The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-03 00:00:00

LEEDS.

The contest for this borough promises to be very severe.
There seems no doubt that Mr. E. Baines will be re-
elected, so that the struggle will really be between the sup-
porters of Mr. G. S. Beecroft, the present Conservative
member, and Lord Amberley, who has come forward as a
Liberal candidate in coalition with Mr. Baines. On Fri-
day evening Mr. Beecroft addressed a large meeting of his
supporters, and met with a very cheering reception. The
three candidates have commenced addressing ward meet-
ings in the evenings, so that the tug of political warfare
has fairly commenced. At one ward meeting on Friday
evening,
Lord AMBERLEY said that Mr. Baines had referred to the
services of his father in the cause of Reform, and it was
perfectly true that Lord Russell had always been faithful
to that cause. He might mention that his father was about
to publish a new and cheaper edition of his work on the
English Constitution ; and to that edition he had added
certain paragraphs strongly favourable to the enfranchise-
ment of the working classes, and these would be found to
be a sufficient answer to the strange suppositions that had
been put forward on the notion that Lord Russell had
given up the cause of Reform.
At tho same In.wting. too, written questions wore put to
Mr. Baines and Lord Amberley.

BALNEB in reply said the first was—Are you prepared
to vote for the Separation of Church and State ? To that
also he would be obliged to return a discriminating an-
swer. He was himself a Dissenter, who thought that the
Church of Christ was not designed by its founder to be
supported by the civil magistrates or by means of taxation.
He was a Voluntary, and supported his own religion, his
own schools, and all that was connected with that religion.
(Cheeps.) His principle, therefore, was entire independence
of Church and State ; but the question of the separation
of Church and State required accurate definition. If
the question meant the entire abolition of tithes, he was
not prepared to vote for that. If it meant taking away
from the Church the fabrics of the Church, he was not
prepared to vote for that. (Hear, hear.) He was not pre-
pared to vote for anything that would diminish the influ-
ence of the Q hurch as a religious institution ; but at the
same time he would tell the members of the Church that
they had no right to tax any other individual of any other
religion for the support of theirs. (Loud cheers.) He was
confident that religion could support itself, and that reli-
gious communities could support themselves. (Cheers.)
But ho would not, at the expense of a revolution, sanction
anything violent in this country. When the change was
made it must be effected both with the consent of Parlia-
ment and the people. (Cheers.) It must, in fact, be effected
with the consent of the Church of England itself. (Loud
cheers.)
Lord AMBEBLEY said these were questions which could
not be answered without a reference as to what would be
expedient at the present moment. Perhaps if they were
founding a new State it would not be wise to establish a
State Church ; but in England where a very large propor-
tion of the people were warmly attached to its Church, it
was regarded by them as a matter of the utmost importance
that the Church should be connected with the State.
Therefore, whatever views might be held with regard to the
principle of that connexion, he confessed he was not pre-
pared to vote for the separation of the two at the present
moment. In regard to the second question, be thought they
must look at the strong Protestant feeling of the country,
which, he thought, would be shocked by their opening the
Crown, as it was called, to persons of the Roman Catholic
religion. He was inclined to believe it would be wise to
maintain that provision that the Sovereign might be com-