The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-25 00:00:00

of BUCCLEUCH be reluctant to avail himself of a
renewal of a lease so obtained, when the whole
transaction is virtually repudiated by both:sides in
the Home of Commons, when it is reprobated in
the very strongest language by Mr. DISRAELI and
by Mr. GLADSTONE, by the Chancellor of the
ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. However this
I- may or may not be—the renewal of the lease,
no matter how obtained, has been completed.
The Treasury Minute, signed in the dark by Mr.
DISRAELI, in the summer of 1852, is now, in the
(summer of 1862, still in existence—with the then
Minister's signature affixed to it. The successor
of Mr. DISRAELI as Chancellor of the Exchequer
had, of course, no alternative whatever but to
accept the consequence of the melancholy and
mystical Minute, signed in an evil hour by his
predecessor. What Mr. DISRAELI had committed
the office to do—the holder of the office after him
did ! C'est tout—and certainly that "little all" is
quite enough under the circumstances. For, what
now is the situation P Why, the situation is simply
this—that to-morrow the Thames Embankment Bill
will be printed in a manner so different from what it
had originally, that it will then be found by the
public to provide for carrying the northern em-
bankment of the river Thames no further than
Scotland-yard ! There—at that sacred point upon
the borders of the tabooed slip of land known as
Whitehall Gardens, the works are to stop ! And
this simply in deference to the wishes, the whims—
the fastidious predilection for retirement from the
ways of the vulgar multitude—of certain influential
residents there in Whitehall: More particularly in 1

compliance with the requirements of his grace the

noble occupant of Montage House, the Duke of
BUCCLEUCH and Conpßivcilmixim. Co-^ .”^h thinita
be, and overcome us like a summer cloud"—in this
month of June, 1862---,, without our special wonder,"
without raising a storm of indignant opposition
against these obstructors, against the arch-obstruc-
tor of this grandest among all our great metropolitan

improvements ? We cannot for one instant believe
this. We cannot seriously imagine for one moment
that, in these days, any such flagrant sacrifice of the
general good to the whims of any one man, no
matter how high born he may be, no matter how
wealthy, or how influential, or how socially
puissant, can now, in 1862, be quietly, and meekly,
and meanly tolerated. It is incumbent upon us
one and all to protest against it—and to do so
promptly, loudly, and unmistakeably.
London has now, by a happy fortune, installed in

the civic chair one of the most popular, and deservedly
popular, Lord Mayors who has for a long while past
occupied that responsible post of the chief magis-
tracy. Let this popular Lord Mayor convene a'public
' meeting, an aggregate meeting, a monster meeting
to protest against this wretched attempt at subser-
viency to one of our great nobles, in contempt for
all those interests and advantages of the community
at large which must, by that one act of subser-
viency, be sacrificed. Is it to be conceded to the
Duke of BUCCLEUCH—or any other man—that this
magnificent project of a grand embankment along
the northern border of the Thames can be cut short
abruptly at Scotland-yard, and thereby conspicu-
ously marred—at his one haughty mandate ? A
Parliamentary Committee conforming to his wishes
thus miserably in the sight of all England ! It is
inconceivable that any proceeding of the kind can
be allowed to pass sub silentio. For ourselves, we
cannot believe for an instant that the free-born citi-
zens of London and Westminster will allow it to
pass at all, The Bill may be printed in due form
to-morrow, altered in the outrageous manner
we have signified, by the timorous hand
of the Committee, at the behest of a
great Duke. But—the bill so altered must just
simply be altered back again. The obstructive at-
titude assumed some few years back by the Duke
of ATHOL up in the far north of this Island. of
Great Britain, was but a mere nothing to that now
assumed by the Duke of BUCCLEIICII under the
very shadow of the Palace of the Legislature down
at Westminster. It cannot, we repeat, be in any
way whatever connived at. The House of Com-
mons will, we are absolutely, certain of this, see
that it is not tolerated. And meanwhile, we are
equally well persuaded, orr the other hand, that the
population of London will not look on at the con-
tention about the matter here in dispute, in silence
or with indifference.

Mr. ESTCOURT is out of court. He consents to
be nensuited, for the simple reason that he does
not suit—anyone. He does not appear, indeed, to
have found an avowed supporter. Good man—a
better one need not be—he thought in his simplicity
he could please all parties, he found that an inde-
pendent Conservative has as little chance as an in-
dependent Liberal. With a somewhat magnani-
mous demeanour, indeed, Mr. ESTCOURT withdrew
his resolutions, declaring that he did not care to
carry them by a small majority, all appearances in-
dicating that a division must have left him in a very
small minority. His own party would have fur-
nished almost as many opponents to rating owners
as Sir JOHN TRELAWNY'S ; and if they might Dot
have liked to do anything so uncourteous as to vote
against one of their most respected men, they would
doubtless have walked out of the house rather than
have walked into the lobby with him.
The anti-rate party may be said to have:achieved
another triumph. Another proof has been afforded
of the impossibility of any other plan being
adopted than that of Sir Roux TRELANNY,
or of Mr. BRIGHT and Lord EBURY, which is, in-
deed, but virtual abolition. It is once more shown
that no ingenuity can devise a compromise which
shall be tolerated by all parties. Whoever is com-
pelled to pay exclaims against the compulsions
The rich owners of property grumble as much as
a little dissenting tradesman. Ia theory, the owners
contend that they pay the rates now—and Mr.
BERESPORD HOPE, if we remember rightly, said
that he should raise all his rents by the amount
from which abolition would relieve the occupiers.
Yet these occupiers kick exceedingly against being
saddled with the rate directly, which they now
assert that they pay indirectly. We should resist
it on other grounds. We do not think owners,
kilY more than occupiers, should be compelled to
support either the fabric or the service of our
churol„.
They may be Nonconformist owners, for
there are
plenty such. The owner of property
surely has
contribution to
much right to ask exemption from
what he disapproves as tho occu-
pier. However, owners
seem to be averse
to being rated to keep in repair the parish
tenants attend, although
to be themselves
churches which their
BaurecnbtmA.en.lf This
any
professing
essential ought to teach all parties the
distasteful-
ness of compulsory religious
pecuniarily' benefited by church-rates,
persons are
it is those whose property the Church renders more
desirable as a residence, yet even these persons dis-
like to be taxed to keep the Church in repair.
Mr. ESTCOURT shares, with many others, one
strange delusion. He thinks the fabric of the
Church has a better claim on compulsory support
from all parishioners than the requisites for wore
ship_ He proposes that the rate should be volun-
tary for washing and mending the surplice, com-
pulsory for white-washing and repairing the build-
ing. Now, we admit that the churches are parish