The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-17 00:00:00

Middlesex. Another peculiarity in the course pur-
sued upon occasions of this description, by the metro-
politan constituents, it were not less advi=able for their
fellow-countrymen to emulate somewhat
more sedu-
lously than heretofore, at any rate in the _er towns
of Great Britain. Allusion is made, of course,tothe
liberal character of the men selected by those holders
of the suffrage as their Parliamentary Representa-
tives. The City itself may be said to have returned
as its Members four Liberals—Liberals in a broad
sense, although one is a Hebrew and another a
Liberal Conservative. The Tower Hamlets, again,
in the last general election, that of 1847, as upon so
many similar occasions, accorded a considerable num-
ber of votes to the two leading Liberals who were
candidates-3,839 to Sir WILLIAM CLAY, and 6,268
to GEORGE THOMPSON. Similar was the enthusiasm
which in Marylebone carried to the head of the
poll Sir BENJAMIN HALL and Lord DUDLEY
STUART—the latter by 5,367 votes, and the
former by 5,343—men who have so nobly justified
opinion of their supporters by their sub-
sequentod
conduct in the Legislature, that it was
tiego
resolved in that borough that they should be again
returned, and this time free of all expense.
Equally resolute in their support of Liberality
were the electors of Westminster, who numbered
3,139 as the upholders of Sir DE LACY EVANS,
and 2,831 as the upholders of CHARLES LUSH
INGTON. At Lambeth, one of the present Mem-
bers (D'Ereconee) was in 1847 chosen by 3,708
electors, and his colleague (WiwAsis) in 1850 by
3,834—b0th Liberals, though of different complexions,
one a Whig, the other a Radical. At Southwark, in
1847, there were returned without opposition two
others no less distinguished than Alderman JOHN
HUMPHERY and Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH. As
the representatives of Finsbury, moreover, there have
been sitting together as colleagues in the House of
Commons two of the most remarkable Liberals in the
last four Parliaments—THOMAS WARLEY and
THOMAS SLINGSBY DUNCOMBE. So that the whole
of the sixteen metropolitan representatives may
be said with truth to be the upholders
of a liberal policy, one of them being a
Jew and another a Liberal Conservative. It
is worthy of remark likewise, that the two Knights
of the Shire of Middlesex come under the same po-
pular category, one of them being the gallant and
gifted RALPH OSBORNE, about the most thoroughly
independent out of the whole list of the national re-
presentatives. Restricting our observations entirely
to the City and the six boroughs of the metropolis, it
is satisfactory to recognise sixteen Whigs and
Radicals, with the exception of one, who is a Liberal
Conservative.
Finsbury is henceforth destined unfortunately to
lose one of those two eminent Liberals, whom we have
already mentioned as among the most meritorious
Members of the House of Commons. Indisposition
of a rather sudden and serious nature has compelled
Mr. WARLEY to decline the honour of being once
more a candidate for the suffrages of the constituency.
After continuing in the House of Commons for
seventeen years as the Member for Finsbury—re-
turned in 1835 by 3,359, in 1837 by 4,957, in 1841
and in 1847 without opposition—the Hon. Gentleman
feels it incumbent upon him to withdraw from that
elevated and onerous position, so as to dedicate
his energies exclusively to the responsible
duties devolving upon him in his professional
capacity as the Coroner for the county of Middlesex.
Rig retirement is a circumstance entitled to our sin-
cere regret, but one, nevertheless, deserving also of
peculiar remembrance. It will act as an incentive to
his successor to bear in recollection the assiduity with
which THOMAS WABLEY, for seventeen years, upheld
the principles of civil and religious liberty during the
existence of four very remarkable Parliaments. The
distinguished merit of Mr. WAKLEY should be borne
in mind by the electors of Finsbury peculiarly at
the present juncture. It should be remembered
as an indication of the responsibilities re-
posing just now in their hands in reference to the
selection of his successor. Those responsibilities are
threefold—for in regard to them the men of Fins-
bury will have to maintain their own character in
the selection of the new representative, they will
have, in his person, to choose a man worthy of bring
Member in the room of THOMAS `VARLET, and
they will have, in so doing, to carry to the
head of the poll one worthy of being the
colleague of THOMAS DUNCOMBE. Candidates
capable of fulfilling those three requisites are
not to be discovered every day, but fortunately
one has already presented himself to the electors ce
the borough in answer to requisitions very nu-
merously signed by large majorities in different
parts of the constituency. It is tolerably well known
by this time that the candidate here alluded to is no
other than JAMES WYLD, at present Member of
Parliament for Bedmin—a man of the people—a man
of liberal and enlightened views—and ene whose
capacities, apart from his office as Legislator, have for
many years fixed upon him the attention of the com-
munity as one of the most eminent of living geographers.
As his colleague Mr. WYLD would, if returned for
Finsbury, have his name coupled with that of no
less popular a representative than Mr. Duecomee.
The difficulty of the position would, therefore, be ex-
treme, because of the really formidable nature of the
contrast of liberality thereby presented. THOMAS DUN-
COMBE has already, as Member for Finsbury, sat in
five consecutive Parliaments—a circumstance almost,
if not entirely, unparalleled in the history of our
great metropolitan constituencies. Rejected in 1832
by the electors of the borough of Hertford,
who sagaciously preferred two-thoroughgoing
and unmistakeable Conservatives, THOMAS SLINGSBY
DUNCOMBE was chosen Member for Finsbury in
1834 by a majority of 2,sl4—since which period he
has been re-elected at all the subsequent general
elections, in 1835 by 4,497, in 1837 by 4,895,
in 1841 and in 1847 without any opposition what-
ever. It is by the side of this free-minded
and uncompromising liberal that Mr. WYLD will
have to appear upon the local hustings very soon after
the period of dissolution. Happily for him, and for
the electors of Finsbury, the principles maintained
by the candidate are precisely such as
should appear in one who aspires to be the successor
of THOMAS /VARLET and the colleague of THOMAS
DUNCOMBE. In his address to the electors of Fins-
bury Mr. WYLD proclaims himself to be in favour of
a very considerable extension of the elective
franchise, coupled with the inestimable and
long-denied boon of the ballot. He declares himself
an advocate of triennial Parliaments. He desires to
abolish the property qualification for Members of the
lower branch of the Legislature. He is a
Free-trader, a Financial Reformer, and an
Economist. He is for the abolition of the
Income-tax, for the abolition of the Probate-duty,
and for the abolition of the Poet hire duty. He is
opposed to the increase of our standing army, and
more particularly inimical to that unpopular
Militia, which he aptly designates " a
forced and unequal conscription." He aspires to see a
length organized a regular scheme of national educa-
tion—education of a strictly secular charac-
ter. He insists upon ', the necessity of reforms
in the government of our colonies, in the or-
ganization of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and in the
regulation of the Court of Chancery. In a
:::::le2ip .ieh.s of e announces himself to be, in the
lar.
gest sense of the phrase, a champion of the glorious
Civil and Religious Liberty. Upon two
subjects alone Mr. WYLD is altogether silent in
his adeee,s,
essential among nothing whatever about
LP° necessity fora more equal division of electoral
districts throughout the United Kingdom—one
of the most
all the Parliamentary
doeasmhoenmg make even the most cur-
soryeererur• Neither
n1111:1(} "
n t 3 the great question—literally one of
the most " vitally
important questions of the day— I
the question of Sanitary
ft: al tlllcenitei-3:cl.ll,o:sidcr to be,
y Improvement. His silence,
honeve', upon these two .
Mr. Wee,n'a policy
particulars we regard
ble to
as attributa an oversi ht. The general
cagn render us doubt-
inheallthre representative of
.. the one instance •
nor m the other. That
policy vie espects, worthy of
aspires to
of THOMAS
a candidate who
Finsbury, and,
as such, the colleague
SLINGSBY Dinie°3lnr.

After thirty-six years of protracted litigation, dur-
lag which the successive claimants en
most vexatious,eountered the
and, we regret to be obliged to add,
pettifogging opposition, the case of the Baron
DE
J34:4)14 45, through the genetolo and }ammo ezez.