The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-17 00:00:00

SCHOOL.

Colonel FRENCH asked the Chief Commissioner of
Works if his attention had been directed to the monument
now in progress of erection at the entrance to Westminster
School, and inquired if he had any power to prevent such
erection ?
Mr. COWPER said that the act relating to such subjects
required that before erecting statues in public places the
consent of the Commissioners of the Board of Works should
be consulted. This had not been done, but at the same
time as the omission was made in ignorance of the
law, no opposition would be offered on the part
of the Commissioners in question. Certainly if he
had been consulted he would have hesitated before
giving his assent to anything so incongruous as placing
medians' statues on classic columns.
DOCKYARDS, &c.
Sir F. SMITH gave notice that on Tuesday next he
would call the attention of the house to. the subject of her
Majesty's dockyards, and to move that it was not expedient
to expend the whole of the money that had been voted for
the purposes of the Admiralty.
TRUSTEES CHARITIES BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. SELWYN presented a petition from the
Wesleyan body against 'this bill as being injurious to
their interests. The hon. and learned member then
moved that the bill be committed this day six months.

He said that he had addressed the house
at such length that he would not occupy their attention to
any extent. He said that the principle on which it ap-
peared desirable to proceed in respect to these matters was
one of compromise and conciliation. Considering the
number of the Wesleyan body, he contended that the
great body of the Dissenters were as much
opposed to this bill as members of the Church of England,
and that its supporters were to be found only amongst
those political Dissenters, of whose opinions the Liberation
Society was the exponent. He contended that the opera-
tion of the bill would be most injurious to the
interests of religion, and he trusted the house
would reject so objectionable a measure. He
thought, before they proceeded with the bill, they should
see how the measure which the house had already passed
in reference to the subject worked.
Mr. BEECROFT seconded the amendment, and con-
sidered that the subject proposed to be dealt with by the bill
should be left to the decision of our lawcourta. The bill was
in contravention of the intentions of these endowed chari-
ties, and it was in ,fact a measure of spoliation, and an at-
tempt to sever education from religion, which would be a
most perilous experiment.
Mr. MELLOR supported the bill, the object of which he
said was merely to render eligible persons who were fitted
to discharge the duties of trustees without reference to their
particular religious tenets: He said, when he introduced a
bill on this subject, which was identical with the present,
he was not influenced by the Liberation Society, but solely
from a belief that it was carrying out fully the principle of
civil andreligious liberty. He denied, as had been asserted by
the opponentsofthebill, that its advocates were those who
were indifferent to the interests of religion, or who were
actuated solely by political motives. He expressed a hope
that the house would not reject a bill of this enlightened
character.

Mr. HARDY opposed the bill at some length.
Mr. DILLWYN, the mover of the bill, defended its
principle. He was desirous to adopt any course calculated
to effect conciliation, but he did not think the part taken
by the opponents of the bill calculated to lead to
that result. The bill was not -one of spoliation as
had been asserted, but would allow any honour-
able man to discharge the duties that might
be entrusted to him in regard to these charities He pointed
out the litigation that had arisen out of the present state
of the law, by which Dissenters were excluded from the
performance of functions for which they perfectly qualified.
He, and those who agreed with him, had been accused of an
aggression on the Church, which he utterly denied ; and as
regarded him, he asserted that, in bringing forward this bill,
he was onlyacting up to his:sincere convictions. He defended
also the Liberation Society from the imputations thrown on
them, and contended that the Church party were the ag-
gressors. He was a member of the Church of England, and
did not wish to attack her temporalities, but he considered
that the Church should assume a more humble attitude
and a more Christian spirit with respect to the remainder of
the community.
Lord R-CECIL said that the hon. member for Swansea
(Mr. Dillwyn) had defended himself but not his bill, the
case for which had entirely failed. He denied that the
effect of this bill would be to restore harmony in reference
to these charities or be attended with the other results
ascribed to it. The Dissenters according to their
own description were not animated by a de-
sire to injure the Church,- but he would ask if
the conduct of Dissenters in that house justified that de-
scription. These gentlemen, estimable as they were, were
restrained by no scruple in regard to the Church—omitted
no opportunity to assail her, and to seize her property.
He believed this was the general feeling of Dissenters, and
argued that it could not be otherwise, as they were opposed
to the Church from conviction, and, if honest, must pursue
the course he had described. In his opinion, Dissenters and
Roman Catholics if admitted to the trusteeship of these
(Amities would conscientiously endeavour to colour the
teaching at the schools of those foundations by their own
doctrines. He described the conduct which the Liberation
Society in regard to the Church as reckless in the measures
adopted and the passions aroused, and contended that the
measure was in reality what it had been designated—one
of spoliation.
Mr. HADFIELD supported tho motion for going into
committee.] ille denied that heartburnings would result,
as had been predicted, from the operation of this bill, and
referred to the Manchester Grammar school where the
business had been transacted more efficiently since Dis-
sent3rs were admitted into the trusteeship. The
Dissenters by their institutions were educating the
country and he referred t) the fact that out of
the 35,000 places of worship in the kingdom, not more than
100 or 200 rectived endowment. Dissenters did not want
endowment, as it would be the greatest injury that could
be inflicted on them, and he inferred that no injury could
arise from their admission into these trusteeships.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the amendment, and main-
tained that the act introduced by Lord Cranworth had
relieved Dissenters of any just ground for complaint,
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

NEWMARKET RACES.—(This Day.)

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 50 SOVS.

Plum
Adrasta

Four ran.

HANDICAP SWEEPSTAKES OF 20 SCATS.
Mousetrap
Amy
£5O PLATE FOR TWO YEAR OLDS.

Ballerina
Olive Branch ...
Tolurno

Eleven ran.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOVS.

Memo
Letty Nest
£5O SUBSCRIPTION PLATE.

Cosmopolite
Malta
Eight ran.
LATEST BETTING ON THE COURSE.
DERBY.
25 to 1 agst Sweet Hawthorn (taken)
30 to 1 agst Neighbour (taken)
TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS.
10 to 1 agst Diophantus (offered)
11 to 1 agst Overton (taken)
100 to 8 agst Russley (taken)
13 to 1 agst Matador (taken)
15 to 1 agst Neighbour (taken)
100 to 6 agst Preceptress (taken)
1000 to 15 agst Parasite (taken)
1000 to 10 agst Undergraduate (taken)
1000 to 8 agst Knight of St. Patrick (taken)

CHESTER CUP.
100 to 7 agst Man-at-Arras (offered)
15 to 1 agst Wallace (taken)
30 to 1 agst Schism (taken)
40 to 1 agst Killigrew (offered)

SPORTING NOTES.

The result of the races at Newmarket has settled the pre-
tensions of several of the candidates for Two Thousand
and Derby honours. The success of Russley in the Third
Biennial has given an increased tone of firmness to Dundee
in the Derby quotations, .and Sweet Hawthorn in the Two
Thousand. If Sweet Hawthorn is better at the weights
than Russley, it is no use looking further for the winner.
This daughter of Sweetmeat was out six times last year,
and only won once at the Newmarket Houghton, where she
beat Eborus and Imaus in a sweepstakes. I shall in the
meantime still hold to the opinion given three months ago,
that Russley will turn out Mr. Merry's best in the Two
Thousand, and it would not astonish me to see Folkestone
his representative in the Derby. This son of Birdcatcher
was out sixteen times last year, and was successful in
ten of.his engagements, beating almost every horse at
present in the betting. His performances, in my opinion,
are quite equal to Dundee's, if not superior.
The Thirsk meeting commences to-morrow and extends
over Friday, but, clashing as it does with the Newmarket
meeting, it will not be so largely patronised as it otherwise
would have been. The industry and tack of Mr. Lancaster,
the clerk of the course, is at once seen on a glance at his
well-filled list, the entries to the Hambleton and Sowerby
Plates, the Mowbray Stakes, the Hunt Cup, and the Thirsk
Handicap being very large.
The Hambleton Plate has an entry of 44, the following
appearing the most favourably handicapped, namely :
Walkington, Bst Sib ; Cambondo, 7st 51b ; Miss Dunstable,
ist 41b ; Lopcatcher (including 31b extra), 7st ; and Ber-
nice, Gst 121 b. One of these ought to furnish the winner.
My preference for them being in the order named.
In the Sowerby Plate, Hegira, Bab-at-the-Bowster, and '
Charing Cross appear the most favourably weighted ; and
Repartee or Birdlime ought to win the Mowbray Stakes.
The Thirsk Handicap has 49 subs. Amongst those that
take my attention are Syringe, 4 yrs, Bst 31b ; Brown Hol-
land, 5 yrs, 7st 101 b ; Walkington, 4 yrs, 7st 81b ;
Desmond, 4 yrs, 7st 71b Malpas, 4 yrs, 7st 41b ; and Lop -
catcher, 3 yrs, Gst 41b. One of them, no Joubt, will fur-
nish the winner, and the one I have most fancy for is
Syringe, the next in my estimation being Walkington. The
Silver Cup will be WQII ))y Dilkoosh.
4 WUZSA gAN•