The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 14, 1849

notable plan was, however, disclosed by Lord JOHN
RUSSELL in his speech of last evening, who, when
alluding to the plan which had been proposed some
ten years since for defraying the rates out of the
funds of the Church itself, said—

" An inquiry into these funds had taken place, but he
quite agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, that
all those available funds would be r, quired for the spiri-
tual instruction of the people by means of the subdivision
of parishes, to the principle of which the House agreed
some time ago."

Thus the House has been cajoled into giving its
assent to a measure on the understanding that it
would cost the country nothing, which, in fact, costs
the country the whole amount of the church-rates,
inasmuch as but for that measure the whole of the
church-rates would be defrayed out of the funds of
the Church itself. We hope it is not too late to
defeat this scheme of my Lord ASHLEY. Now that
the real object of that proposition is ascertained, now
we know that the upholders of church-rates (taking a
leaf out of the book of the railway companies, who,
whenever there is a chance of the dividend reaching
the maximum, undertake some new work in order to
keep it down), have cunningly proposed this
scheme for the purpose of absorbing the funds
which ought to have been devoted to the practical
abolition of church-rates---we call upon all those who
are opposed to church-rates to commence without
delay a vigorous opposition to this scheme of my
Lord ASHLEY, in opposing which they are, in
fact, opposing church-rates themselves, and
which, if suffered to progress, will not
only tend to the continuance, but to the great in-
crease of church-rates, by increasing the number of
fabrics on which the proceeds of those rates are ex-
pended. The division lists of last night should be
carefully studied. How did Sir CHARLES WOOD,
Lord PALMERSTON, and Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE vote ?
On former occasions these gentlemen supported mea-
sures for the abolition of church-rates. Above all,
how did Mr. HAwEs vote ? He was wont to be
CORYPILEUS of the Dissenting interest in the House
of Commons ; he, was wont to be the stern denouncer
of all ecclesiastical extortion. Surely he did not
sink the eloquent defender of JOHN THOROGOOD
in the Under-Secretary to the Colonies ? Surely
the vote of the Member for Kinsale in
1849 did not contradict the vote of the
Member for Lambeth in 1839 ? Sir GEORGE GREY
shared with Lord JOHN RUSSELL the discredit of
appearing in the House of Commons as the avowed
defender of church-rates. The Dissenters of Lon-
don and the Presbyterians of Northumberland will pro-
bably remember their speeches at the next election ;
and if this course of conduct be continued, my Lord
JOHN RUSSELL may, perchance, discover that the
soi-clisant Liberal Minister, who trims to obtain the
praise of Mr. HENLEY and his party, may be perhaps
handed over to their tender mercies, and forced
to rely exclusively upon them for support.

More will depend on the result of the motion of
which the Hon. Member for Glasgow has given notice
for to-morrow evening, than may he supposed on a
mere superficial consideration of its terms. It is an
application on behalf of the inhabitants of four
populous and wealthy parishes in the immediate vicinity
of the metropolis, that the district in which they reside
may be incorporated into a Parliamentary borough,
empowered to return two Members to the House of
Commons. They demand that the privileges which
had been most justly forfeited by a constituency, who
had been convicted on the most incontrovertible tes •
timony of habitual bribery and corruption in the ex-
ercise of the elective franchise, should be transferred
to themselves; and they rest their claim upon the
simple fact that there is no other district in Great
Britain with so great a number of inhabitants unre-
presented directly in Parliament. The mere notice
of motion contains a plain statement of facts which
should insure its success. No more powerful argu-
ments could be adduced. It is—
" That in consideration of the parishes of Kensington,
Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith, containing a popu.
lation of about 120,000 inhabitants, residing on an area
not exceeding 8,000 acres, and comprising also above
LB,OOO houses, of the annual value of 101. and upwards;
and. further, in consideration that there is no other die
met in Great Britain with so great a number of inha-
bitants and houses unrepresented directly in this House,
it is expedient and just to incorporate, by an Act of Par-
liament, the parishes of Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham,
and Hammersmith into a Parliamentary borough, em-
powered to return two Members to this House, to fill up
the vacancies caused by the disfranchisement of the late
borough of Sudbury."
This, then, is a simple appeal for justice—that the
right of representation, so long withheld, should at
length be conceded—that a glaring defect in the
Reform Bill should be remedied even at the eleventh
hour. There is no desire that the proportion of
county and borough Members, of English, Irish, and
Scotch representatives, solemnly decided en that
great occasion, should be in any degree varied or
disturbed. Five hundred Members were allotted to
England and Wales, and two of those Members have
for some time past been wanting. Sudbury has been
disfranchised, and another English borough should be
incorporated in lieu thereof. Can any other body of
persons in England or Wales, nay, throughout
the United Kingdoms, present so many powerful
claims ? They exceed 120,000 in number,
18,000 of whom occupy houses of the annual value
of 101. and upwards, a standard of property to which,
as Mr. ALEXANDER MACKAY happily remarked, "the
statute pays peculiar deference," and those houses
are all contained within an area of 8,000 statute acres.
The appeal is irresistible, and cannot be opposed with
any appearance of equity.
It is not because a century since those parishes
contained only a few scattered and thinly inhabited
villages, that their increased wealth, and above all,
their increased population, can now be disregarded.
How can there be a full and fair representation of the
people if a demand so reasonable should be slighted
If the motion be negatived it can only be re-
garded as a distinct and positive assertion of the doc-
trine of " finality," of the determination of the House
to refuse any further modicum of reform, however
urgently it may be required. The tone and manner
of its reception will indicate the extent of the spirit
of reform within the walls of Parliament, even as
a straw thrown up will show the direction of the
wind. If it should be rejected, what hope can be
entertained that the more extensive measures
so earnestly desired by the people will be conceded?
It the 18,000 101. householders of Kensington,
Chelsea, Hammersmith, and Fulham, should still be
refused the elective franchise, how can it be expected
chat the " household suffrage " generally will be
granted? How can we look for a more equal appor-
tionment of the electoral districts, as regards either
population or property returns, while Horsham, with

its 3,000 inhabitants, returns two Members ; while
Chelsea and the adjoining parishes, with their
120,000, are denied even a single Member ? How
can we hope for more equitable distribution of dis-
tricts, while many thousand persons qualified by
property, by education, in short, by every test that
had ever been even suggested, remain not merely
inadequately, but wholly unrepresented ? How could
we hope for the ballot, a shortening of the duration
of Parliament, the abolition of the property qualifica-
tion, for fiscal, financial, or monetary reforms, from a
representative body so constituted, and so determined
against any change, as the House of Commons
must be, if the motion should be rejected?
It cannot, and it must not be. We can-
not suppose that any body of educated and
intelligent men could be so blind tothheaysiegbnesen
of
for-
the
times, so ignorant of past events, so stupidly
TbihgeotEedast Re
and influenced
ivaeansceedaanbayot
asyet
untenable prejudices.

gotten. The lesson there taught should sink deep
into the minds of the advocates for " finality." The

voice of reform
was scarcely heard throughout the
land, or only uplifted by some ardent and entbu •
siastic men, who forced their unfashionable doctrines

on unwilling ears—Manchester and Birmingham

were then wholly unrepresented—the metropolitan
districts—Marylebone, Finsbury, and the Tower
Hamlets, formed portions of the county of Middle-
sex, and Lambeth was absorbed in the county of
Surrey. Then
it was that the scandalous and
flagrant case of East Retford was brought under the

notice of the House, and it was urged that it should
be deprived
of the franchise which it had con-

verted to such unworthy purposes, and that
the privilege should be extended to either
Manchester or Birmingham, the most im-
portant of the unrepresented districts. The anti-
Reformers, influenced by an unwise and stubborn
perversity, resisted the demand. They dreaded that
if once the point of the wedge should be introduced,