The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-05-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDA.Y, MAY 23,

CHURCH PROPERTY.—The Episcopal and Capitular Bill
passed through committee, on the understanding that the
measure should be referred to the select committee.
DOG CARTS.—Lord LONDESBOROI7GII moved the se-
cond reading of the Dangerous Animals Bill, which
proposed to extend to the rural districts the provisions
now in force in the metropolis with regard to the use of
dogs for drawing carts.—After some discussion the bill
was negatived without a division.
LAW REFORM.—The house went into committee on the
Common Law Procedure Bill, No. 2. Lord ST. LEONARD'S
objected to the bill for other reasons as well as on account
of the change which it proposed to introduce as to unani-
mity of juries. He was inclined to give way to some
extent on this point, but not to go the lengths contem-
plated by the. bill.—The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the
bill, which, he maintained, would be most useful, and
which had been prepared with care.—After some further
discussion the bill passed through committee, with verbal
amendments.

The Lordships adjourned at twenty minutes to eight
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY, MAY 26.

TIER VIENNA PROTOCOL.—Lord CLARENDON stated, in
reply to Lord CLANRICARDE, that the treaty between
Austria and Prussia would be laid before the House as
soon as the protocol in which it had been embodied had
been received. With respect to Persia, the last intelli-
gence received by the Government was to the effect that
Persia had determined to remain neutral in the war be-
tween Turkey and Russia.
RAILWAY TRAFFIC.—The committee on the Railway
and Canal Traffic Bill was postponed, in consequence of
the absence of the Lord Chief Justice.

TENANT RIGHT.—The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)
Bill, and the Powers of Leasing (Ireland) Bill were read a
third time and passed.

MANNING THE NAVY.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE
moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the
Bill for Manning the Navy, and proceeded to explain the
objects aimed at by the measure.—A discussion of con-
siderable length ensued, in which Lords ELLENBOROUGH,
HA.RDWICHE, and COLCHESTER took part; after which
the bill passed through committee.
The Church Building Acts Amendment Bill was read a
third time and passed. _ _

The Dublin Port Bill was read a second time. Their
lordships adjourned at ten minutes to eleren o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY, Mir 23.

PETITIONS for the abolition of church-rates were pre-
sented by Sir W. CLAY,. from Liverpool and Runcorn ; by
Mr. PILKINGTON, from the inhabitants of Over Darwen
and Blackburn ; by Mr. TI3ORNELEY, from the Unitarian
congregation at Birkenhead ; by Mr. JACKSON, from
Newcastle-under-Lyue ; by Mr. HADFIELD, from the First
Baptist Chapel, Preston '-. and the Tippington-street
Chapel, Manchester ; by Colonel BIDDITLPH, from Wrex-
ham, county of Denbigh ; from the parish of Gresford,
Denbigh; from the Protestant Dissenters of Wrexham;
from Glyndwrdwy, county of Merioneth ; from the Pres-
byterian congregation, Wrexham ; from Pen-y-bryn
chapel, Wrexham ; from the Hope Paper Mills, county of
Flint; from the parish of Brymbo ; and by Sir GEORGE
STRICKLAND, from Preston.

TREATY BETWEEN ENGLAND, PRANCE AND TURRET.—
Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table the treaty concluded
between Her ➢iajesty, the Emperor of the French, and
the Sultan.

CHURCH RATES.

Sir W. CLAY moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
entire abolition of church-rates. His bill would consist of
only two clauses, one abolished church-rates, and the
other provided that, where the rates were charged by act
of Parliament with a trust, they should subsist until the
trust ceased.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Pauo'.
In the course of the discussion which. followed, Lord
STANLEY said he thought, if Parliament left this question
alone for four or five years, it would• settle itself. The
real hardship, he considered, was not felt by those who
objected to- pay church-rates, but by those who, in conse-
quence of our retaining a law which public feeling ren-
dered inoperative, were compelled, by the obligation cast
upon them, of maintaining the fabric of the•church, to re-
sort to a rate, in preference to voluntary contributions.
He thought the time had come for abandoning the com-
pulsory principle. The country had practically decided
the question,and it was the duty of Parliament to acquiesce.
Mr. DRUMMOND said, that every argument which had
been used in favour of this proposition was equally valid
against the support of an established church. It was very
easy to talk about the delight of brethren dwelling to-
gether in unity, and, as Gibbon Wakefield lad: found that
all the prisoners in Newgate were entirely of opinion that
the only causes of trouble in the town were judge, magis-
trate, and policeman, so those gentlemen who-objected to
church-rates thought this question would be- amicably
settled if they were allowed to rob the church with im-
punity. Why, they talked about this question being
settled, and there was not a person who had talked of
any other settlement whatever than that of refusing to
pay the church-rates. Would not this be letting them
have their own way in robbing the church ? People were
very fond of talking about their consciences—and he had
no objection to their doing so if they pleased—but there
was always, likewise, a secret insinuation that nobody else
had a conscience. Now, in all countries in the world of
which we had any record, the Sovereign had. established,
for the benefit of his subjects, a national religion, and it
was the conscientious duty of every subject of that Sove-
reign to assist him in doing what was necessary for the
religious instruction of his subjects. " Yes,. they said,
" but then we have this blessed thing called. dissent.' "
Now, dissent was a luxury, and people must pay for their
luxuries. You could not keep a pack of hounds or have a
box at the Opera without paying for them, and why were
you to have the luxury of abusing bishops and of attack-
ing church establishments, and not pay in return for it
the miserable pittance of a church-rate ? But this was not
all. He said, with respect to the abolition of church-rates,
the same thing that he said with respect to-tithes. There
was a great outcry for the abolition of tithes, the meaning
of which was, that every landlord wished to put one-tenth
more of church property into his pocket. He objected to
this, because, if tithes were to be abolished, he said, let
the State take them. His opinion was the same with
regard to these rates. You had bought every one of your
houses and rentcharges with the burden of these rates
upon them ; you should not put them into your pocket,
but let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take possession of
them. You had no right to them, and, if your consciences
did not allow you to pay them to the State, he should
suspect that it was not a question of conscience, but of
money after all.

.cord J. RUSSELL, after adverting to various plans for
dealing with church-rates, and to the conflicting views
upon this question, acknowledged that he had no expecta-
tion, if this source of dissension were removed, that tran-
quillity would be established between the Dissenters and
the Church. He believed, he said, that this demand
would be followed by others of the same nature, and, if
the principle was to be concession, and nothing but con-
cession, he was not prepared to say how far parliament
might not be obliged to go. At the same time he was far
from being blind to the difficulties which beset this ques-
tion, to the unsatisfactory state of the law, and to the
scandal and illwill to which it gave rise. The subject
must, however, be considered with reference to the rights
of the church, and a settlement of the question must be
based upon that consideration, and he was disposed to
think it would be far better not to attempt during the
present session to find a solution of this great problem.
Church-rates should not be totally abolished without a
substitute, and he must, therefore, vote against the intro-
duction of this bill, which would give rise to a belief that
parliament was not disposed to continue that support to
the Established Church which it had hitherto given, and
be a symptom that other attacks upon the church would
be successful.

Upon a division, the motion for leave to bring in the
bill was carried by 129 against 62.
The Industrial and Provident Societies Bill passed
through committee.
The house adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, 3.ler 24.

PETITIONS were presented by Mr. 0. STANLEY, from the
attorneys and solicitors of Chester, praying that all the
originals of wills be retained within the district in which
they are proved ; and by Mr. 3ilowauAr, from the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts ; from
the Church Building Society ; and from the Society for
Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates in
Populous Places, against sections 13 and 16 of the Mort-
main Bill.

PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL.—The order of the day for
the resumption of the adjourned debate (sth of April) on
the question of the second reading of this bill, having been
read, Mr. MA.Liss rose to support the motion, the object
of which was to prevent women who had professed them-
selves nuns from executing deeds or other instruments for
the disposal of property in favour of the conventual estab-
lishments of which they have become members.—ln the
course of the discussion, in which many Irish members
took part, Mr. H. T. LIDDELL regretted the bitter reli-
gious animus which was always forced into these discus-
sions, so much so that even a place of refuge for destitute
children could not be proposed to the house without
members seizing it as a battle-field for their disputes ; but
he trusted that the prophecy as to these discussions lead-
ing eventually to the severance of Church and State would
not be verified. In considering this question, he thought
that it ought to be borne in mind that the very establish-
ment of these monastic institutions was of questionable
legality, and was, in fact, forbidden by the Emancipation
Act. He considered that the attacks constantly made
upon the member for Hertford as very unjust, inasmuch
as that member by his motion never intended to drag
Romanist ladies before the country, but merely to direct
the attention of the house to the present position of these
convents, the great increase in their numbers and great
augmentation of their revenues, which there was little
doubt must, some day or other, be seriously considered.
He protested against the notion that members who sup-
ported this measure had any desire to violate or offend the
feelings of the Romanist, and he referred with pleasure to
the vote he had given in 1829 on the Emancipation Act,
as a proof that he was then, and had always been, averse
to dealing narrowly with the free opinions of any party.
The real question was—were there any persons in these
institutions who were in a state of spiritual and moral
subjection so as to be deprived of their civil rights. He
thought there were such persons, and, also, that there
were others so circumstanced as to be subject to an undue
influence in the disposition of their property for the benefit
of these convents, and to the injury and exclusion of their
friends. These were the reasons why he would support
the present measure. He thought, however, that the first
Part of the bill was worded too stringently, so much so
that he should certainly suggest its amendment in com-
mittee, because his only object was to protect the interests
of the Romanists, not to offend their feelings.—A quarter
to six o'clock having arrived, the debate stood again
adjourned.
CRUELTY TO ANDIALS.—The Cruelty to Animals Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
The house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

THURSDAY,

AUy 25,

The Chester, Farndon, and Worthenbury Road Bill, and
the East Lancashire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, and

chester and Southport Railways Bill were read a third time
and passed.
PETITIONS for the closing of publichouses and beershops
on Sundays were presented by Mr. ADDERLET, from St.
Chad's, Shrewsbury, Mr. L. HEYWORTH (5,) from congre-
gations of chapels in Wrexham, and (3) from adjacent
hamlets, and by Mr. MOSTYN, from the guardians of the
poor of the Holywell Union, in Flintshire ; and also the
inhabitants of the town of Buckley, in Flintshire.
SNIPPING BONDS.—In answer to a question, Mr. Wm-
son said, a proposal had been made to the Treasury to
allow one common bond to be taken for the whole of the
goods shipped on board a given vessel, notwithstanding
that they belonged to a variety of proprietors, but one
bond would be insufficient for the purposes of which it was
required, as it was impossible that the captain of a ship
could answer for the use which was to be made of warlike
stores when they had been removed from this country.
After careful consideration the Government had, there-
fore, come to the conclusion that it would be impossible
to accept a common bond, but that each individual ship-
per on whose good faith a shipment of goods took place
should be made answerable.

BANKRUPTCY LAWS.—To a question whether it was
the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce
any measure during the present session founded on the
recent report of the Bankruptcy Commission. Lord J.
RUSSELL replied that the Government had determined not
to introduce any measure on the subject in the course of
the present session.
THE OATHS BILL.

The second reading of the Oaths Bill having been read,
Sir F. TIIESIGER adverted to the delay which had oc-
curred in the prosecution of the measure, which he attri-
buted to Lord J. Russell having some mistrust of the
prudence of the step the government had taken in origi-
nating it. After an able speech, in which the speaker
said, that so far from the bill being the proper mode of
providing for the admission of Jews into the legislature,
it seemed to be intended rather for the benefit of Romanists,
he concluded by moving that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he attached
no virtue to particular declarations as tending to the
maintenance of the church establishment ; its strength
lay in the opinion of the country. He contended that
Romanists in that house were entitled to the same amount
of liberty and freedom of action as were enjoyed by Pro-
testant members; and he concluded by expressing his
opinion that Lord John Russell had rendered a conspi-
cuous and valuable service in handing over to the axe of
the executioner a bundle of useless oaths which served as
pitfalls to tender consciences, while they caused bold men
to disregard conscience altogether.
Mr. NAPIER insisted on the importance of the oaths
proposed to be abolished as protective against foreign
aggression, and contended that our duty to our sovereim
and country should impel us to hold by the securities
which the wisdom of our ancestors had set up, which were
involved in the Bill of Rights, and formed the basis of
the constitution.

Mr. H. T. LIDDELL said they were called upon to give•
their assent to the second reading of a bill both extraor-
dinary and unusual. The noble lord had certainly started
with some advantage on his side, because, following the
example of a noble and learned lord who last year brought
the question before the House of Peers, he had proposed
to do away with certain superfluous oaths which had been
applicable to an entirely different period of our history.
To that part of the measure he had no objection. But the
noble lord proposed, as his second' object, to modify by the
alteration the oath now taken by the members of the
house; and the third object he had in view was to facili-
tate, as it were, by a side door, the admission of Jews into
the house.

Lord J. RUSSELL.--No : by a front door. (A laugh.)
Mr; H. T. LIDDELL.—By a front door, if the noble lord
liked ;. but, as far as the preamble• went, there was no
mention of the admission of Jews. With regard to the
alteration of the oath which formed the great compact
between the Protestants of this country and the Roman-
ists, who were admitted to the full advantages and privi-
leges of the British constitution, by the Act of 1829, he
declared his unqualified objection, and would not consent
to any change in the oath whatever. Why, he asked,
should he consent to change it ? —Had any one com-
plained ?—Had any one been obstructed by it in obtaining
admission to the house ? It was impossible to bring a
single instance ; and when he recollected the long and
painful struggle which took place before the Act was ob-
tained—that for half a century at least the country was
convulsed by repeated attempts in both houses in favour
of that measure—that it was only carried after immense
sacrifices, not merely of interest, but of character, by the
ministry who passed the measure, he, for one, would not
consent in any way to give a chance of reviving those ani-
mosities and' struggles which were then happily termi-
nated. Much had been justly said of the unchanging and
unchangeable nature of that mighty engine which still
existed in the Papacy ; and he quoted from an historical
work of Voltaire the testimony of that able man to the
power and subtlety of Rome. That was the• unchanged
and unchangeable system which had caused so much dif-
ficulty and trouble in this country, and with the support-
ers of which the Legislature had, in 1829, entered into a
solemn compact, to which he had himself been a party,
and which he could not consent to tamper with or to
shake. When Sir R. Peel proposed that great change
which removed the fetters previously imposed, upon our
Romanist fellow-subjects, various securities were sug-
gested to reconcile the people of England to the mea-
sure, and eventually a particular form of oath was the
security adopted. He could not but think that it was an
act of great political rashness and imprudence en the part
of Lord J. Russell to attempt to disturb the compact then
made by repealing the oath which had been incorporated
in the measure of 1829. He could assure the House that
the people of England, and especially the great community
he represented, were most sensitive upon this subject,
and, although he believed they would view with regret any
change. which would necessitate the exclusion of any class
from that assembly, he was satisfied that they would re-
gard, with %dings of the greatest alarm, any alteration in
that form of oath which was the only security possessed
by the State against the possible encroachments of the
church of Rome. The noble lord had admitted that one
of the main objects of this bill was the admission of Jews
to the Commons' House of Parliament. He (Mr. Liddell)
had never been able to vote in favour of the admission of
Jews into Parliament, and in 1829, when the question was
first brought forward with great ability by ,Tr. R. Grant,
he had felt it his duty to vote against the proposition, and
ha:dd pursued the same course on several subsequent occa-
sions: He had been confirmed in the resolution not to
vary his vote by the perusal of an able essay, written, he
believed, by Mr. Macauley, and which appeared in the
Edinburgh Review, in which the subject was, in his
opinion, treated with ridicule which might have well been
spared in discussing a matter of such solemnity. The
essayist spoke with mockery of " essentially Christian
Governments," and said they might as well talk of " essen-
tially Protestant cookery," or " essentially Christian horse.
manship." Now it was an ancient and reverend custom
in that House to offer up prayer to the Supreme Being
every day before the commencement of its proceedings, in
the name of their common Redeemer. If that practice
were continued, the members of the House must profess
themselves to be Christians ; but if those who regarded the
Redeemer as an impostor and a cheat were admitted into
the House, he would not be surprised to find them object
to the reading of the prayers, as a grievance to themselves,
and as wounding their consciences. How would such an
objection be met ? The objectors might be told, "If these
are your opinions, why do you not absent yourselves while
prayers are read ?" But they would reply, "It is the
practice of members who attend prayers to secure them-
selves places in the House for the remainder of the even-
ing ; therefore, either give us places which we may retain
without being disturbed, or we shall be compelled to at-
tend prayers which are an offence to our consciences." He
conceived that it was most desirable to avoid such a scan-
dal as this contingency would occasion. He did not think
sufficient ground had been shown for the change proposed
by the bill, and he should therefore feel it his duty to vote
against the measure.
After some further discussion, Lord J. RUSSELL, in the
course of his speech, argued that the oath contained in the
Emancipation Act had not prevented Romanist members,
with the exception of one or two, from voting for depriving
the Church of Ireland of its temporalities. Mr. O'Connell
contended that the oath applied only to the doctrine and
discipline of the church, and it was evident from the votes
of Romanist members generally, that it afforded no pro-
tection to the revenues of the church. Under these
circumstances it would be wise to alter the oath, so as to
leave Romanist members at liberty to take what course
they might think proper to adopt on any question coming
before the house, without exposing themselves to the
reproach of violating their oaths. With respect to that
part of the bill which would admit Jews to seats in par-
liament, he had nothing new to say. The claims of the
Jews were founded on justice, and he trusted they would
not be made the victims of religious intolerance because
they were few in number.
Mr. DISRAELI claimed to be a friend to religious tole-
rance, but it was not on that ground he advocated the
political emancipation of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects.
He did so because the Jewish race was that to which the
human family was most deeply indebted, and countries in
which Jews had been persecuted had always suffered by a
decay of posterity. Lord J. Russell ought to have made
a plain straightforward attempt to effect the repeal of
Jewish disqualifications, instead of endeavouring to gain
his object by the omission of a few words at the end of an
oath. The oaths which this bill proposed to deal with
might be obnoxious to verbal criticism ; but it should be
recollected that important political associations were con-
nected with those oaths. All the oaths dealt with by the
bill, however, sank into insignificance compared with the
Romanist oath. A distinction must be drawn between
the Pope and Papacy. The Papacy was one of the great.
est inventions of the human mind, and its influence was
as great now as at any former period of the history of the
world. Three or four years ago the Prime Minister of
this country came down to the House of Commons and
announced the existence of a Papal conspiracy against the
Protestant liberties of this country. Had the Papacy
abandoned the conspiracy ? No; it was not as changeable
as an English minister. Believing that the bill would
excite alarm in England, and revive the spirit of animosity
between Romanists and Protestants, he felt it necessary
to record his vote against it.

Mr. :KUNTZ always supported Lord J. Russell in his
attempts to relieve the Jews from their disabilities, but
would vote against this bill, because he was resolved not
to interfere with the oath in the Emancipation Act.
Upon a division the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against Ministers
The bill is therefore lost,
The Consolidated Fund (R 8,000,000) Bill passed through
committee.

The Drainage of Landsßill was put through committee
pro fornzii.
The Exchequer Bonds Bill was read a first time.
The hou adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

FRIDAY, Mir 26.
The Stockport Rectory Division Bill was read a third
time and passed.
PETITIONS against the sale of intoxicating drinks on Sun-
days were presented by Mr. ToLLEmacirE from Wheelock
and Bruera, in the county of Chester.
BLOCKADES.—III answer to Mr. Headlam, who wished
to know whether an effective blockade was now in force
against any of the Russian ports in the Baltic or Black
Sea, Sir J. G 5441.421 Said that a rigorous blockade of the

TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1854.

Russian coast had been instituted both in the Baltic as
the Black Sea, and, although official notice of the fact
not been received, there was good reason to believe ttnre
the blockade of Riga already existed. As soon ,85 of
government should receive information of the blocPue .t
other ports in the Gulf of Finland and the Black
would be published in the Gazette, as a notice to ao ,he
world. It was not at present intended to blockade
Russian coast iu the White Sea.
SPIRIT DUTIES.—The house having resolved itself i11e49
a committee of ways and means, Mr. WILSON noco
some resolutions relative to the duties and drawbacks ,4
spirits in Scotland, which, he said, were approved of d
the Scotch distillers. The resolutions were agreed t 0,35
the house resumed.
Subsequently the Excise Duties Bill passed through
com mittee.
INcomn TAx.—The Income Tax Bill gave rise to s,Crel,e
discussion upon the gross inequality of the tax, in ‘":J
Sir H. Willoughby, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
other members took part. Ultimately the bill P
through committee.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY.—The house went into copula°
on the Oxford University Bill. After a discussion of nf,
veral hours, clause 20 was agreed to, as was also classe'of
On clause 22 being proposed, providing that meinbelit,
convocation might speak in the English tongue, to
WALroLn objected to the clause, as calculated to
cordconvocation into a debating society. The cora t
,
divided, and the clause was carried by a majority 01,0
to 70. Clause 23 was agreed to. On the 24th 0 to
being proposed, Mr. IIEYWOOD moved an amendment4ct
the effect that convocation should have power to colv,v4.
its proceedings in the English tongue. After some 1;0
cussion, the committee divided, and the amendmento
negatived by a majority of 140 to 99. Clause 21 was '
agreed to. Mr. BLACKETT then moved the oinissiol:4
the 25th clause, in order to substitute the follows`clause :—"lt shall henceforward be unlawful to admini'tile
any oath on admission to any office or emolument ills,.
said university, or the colleges thereof." After sonatofre
cussion, this amendment was withdrawn, and the
was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN then reported progr;pl
The Gaming-houses Bill was read a third time
passed. fAt to
Mr. WiirriornE obtained leave to bring in a ?run!
amend the mode of forming the jurors' lists in JIM,
and the jury system. The house adjourned at ten Ow"-
past two.