen opposite who opposed the Bill. In Scotland persons of all denominations were allowed to have their own religious service at their burial. He hoped the House would not pledge itself by rejecting this Bill to pursue a bigoted policy in religious matters.

MR. REARDEN said, that the people of Ireland were not only not allowed to live in their country, but were not even allowed to be buried in it. He protested against the practice of the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Greene) of outraging on all occasions the feelings of the Roman Catholic Members of that House. He had a high respect for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but he unnecessarily insulted Roman Catholic Members by his constant reference to the Reformation. He might reply to the hon. Member by saying that Nero was an angel in comparison with Henry VIII.: and as to Elizabeth, he would not say anything of her moral character. The Reformation had led to the establishment of as many different religions as the number of years that had since elapsed. He asked how long the grievances of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were to continue?

MR. HUBBARD rose to move that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.

MR. SPEAKER said, that the hon. Member could not now make that Motion. COLONEL W. STUART said, as the hon. Member for Buckingham had omitted to make the Motion in his speech, he would do so. He said Protestants had as much, if not more, reason to complain of the language used by Roman Catholics towards Protestants than the former had of the latter. The remarks they had just listened to were not calculated to conciliate Protestants.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL-[BILL 40.] (Mr. Thomas Hughes, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Lusk.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. THOMAS HUGHES rose to move the second reading of this Bill. It was precisely similar in character to the Bill which the House read a second time last year, with the approval of the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which was afterwards considered in Committee of the House, when certain Amendments were inserted. That Bili, however, ultimately became a dropped Order at the end of the Session, and what he now asked the House to do was to place the Bill in exactly the same position as that in which it was left last year. When the second reading was agreed to last year, it was upon the understanding that in case the Bill came out of Committee in an objectionable form, then every hon. Member should be perfectly at liberty to oppose the third reading. That was a perfectly reasonable underderstanding, and he was quite prepared to act on it if the same course were adopted this year. The Bill was printed in the same form as last year, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), which had been agreed to by the Committee, not being embodied, he (Mr. Hughes) proposed to read the Bill a second time pro formâ, and to introduce those words at once before going into Committee. Certain hon. Members were afraid that the Bill would affect the Act of Charles II., and in order to meet their views he would be perfectly willing when the Bill was in Committee to allow a clause to be inserted to prevent the Bill in any way interfering with the operation of that Act. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time.

MR. FRESHFIELD, who had given notice to move that the Bill be read a

second time that day six months, said, he entirely dissented from the principle of the Bill, believing that it would be improper to alter the law which for 300 years had regulated the observance of the Sabbath in this country. But after the statement of the hon. Member, that, in Committee, he would consent to the introduction of a provision to the effect that the Act of Charles II. should not in any way be interfered with, he would consent to withdraw his opposition at this stage.

MR. GRAHAM opposed the second reading. The exceptions contained in the Bill were so numerous as to weaken the legal sanction hitherto given to the observance of the Sabbath. They would constitute a fulcrum by means of which the enemies of the Sabbath observance would work hereafter for the further infraction of the Sabbath. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR thought it was most undesirable that the question of Sunday observance should be muddled by a Bill which would involve two conflicting principles. Until the question could be dealt with in a much broader and more satisfactory way we had better leave things as they were. He should, therefore, second the Amendment, though upon quite different grounds from those urged by the Mover.

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

MR. FRESHFIELD said, the course which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hughes) proposed to adopt would secure the object which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham) had in view. If he had thought that it would not do so he should certainly have pressed his own Motion for the rejection of the measure to a division. At the same time he was bound to say that he was of opinion that if the Bill did pass into law with the provision of which he had spoken, it would be a dead letter in its operation.

MR. REMINGTON MILLS thought that the House would stultify itself by passing a measure involving two opposite principles. If the Bill would be a dead letter after the insertion of the provision respecting the Act of Charles II., what was the good of passing it at all? He should certainly vote against the second reading.

COLONEL FRENCH wanted to know

what was the use of the House spending time in the discussion of Bills introduced by private Members when there was not the slightest possibility that any result would be arrived at? There were certain public measures as to which the Government would be bound shortly to state what their intentions were with regard to pushing them forward,-as, for instance, the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills-and until the course of Public Business had been settled he should certainly oppose the second reading of this private Bill.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON considered that hon. and gallant Member was under unnecessary alarm in supposing that this Bill would occupy any great length of time. Its principle was fully discussed last Session, and the objections then taken to it had been satisfactorily met. He hoped no further objection would be raised to its progress to-day.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY hoped that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French) would be prepared to facilitate the passing of the measures to which he had alluded. But, as the House knew, certain questions had been raised, for which the Government were not responsible, and which interfered with the progress of those measures; and the sooner those questions were out of the way the better the Government would be pleased, in order that they might go on with the business before the

House.

he thought there would be ample time to With respect to the present Bill, discuss it, and, without committing himself to the support of the third reading, he was prepared to accept the position taken last year by his predecessor. He thought the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee, and it would afterwards be seen whether the measure in its details was one which could be approved by the House. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) last year, and he (Mr. G. Hardy) thought the course was one which might be adopted with convenience now. At the same time he thought that considerable weight was to be attached to the objections both of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment.

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

The House divided:-Ayes 68; Noes 31: Majority 37.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CANONGATE ANNUITY TAX BILL. (Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Baxter.) [BILL 60.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read.

MR. M'LAREN, having presented several petitions in favour of the measure, said: It is not my intention to occupy the House with any very minute details upon this question. The points which I intend to mention are only those which strike one as being the most salient. I will take up the question as it now stands, mainly as a question of practical grievance. It is the only remains of a church rate which now exists in Edinburgh. That part of it which is distinctly a church rate is the payment which, by an Act passed in 1860, is fixed at £4,200 annually out of the police rates of the city in aid of the stipends of ministers. There is also another small indirect impost; but I will not take up the time of the House by entering into that point at present. The tax has been very much complained of, and it has been a constant source of heartburning and illwill. I will take the liberty of reading two sentences from a petition which I have presented to-day from Mr. Archibald Young. This gentleman states that he belongs to the Baptist denomination, and that the doctrines of that Church preclude its members from paying anything towards the support of any other Establishment, and that he and his father have resisted doing so. On three occasions he has been dragged through the Courts of Law; and since the passing of the Act of 1860 he has had to pay £50 for legal expenses for opposing the levying of the rate; and since that time he has been dragged into the Court of Session for payment of the arrears of the old Annuity Tax, and is thereby likely to sustain an additional loss of £150. He therefore approves of this Bill as likely to put a stop to this long-vexed question. The petition is but a fair example of others which might be quoted from persons who have been put to very large expenses on account of this tax. The tax has injured the collection of the other rates of the city, which are mixed up with it, in such a degree that a very large loss occurs annually in the collection. Now, the remedy proposed in this Bill is a very simple one. I propose that out of the endowed churches of the City of Edinburgh the stipend of three of the ministers should be discontinued, and this would relieve a sum of £1,800 annually, and leave them

with an endowment of £6,000 from other sources. It may be supposed by parties not conversant with the matter, that the Established Church will suffer by doing this; but I may say with confidence that nothing of the kind can by possibility occur. Hon. Members would hardly believe the paucity of attendance in some of these churches, and the extravagant expenditure which is kept up in three of these churches. The whole of the seat-rents amount to only £278, and the number of seats let in these three churches is only 790. In the other churches of the city there are no fewer than 6,674 seats unlet and free, so that if these 790 persons were to go into other churches no inconvenience could possibly arise. In the whole of the thirteen city churches there are only 8,840 sittings let, and 6,600 unlet and free; and all that is asked by this Bill is that the future ministers of the three churches I have mentioned shall not have any right to the stipends now payable. Vested interests, however, will be respected, because under the arrangement of the Bill the stipends will only cease when a vacancy shall occur in any of these three incumbencies; and after vacancies have occurred in these three cases, there will be no longer any direct church rates levied in the City of Edinburgh. Surely for such a small matter as this it is reasonable that the persons interested should consent to make this small sacrifice. When the stipends in connection with these three Churches have ceased, they may do anything they like with them for the spread of Christianity; and, under some new system, perhaps they may be better able to fill them than they are at present. I should now like to say a word or two as to the accommodation for religious bodies which at present exists in the city of Edinburgh. The Established Kirk of Scotland has 26 places of worship within the extended bounds of the municipality, but only 13 are endowed from this Annuity Tax, while 11 have no public endowment, and depend strictly upon the voluntary offerings of those who attend them, just as the Dissenting places of worship do. Then there are 2 suburban churches which have other endowments. So much for the Established Church. One great cause for this Bill being necessary is the disruption which took place in the Church of Scotland in 1843 because a great number of places of worship have since then been opened in Edinb ugh. While there are only 26 Established churches altogether, 35 new Free churches