The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The Lords' amendments to Cromarty's Estate Bill
were considered and agreed to.
Mr. MIIRROUGH presented a petition from the
inhabitants of St. Clements Danes, Strand, praying for
the abolition of church rates.
BARON ROTHSCHILD'S CASE.
Mr. WALPOLE rose to move that Baron Lionel
Rothschild should be heard by counsel on Monday next,
before the committee now sitting on the London Writ.
He as chairman of the committee had received a letter to
that effect from Baron Rothschild, and his request had
been very much discussed by the committee. The com-
mittee had felt there was very considerable difficulty,
inasmuch as it would hardly be fair to hear counsel on
one side and not on the other. At the same time the
application of Baron Rothschild appeared so reasonable
that the committee consulted Mr. Speaker, and he sup-
plied them with a precedent in the case of the late Mr.
O'Connell. Mr. O'Connell had been returned, but was
unable to sit, as he refused to take the oath of supre-
macy ; accordingly he applied to be heard by counsel,
and his request was granted ; but he was beard
by counsel at the bar of the house. The dif-
ference now was whether Baron Rothschild should
be heard by counsel at the bar of the house, or
before the committee. He (Mr. Walpole) as chairman
of the committee, did not wish to express any opinion on
the question, and he should therefore simply make this
motion, in which the majority of the committee were
unanimous. The right hon. and learned gentleman
concluded by moving his resolution.
Sir F. THESIGER said he had lot the slightest wish
to prevent Baron Rothschild being heard by counsel on
a matter which so nearly concerned his rights and inte-
rests, but be did entertain very considerable doubts of
the course which the right hon. member for Midhurst
(Mr. Walpole) proposed to take. He begged leave,
therefore, to move an amendment, that Baron Roths-
child be at liberty to be heard by counsel at the bar of
the house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, on the ground
that the question of law as well as of fact had been re-
ferred to the committee.
Mr. R. PIIILLIUORE supported the amendment, and
the LORD-ADVOCATE opposed it.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Headlam,
Lord Seymour, and Mr. Massey took part,
Sir F. THESIGER said he had no wish to put the
house to the trouble of dividing.
The amendment was then withdrawn and the original
motion agreed to.
SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the
above bill,
Mr. BLACKBURN moved the postponement of
the second reading for a fortnight.
Mr. DUNLOP moved an amendment that it be read
a second time to-morrow.
The house divided—
For the motion..
Against it .

. 80

Majority
Mr. BLACKBURN then gave notice that to-mor-
row he would move that the bill be read a second time
on Monday next.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. FOLLETT rose to oppose the further progress of
the bill, on the ground that it was a political and not a re-
ligious measure, and one intended as thefirat step towards
the destruction of the Established Church in this country.
If it was to be said that this measure would not affect
the Established Church as a religions body, he would ha
some measure agree w;th them—(Hear)—but that it
would materially affect the Established Church as an Es-
tablished Church be considered to be without the
slightest doubt. If it were once allowed that the
Established Church was not to be kept up by com-
pulsory payments, and that the State was not to do
all in its power to support it, there was an end of
the Church of England as an Established Church. If
Dissenters were to be exempted from the payment of
rates for the support of the Established Church, the
principle of an E.tablished Church was at once given
up. One reason that had been put forward in favour of
the abolition of the Established Church was that
it had not done its duty. He denied such a
proposition in toto, and in order to show
that sufficient accommodation had been afforded by the
Established Church for all, the hon. and learned
member referred to a great number of returns, showing
the accommodation that had been afforded by the
Established Church in some of the largest towns in the
kingdom, and the effect of the voluntary principle, and
from these returns the hon. gentleman drew the con-
clusion that the church had done far more for the hen-
pinese of society than the voluntary principle ; Le,
therefore, could not see why an establishment that bad
existed for upwards of 1,000 years, was to be up-
rooted for the sake of establishing a principle that was
evanescent and unstable. He thought the question had
been argued upon teo limited grounds ; it had been only
looked upon with reference to large towns, while the
desires and wishes of upwards of 11,000 parishes in the
eouutry had been entirely overlooked or forgotten. The
hon. and learned member concluded a lengthened speech
by moving that the house should resolve itself into a
committee on the bill that day three months.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL regretted the course
that had been pursued by his learned friend. It never
could be said that after what had taken place the ques-
tion of the abolition of the church rates would be allowed
totsleep. Would it not, therefore, be far better by some
lgielation to set the matter at rest, and put an end to
the keartburnings the dissenters at the present moment
felt on this subject. That was the object of the present
bill, and a more commendable one he could not con-
ceive. He thought that nothing was more calculated
to lower the church in the opinion of the country than
for it to agree at once to a measure like the present,
and nothing was more likely toldecrease its popularity
than these paltry attempts to throw out a measure
when the paltry sum (compared with the incomes of the
Church of England) of 300,0001. only was involved. He
would not look at the question only as a legislator, but
RS a lawyer, and in the latter character he must confess
he was ashamed of the law as it at present stood.
The law as it at present stood enforced an obligation, but
there was no means of carrying :t out. The result was
the law was a complete mockery and a laughing-stock.
And what was the consequence ? Why, that church
rates in the principal towns in the kingdom had been re-
fused, and, in some instances, not asked for. To remedy
these evils the present bill had been brought forward,
and he trusted the house would at once adopt it. There
might be many objectionable clauses in the bill, but the
house having sanctioned its principle, was it not a wise
course to go into committee in order to consider its de-
tails and remedy any of its defects t
Lord J. MANNERS supported the amendment,
considering the very preamble of the bill, as put forth,
a false, unjustifiable, and uncalled-for principle.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE, while he admitted the
temperate manner in which the hon. and learned gentle-
man opened the debate, could not but be surprised at
the assertion he had made, namely, that the abolition of
church rates would put an end to the Monarchy and
the Established Church altogether. ife trusted that the
Monarchy and the Church of England and Ireland were
placed upon a far sounder and more stable foundation.
Could it be denied that since the abolition of church rates
in Ireland the Established Church there had been im-
proved and strengthened, and many heartburnings, and
ill feelings had been put an end to ? If such had been
the result of the measure in
Ireland, why should it not
be equally beneficial in England ? (Hear.) Believing
that the abolition of church rates would remove the
wall of dissent, he should give his hearty support to the
bill.

Mr. E. BALL supported the bill, believing that
nothing would be more beneficial for the Church of Eng-
land than the
passing of the s
present bill. (Hear.)
Mr. R. PHILLIMOREupported the amendment
of the hon. member for Bridgewater,
bill as one that was of a dishonest
considering the
the
Dissenters character, because it
gave all the advantages to
the Churchmen of them ; wails at and .deprived
t the same time it
totally dieroprded the upholding of the fabric of the
Eetablished Church. It .did also an injustice to the
Churchman by throwing . upon the burthen
of supporting the Church,
while itn gave to the
Dissenters the advantages accruing fro
it- It
had been said that church rates could not 113 e
raised
ilarge cities, and the city of Westminster had been n"
Um:led. He knew nothing of Weetminster, but ot this
be could assure the house, that in the diocese of London
very considerable rates were raised. The hon. g4ntle.
man then read a statement, showing that in the arch-
deaconry of Middlesex there were only three pa_
rishes where the rate had been refused. In conchision,
he contended, as be had set out that the true object of
this bill was not to relieve the conscientious Dissenter,
but to impose a double burden upon the Church of Eng-
land, whilst it gave to the Dissenter all the rights and
privileges of that church. (Cheers.)
Mr. C. FORSTER said it appeared to him that
the only way in which this much-vexed question
could be settled was by the means proposed by the
measure before the house--namely, by the total and
immediate abolition of church rates. (Hear, hear.)
He, therefore,
aomveornget the trusted this bill might not be placed
category of measures which were to stand
causetateirernent until the conclusion of the war, be-
ttime w
he when every
that the present was more particularly
all differences of religious -.. ermine ought to be taken to remove
view of ellious and sectarian feeling, with, a
in the hope, cementingalso, oafreere perfect "union to conquer, and
upon a purely religions an ultimate peace, founded
Mr. WIG RAM 3 basis. (Cheers.)
tuskso far from
opposed the bill, believing that its
settling
in the question at once,
,was
rather eep the agitation al'
Mr. VERNON, although he e*
Renters being compelled tic),r:22 was no advocate for Pis-
Fpzt an establishment with 1
which they disagreed in
although he
,was
most desirous to see them relieved and
a necessity,
at the same time thought that as the bill
of its proper pretensions, and that it would ipbreoevne shorn
quit e
inoperative, he could not give it hie support,
After a few words from Mr. GURNEY, ',
aeso in .
sition to the bill, opo-
Mr. BENTINCT was sorry to interpose any rem
r 1
of his own, as the house seemed anxious to go to a
vi-
sion—but considering the importance of the bill to'the
country at large, and that the house had therefore a
right to expect the presence of some members of the
Government—(hear, bear)—and perceiving that lere
was not a single member of the Cabinet on the
Treasury bench, he should move the aJjournment of the
debate. (Hear.)
Adatiral WALCOTT having said a few words onithe
principle of the bill,
Ler.l SEYMOUR said he voted for the second reading
of the bill because he thought its principle ought to
be recognised ;
and lie believed there wars a Tory