The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-07-17 00:00:00

WEDN ESDAY.

On the motion of Mr. WALPOLE, after considerable dis-
cussion, it was agreed that Baron Lionel De Rothschild be at
liberty to appear by his counsel and agents, before the select
committee on the London writ. _ _ _

Some discussion took place on the Scotch Education Bill,
in the course of which the LORD ADVOCATE intimated his
conviction that the bill could not pass this session.
CRURCII RATES' ABOLITION BILL.—On the order of the
day for going into committee on this bill being read, Mr.
FOLLETT moved that it be committed that day three months.
In doing so, he said, the object of this measure was, in his
opinion, to make it the first and main step towards the des-
truction of the Established Church in this country, and to
alter our institutions in a manner prejudicial to the political
as well as religious liberties of the people. He adverted to
what he considered to be the extraordinary conduct of
the government upon this question, especially that of
Lord J. Russell ; and read declarations made by Dissenters,
showing that the real and even avowed motive of their
hostility to church-rates was hostility to the Established
Church. He defended the principle of an Establishment,
and maintained that anything affecting the stability of
the Church of England, which had not failed in its duties
and its obligations, would be an unmitigated evil.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the house having
already affirmed the principle of the bill, and it being im-
possible to believe that the abolition of church-rates was more
than a question of time, the wisest course was to discuss its
provisions in committee, embracing the opportunity it offered
of settling the question, and of putting an end to an annual
agitation and constant strife and discord.—Lord J. MANNERS
asked how it came to pass, if there was any justice in the
denunciations of the Attorney-General, that the government
had refused to legislate upon the subject, and that Sir
Alexander himself had not proposed a remedy? The grievance
complained of by the dissenters was, that church-rates were a
burden upon their conscience ; but the bill, from its preamble
to its close, had not a single provision with reference
to that grievance. The proper mode of relieving the con-
science of dissenters in this particular was to exempt them
from the rate, and he would support such a proposition,
which had been made, but, when made, had been resisted
by supporters of this bill, which imposed a new tax
upon churchmen in the shape of pew rents.—Sir W.
SOMERVILLE expressed himself in favour of proceeding with
the bill; as did also Mr. E. BALL and Mr. C. FOSTER.—Mr. R.
PIIILLIMORE, Mr. WIGRAM, Mr. G. VERNON, and Mr. GUR-
NEY expressed themselves in opposition to the bill; when Mr,
BENTINCE, adverting to the fact that there was not a single
member of the Cabinet present, moved that the debate be ad-
journed. This led to a discussion, in which the adjournment
of the debate was opposed by Mr. COWPER, Sir W. CLAY, and
Lord EBRINGTON, and supported by Mr. SPOONER, Mr.
MOWBRAY, and Mr. L. DAVIES ; upon a division, it was nega-
tived by 175 to 118. The debate was then resumed by Mr.
L. DAVIES, who continued his address till the hour for ad-
journment arrived. The debate was therefore adjourned till
next day, and the House rose at ten minutes before seven.