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

ientn rnt

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCII 14, 1849.

The division and debate last evening in the House
of Commons on the subject of church-rates were dis-
creditable alike to the House and the Ministry. The
debate was commenced by Mr. TRELAIVISY, who
moved "that it is the opinion or the House that
effectual measures should be immediately taken for
the abolition of church-rates," upon which Mr. W. P.
WOOD moved as an amendment—
" That the words ' for the abolition of church-rates,'
at the end of the resolution, be omitted, and that there
be inserted in lieu thereof the words for discharging all
persons dissenting from the Church, as by law estab-
lished, from contributing church-rates, and from taking
any part, in levying, assessing, or administering the
same: "

which was supported by Mr. HUME on the
express ground that it had given " general satisfaction
both to the Established Church and Dissenters ;" yet this
amendment, which appears to have been, what com-
promises so seldom are, a compromise founded on
justice—this proposition which had given general sa-
tisfaction both to the members of the Established
Church and to the Dissenters, was rejected by the
House of Commons by a majority of 163, the num-
bers being—

For,the amendment...
Against it ::* 20
Altijority •.• 183
The House then divided on the ori gmal —163
motion, when
there appeared-7_

For the motion .., 84
Against it ••• •.. —"•• 119
Majority...
It is to be hoped that the Dissenters will not again
offer or accept any compromise on this subject. Tin,
supporters of church-rates are now in a situation
similar to that occupied by the Protectionistsin 1841,
and they must be met in a similar manner. They
have rejected a compromise which was declared to be
satisfactory by the great majority of the Established
Church themselves, and such rejection should be
treated as final. The Dissenters must now go for the
total and immediate abolition of church-rates, and
should accept of nothing less. But if the decision
arrived at last evening was discreditable to tile
House, still more discreditable to the Ministry
were the sayings and doings of various of the
members of the Cabinet; and the most dis-
creditable speech of all was the speech of the Prime
Minister himself—a speech which, as Mr. GEORGE
Tuomesosi justly observed, "would throw a chill over
the hearts of those who were seeking relief from a
grievous burden, greater than anything which could
have fallen from any other gentleman on the Treasury
bench," while Mr.IjENLEY lauded it to the skies as being
even more in opposition to the principles of religious
liberty than that of Mr. GLADSTONE himself. All
the old fallacies with regard to church-rates were
reproduced in this trimming, shuffling speech, which
will certainly tend more to damage the Whig' s than
that has occurred anythingsince their return to
office. The speech has, however, some value ; it dis-
closes the ulterior purposes of the motion
of
cLaorrryd
AsaLET for
the subdivision of parishes, to carry
which into effect Lord ASHLEY ostentatiously de-
clared ha should ask no money, thus leaving the ,
country to imagine that the proposed subdivision
would entail no burden either on the Consolidated
Faad or oil the rate-payers PM object of this

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 hud taken place, but he
quite agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, that
all those available funds would be required 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 cf 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 back 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 Jois. HODHOUSE 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
CORYPH,EUS 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-disant Liberal Minister, who trims to obtain the
praise of Mr. HENLEY and his party, may be perhaps
banded 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 eve ling, than may be 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 au area
not exceeding 8,000 acres, and comprising also above
18,000 houses, of the annual value of 10/. and upwards;
and farther, in consideration that there is no other dis
trict 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 till 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?
If the 18,000 101. householders of Kensington,
Chelsea, Hammersmith, and Fulham, should still be
refased the elective franchise, how can it be expected
that 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 to the signs of the
times, so ignorant of past events, so stupidly
bigoted and influenced by untenable prejudices.
The East Retford case cannot as yet have been for-
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 enthu
siastic men, who forced their unfashionable doctrines
on unwilling ears—Manchater and Birmingham
were then wholly unrepresented—the metropolitan

districts—Marylebone, Finsbury, and the Tower
Hamlet', 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,

the rest would speedily follow—that the fulcrum
would be obtained on which the entire system might
be moved. The motion was rejected, and Nat was
the result? The cause of reform was pressed
with redoubled force throughout the coun-
try. Thousands and tens of thousands joined
in the movement who had never previou3ly partici-
pated therein, and within a brief period the anti-
reforming Ministers were driven from office, and a
measure so vast and comprehensive, so radical and
sweeping an alternative was introduced, as to astonish
and delight veteran Reformers, who had maintained
their principles through good report and through evil
report. Let the opponents of progressive reforms
seriously consider what may be the results if they
should now reject a motion so analogous in every
respect as that now about to be brought forward by
the Liberal Member for Glasgow.

Last evening Lord PALMERSTON confirmed the
opinion which has been some time prevalent, that
Denmark will not renew hostilities after the 26th
instant, although the armistice between herself and
her assailants gill by that period have terminated.
In addition to this assurance, the Foreign Secretary
declared to the House of Commons that her MA-
JESTY'S Government still continued sanguine that the
negotiation pending between the belligerents may
lead to their permanent reconciliation. In the settle-
ment of these conflicting claims to Southern Jutland,
there are involved not only the interests of commerce,
but the validity of international law, not only the
validity of international law, but the eternal princi-
ples of justice. Notwithstanding the sophistical
arguments employed by the Chevalier BUNSEN, and
subsequently by an anonymous pamphleteer,* it is
notorious to the whole of Europe that the expe-
dition of the Germanic states, headed by Prus-
sia, against the integrity of the peninsular
territories of Denmark, is not so much a violation of
the rights of sovereignty as an act of the most law-
less spoliation. When Mr. DISRAELI, with that chi-
valrous tenderness for the oppressed which is so emi-
nently befitting the creator and celebrant of Tancred,
pleaded the cause of the Danish monarchy during the
course of last session—the Commons of England
were briefly reminded by the orator that the posses-
sion of the Scandinavian Duchy of Schleswig by
Denmark was solemnly guaranteed to that country
by France and Great Britain, when, in 1720, the
mediating plenipotentiaries of those two powers
mutually ratified the treaty of peace signed at Frede-
rickstadt. Not all the blustering or chicanery in the
world can overcome the force of that one circum-
stance. It sufficiently points out the one, only,
honourable course lying open to our English diplo-
matists.

That matters can remain long in their present deplor-
able uncertainty i 3 altogether impossible. The mercan-
tile enterprizes embarked upon the waters of the Baltic
afford of themselves an adequate reason for a speedy
arrangement. Besides which, the movement in fa-
vour of the Germanic unity requires that this slur
upon the purity of the national character should be
removed before the proceedings of Frankfort assume
anything like a
.definite shape or consistency. The
Confederation must expiate its flagrant aggression
upon the dominions
-of the Danish SOVEREIGN before
it can hope to proceed prosperously in the work of
its own regeneration.

We have no fear whatever but what, under the in-
spiration of Lord PALMERSTON, the negotiations made
on the part of England will end happily for the in-
habitants of the Danish Peninsula. No matter
what may be the concessions required, we
are satisfied, moreover, that a termination of
the present hostilities will afford a full and ample
compensation to the assailants and the assailed—be-
sides sheltering the mercantile vessels of many nations
from the dangers to which they are, under existing
circumstances, subjected. Those who may have the
opportunity of aiding, even in a subordinate capacity,
these generous efforts of the Noble Viscount at the
head of the Foreign Department, will have deserved
well not only of the Cabinets of Copenhagen and
Berlin, but of the whole of those traders whose
ships have to penetrate through the archipelago of
Denmark.

" Who is to Blame for the War between Denmark
and Germany?" Bvo., pp. 32. Effingham Wilson, Lon•
don: 1849.

The Royal Naval Club have sent an invitation to
the Lord Mayor to dine with them this day, as an
old messmate with many of them on the blue waters.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

We have received the Paris papers of yesterday.
The discussion on the previous day in the National
Assembly on the proposition of M. PASSY, the Fi-
nance Minister (who, when filling the same office,
under Louis PHILIPPE, had proposed the dotation of
the Due DE NEMOURS) for increasing the allowance
to the PRESIDENT of the Republic by 50,0001. per
month, under the head frais de representation, was
of a very stormy character, and it is doubtful whether
M. PASSY would have carried his proposition, had it
not been for the assistance of M. DUFAURE. The
journals of the reaction are decidedly favourable to
the grant; they no doubt look upon it as a step in
the direction of the Monarchy, and that the Republi-
cans consider it in the same light is evident from the
following observations of the Reformer—
" Behold us returned to the good times of King Louis
Philippe. Money! money! Whatever be the distress
of our finances, and whatever be the extent of public
misery, our princes and their courtiers must make a dis-
play. Little matter to them the Constitution, public
decency, and the misery of the faubourgs. M. Bona.'
parte, who, according to his electoral partisans, was to
reimburse the 45 centimes and abolish the taxes, will re-
ceive three thousand three hundred and thirty-three
francs per day. A fine figure which the agricultural
population will know how to appreciate! We hope,
however, that the Assembly, better advised, will with-
draw its decision on the second reading."
The Estafette says :—" It appears that M. NAro-
LEON BONAPARTE is about to quit Paris for Madrid,
where he is appointed Minister Plenipotentiary. The
affairs of Italy, and the intervention of bpain in
favour of the POPE, have caused his presence at
Madrid to be considered useful and necessary."
The Committee of the National Assembly charged
to prepare a list of candidates for the Council of
State met again yesterday. It is said that it has
selected ten representatives, and twenty of the former
Councillors of State.

The amendment excluding Ministers of State
from the Assembly, which was proposed in the
electoral law by M. BASTIAT, was yesterday rejected
by the Assembly. It was opposed by M. M. DD LA.
MARTINE and BILLAULT.

Galig,nanes Messenger of yesterday afternoon has
the following paragraph :—" M. OLozAGA, one of the
principal leaders of the Progresista party, left Paris
at an early hour this morning for Madrid. His
somewhat sudden departure is supposed to have some
connexion with certain changes in the personnel of
the present Spanish Cabinet. It is said very gene-
rally that until some changes of this nature take
place, no settlement of the question with England will
be arrived at.

PARIS BOURSE—TUESDAY, MARCH 13.
THREE O'CLOCK.—The Funds were heavy all this
day, and there was still a further decline. The fall is
attributed solely to the realization of profits by the spe-
culators for the rise. There was no news of any kind.
Exchange on London (30 days), 25 22k; ditto (90 days),
25 12k.
LIUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK-EXCHANGE, AlAnca 13.
Boulogne and Amiens, 9%—Central of Fran?e (Orleans
and Vierzon), 12t/—Luxembourg, 1% —Namur and Liege,
1 t%—Paris and Lyons, 34—Paris and Rouen, 218—Rouen
and Havre, 121 A