The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-11 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL RACES.

(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
CROXTETH STAKES.

Rataplan
Acrobat

Saucebox

Three ran.
MERSEY STAKES.

Heir of Lynne
Tilly
Imposture

Seven ran.
BENTINCK PLATE.

Early Bird
Hanover...
Elastic

OAKS.

Lady Tatton
Ellermire

Four ran.

LATEST BETTING.
LIVERPOOL CUP.
3to 1 agst Cock Pheasant
3to 1 agst Shoreham
6to 1 agst Bianca (taken) •
7to 1 agst any other

BIPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The Lords' amendments to Cromarty's Estate Bill
were considered and agreed to. _ . .

Mr. MIIRROUGII 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 heard
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 not the slightest wish
to prevent Baron Rothsehild being heard by counsel on
a matter which so nearly concerned his rights and inte-
rests, but he 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. PHILLIMORE 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 BO
Against it 3l
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 the first 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 religious body, he would in
some measure agree with them—(Hear)—but that it
would materially affect the Established Church as an Es-
tablished Church he 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 Established 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 bad been afforded by the
Established Church for all, the hon. and learned
member referred to a great number of returns, snowing
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 hap-
piness of society than the voluntary principle ; he,
therefore, could not see why an establishment that had
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 too 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
country had been entirely overlooked or forgotten. The
bon. 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
to sleep. Would it not, therefore, be far better by some
legislation to set the matter at rest, and put an end to
the heartburnings 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 toldeerease its popularity
than these paltry attempts to throw out a measure
when the paltry stun (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
as 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 it 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 bad been brought forward,
and he trusted the house vveuhl 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 !
b
Lord J. MANNERS supported the amendment,
considering isde n
unjustifiable,
the y e very preamble m b
e uncalled-for ep
asi put forth,
le.
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
lof
te
pirlil,
n
church rates would put an end to the Monarchy and
the Established Church altogether. lie 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 present bill. (Hear.)
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE supported the amendment
of the hon. member for Bridgewater, considering the
bill as one that was of a dishonest character, because it
gave all the advantages to the Dissenters and deprived
the Churchmen of them ; while at the same time it
totally disregarded the upholding of the fabric of the
Established Church. It did also an injustice to the
Churchman by throwing upon him the burthen
of supporting the Church, while it gave to the
Dissenters the advantages accruing from it. It
had been said that church rates could not be raised in
large cities, and the city of Westminster had been men-
tioned. He knew nothing of Westminster, but of this
he could assure the house, that in the diocese of London
very considerable rates were raised. The hon. gentle-
man then read a statement, showing that in the arch-
deaconry of Middling there were only three 0.
_ _