Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-10 00:00:00

NORTHERN, DAILY TIMES.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1860.

THE DAY'S NEWS.

In the house of Peers last night their lordships
had a moderately protracted sitting. The busi-
ness incidentally, at its opening, glanced at the
affairs of Italy, but this speedily gave way to
consideration of the matter implied in the
second reading of the Endowed Schools Bill,
moved by Lord Cranworth. The second reading
was opposed by Lord Chelmsford; and was re-
garded unfavourably by the Earl of Carnarvon,
who, however, said he would not divide the House
on the motion. The Earl of Derby urged caution
in dealing with a bill, one clause of which per-
mitted the appointment of dissenting trustees to
all endowed schools, and, in practice, placing
Church of England schools under dissenting
management. This arrangement, he trusted,
would be rectified in committee. Ultimately, the
bill was read a second time.

In the House of .Commons, honourable members
were taken somewhat tly surprise by Lord Palmer-
ston announcing the probability of the financial
statement being further postponed to Monday.
True, he stated that this would only take place if
rendered necessary by the condition of health of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, at the same
time, stated that the health of the right hon.
gentleman continues to improve. The house,
however, evidently felt that the announcement was
an actual and not a merely probable postponement,
which impression, however, was dispelled just
before the rising of the House, when his lordship
intimated that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was so far recovered that he would
bring for ward his budget to-morrow (this day).
Sir F. Kelly obtained leave to introduce a bill
for preventing bribery at elections. The House
adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock.
The full text of the letter which the Pope
lately addressed to the Emperor of the French,
in reply to that which his Majesty privately
addressed to his Holiness, has now made its
appearance, and an abstract of it will be found in
another part of this sheet. The Pope resists the
overtures made to him in the imperial letter, and
argues very forcibly, and puts the difficulties
very strongly, against the possibility of his
accepting them without a breach of faith to the

church whose head he is, and which he is sworn
to protect in all her rights. •
It will be observed that, according to a late
advice from Paris, the French troops in Italy are
held in readiness to move at a moment's notice.
But the most noticeable part of this piece of
news is, the explanation that this new order is
supposed to have a reference to the necessity •of
occupying Tuscany, in case the Piedmontese
Goverinnent continues to oppose the . annexation
of Savoy and Nice to France !
The Times is evidently at a loss as to the course
to pursue with respect to the commercial treaty
with France. Its leading articles for the last
two or three days have given a very uncertain
sound on the subject. The " leading " journalist
is evidently waiting to see which party wins on
this occasion, as he has so often done before.
He told his readers yesterday that he was by no
means overjoyed with the particulars of the
treaty that he " did not like the obsolete
machinery of commercial treaties "—that he did
not exactly "see his way to the readjustment of
taxation which the new- scheme must entail,"
and that he thought it " doubtful whether, if thy
balance were rigorously struck, we should seem
to be getting quite so much as we seem to give."
• But then it is pretended that all these points are
of little moment, "in comparison with the pros-
pect of living on better terms with our neigh-
bours,"—a consideration which might have some
weight, could any confidence be reposed 'in the
present ruler of France ; but our " living on
better terms with our neighbours" there, must,
under his'dominion, depend upon something very
different from commercial intercourse, which,
however important in itself, will never be allowed
to stand in the way of the ambition of such a
man.

The diminished majority in favour of the aboli-
tion of Church-rates, which the division of the
House of Commons, on Wednesday, presented,
appears to have astounded the party supporting
the bill, including her Majesty's. Ministers, who,
last year, it may be remembered, announced their
conversion to the principle that, on all such
questions, it was expedient to yield to popular
agitation. Now, it is evidently "popular agita-
tion" that has brought down their majority from
seventy-four last ses§ion, to twenty-nine on this
occasion ; so that, upOn the same principle,
it is not improbable that Lord John Russel!,
Lord Palmerston, and the rest, may next year
be reconverted, and become supporters of church-
rates, in order to continue to, yield to "popular
agitation !" Nor would this be one whit more
inconsistent on their part, than their conduct has
already been ; since, in voting fay the abolition of
church-rates, they have acted: in' defiance of all
their previous professions,—and they could not
do more were they again to vote in support of
them ; while they would eertainly, maintain their
adherence to the principle of political expediency
they have laid down.

The suspicion that had, not unnaturally, arisen,
from the visit of the young Prince of Orange to
the Queen, Las been confirmed by an intimation
in the Amsterdam Courant, that an official com-
munication has been received by the King of the
Belgians as the uncle of her Majesty, of the pro-
jected marriage of the Prince with the Princess
Alice. Two of her Majesty's daughters, there-
fore, will, in due time, no doubt, become Queens
of two neighbouring states—Prussia and Holland.
The Wakefield Election Commissioners have
made their report. They strongly condemn the
practice which has obviously obtained at Wake-
field, and does in other places, of giving- payment
to large bodies of electors on each side, for
purposeg, as they say, of intimidation, or
exercising illegal influence.

At the weekly- meeting of the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board yesterday, several subcts o
importance occupied the attention of the Board.
One, which will be viewed with considerable
interest here, was the question of whether the
anchorage of ships in the track used by the
Woodside Ferry boats should be continued as at
present, or whether a bye-law should be passed
inflicting a penalty on those who anchored in that
track. A protracted discussion took place on the
subject; but, on a division, the Board declined to
make a bye-law in connection with the matter.
The defences of the port also occupied a large con-
sideration on the part of the Board. This arose
in respect to a letter from the War Office, de-
manding six sites for defensive works, intended
for the safety of the port. This, which
is an important matter, received due at-
tention, although no definite resolution was
come to on the subject. Ample details of
the debate will be found in our report
of the proceedings. Another matter of grave
importance here which fell under the deliberation
of the board was the erroneous impression con-
veyed in Mr. Lindsay's pamphlet on " Our Mer-
chant Shipping," and adopted and circulated by
the Times on that authority. The chairman
showed, that the statements made by Mr.
Lindsay were widely divergent from the
actual state of the matter as regards Eiver-
pool, and he regretted to add that the error had
been adopted and further circulated by the Times.
It was shown that the fallacies in Mr. Lindsay's
statements had been pointed out and contradicted
by Mr. Horsfall, our able Parliamentary repre-
sentative, in his place in Parliament. The dis-
cussion on this subject was very interesting. It
will be found in our report, and is worthy of
deliberate consideration.

THE greatly diminished majority for the second
reading of Sir JOHN TRELAWNY'S Bill, for the
abolition of Chureh-rates,----a majority that has
fallen from /4 to 29,—is a very striking proof of
the good effect that has been produced by that
ventilation of the question which its agitation
during the last six months, in almost all parts of
the country, has so powerfully effected. Church-
men, as we have frequently had occasion to shew,
have become fully alive to the gross injustice and
spoliation that is meditated by this Bill,—injustice,
because it can never be just to take away the
means that are requisite for the maintenance of a
great national institution ; and spoliation, since
to deprive the Church of those means would be
to deprive her of property to which she has as
inalienable a right as many a man has to his pri-
vate estate. The pretext which Sir JOHN THE
LAWNY has set up, that Church-rates " are not
a charge upon land, but, in reality, a charge upon
the occupiers of land," is a plausible, but very
pitiable fallacy ; for were there no such legal
burden upon the land, is it not well known that
the occupier of that land would pay a propor-
tionately lower rent ? Is it not so with all our
public burdens ? They enter into the calculation
of rent; it is, therefore, the land, or the property,
whatever it may be, upon which the burden is
imposed, which Church-rates are made a charge
upon. It may be quite true, as was stated in the
debate, that the courts of law had decided that
land cannot be seized and held as a security for
the payment of Church-rates, and this upon the
ground that the responsibility of their payment
rests with the occupier and not with the owner
of the land. But this does not really alter the
case. It is the land, or the property, upon which

the charge rests ; only the payment thereof- is
required, by law, to be made by, the
person occupying the same. Another very paltry
pretext, which the author of the bill brought
forward in its support, was, that " many persons
were dissatisfied with the manner in which the
Services of the Church of England were conducted;
and though he deprecated in the highest degree
the disorderly proceedings which had taken place
in one of the metropolitan churches, he thought
that it was the duly of the House of Commons
rather to strengthen the hands of the laity than
to deliver them over to the tender mercies of the
clergy, and to require them to contribute towards
the couducting of Services in which they did not
agree." Now here we a tissue of very gross ,
fallacies. Church-rates, in the first place, have
nothing whatever fo do with the manner in which
the Services of the Church of England are con-
ducted': they have never been an element in any
one single instance of the dissensions which
have, here and there, unfortunately, arisen- upon
this subject. Neither can Church-rates have
anything to do with "strengthening the hands
of the laity ;" or in anywise tend "to deliver
them over to the tender mercies of the clergy,"
either by requiring them " to contribute towards
the conducting of Services in which they did not
agree," or in any other way whatever ; for
Church-rates are not required as a contribution
towards the conducting of the Services of the
Church. Even the payment of the organist out
of the Church-rates can be resisted, and is re-
sisted in innumerable instances throughout the
country. The legitimate object of Church-rates
is the maintenance of the material fabrics of the
Church ; and all who have had to do with Vestry
meetings on this subject know full well that it is
in the power of the rate-payers themselves to
restrict the rate almost entirely to that purpose.
It is upon this ground that the great necessity-
for such a rate really rests. Our parish churches
confer benefits which are not confined, by' any
means,,to the members of the Church. Those
who dissent from her doctrines, and separate
from her communion, derive many advantages
from our Church system, as established by law,
and as it is found in operation in almOst every
parish in the kingdom. And it is to abolish
this national system,—or, as Mr. DISRAELI
so forcibly described it, "to revolutionise the
parochial constitution of the country," that the
abolition of Church-rates is sought to be effected.
And well did the right hon. gentleman remind
the House, that "the Church had been, still
and he trusted would long continue to be the
best security in the country against that religious
fanaticism which had more than once been pre-
valent in these
,realms,"—and rightly did he
caution them, that, though " they were told and
flattered that they lived in an- enlightened age ;
that the population of this country were' so
advanced that they could look fOrward without
fear to the conduct of a people edileated and
philosophical; yet if he could judge from what
was passing under his eyes in almost every cor-
ner of the country he saw a course of conduct
and indication, of opinion which made him trem-
ble as to what might be the consequence to the
country if the Church of England was withdrawn
from the exercise of her present influence." Such
apprehensions as these are but too well founded,
and they certainly deserve the serious considera-
tion, not only of Churchmen, but of Dissenters
also.

However, we may take it for granted, after
the small majority of Wednesday for the Second
reading of the Abolition Bill, that Church-
rates are safe for the present session. Even
should the House of Commons pass the Bill
in its present shape, it will go to the House of
Lords so weakened in its influences, by the dimi-
nished support it has received from the Commons,
and from the growing aversion to it which is so-
'apparent in the country, that their Lordships
will hesitate even less than ever to refuse their
assent to it. It only remains, therefore, for
Churchmen throughout the country,—and, in-
deed,' for all who are favourable to that parochial
system which has conferred so many benefits on
the people,—to persevere in their praiseworthy
efforts to ventilate the subject, in order to satisfy
public opinion, that Church-rates are not that
grievance which an interested and factious party
have represented, them to be, and that their aboli-
tion, so far from being a public benefit, would be
a national calamity.

AUTHORITIES IN FAVOUR OF CHURCH-
RATES.

Both the mover and the seconder of the amendment
against Sir John Trelawny's Bill for the Abolition -of
Church-rates, in the House of Commons on Wednesday,
made pointed allusion to the evidence of our respected
townsman, the Rev. Dr. Hume. Lord R. Montagu, the
mover of the amendment, referred to the fact that the
evidence of nearly all the witnesses examined last session
established that the conscientious objections of the Dis-
senters had nothing to do with the matter, and. thatthine
fact a great number of them felt the necointetyn for
awe of
existence of some establishment for thlleudmeaidn to
religion. And then the noble lord
Particularly
specially
that part
the evidence of Dr. Hume—
eox explained to him; but, on the
Church-
rates, when the subject was
Pable that he had often read arguments by Dis-
contrary,
prove that thee rates were right and proper."
sTehnotesresctoonder of the amendment, Mr. R. Long, who
jdeclaredoo
t tthrheaa that,
payment
ehnits
oefapcehriuerneche:
nomadefoiDt ii
Dissenter
veryen wnht eicr
hahbbal dee
hadt
nob.aiden speech on the occasion, also
particularly referred to the evidence of Dr. Hume, by
which, as he showed, it was proved, " that the abolition
of church-rates would almost entirely destroy the means
of supporting the fabrics of the churches in large
towns." We are well aware of the great pains which
Dr. Hume had taken to inform himself, thoroughly and
accurately, on the subject; and we do not wonder,
therefore, at the importance which has been attached, in
the House of Commons, to the evidence he was enabled to
give before the Committee of the House of Lords, last
session, on this important subject—evidence which it now
appears has made a deep impression upon the minds of