The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-25 00:00:00

VESTRIES' AMENDMENT BILL.

The rejection of this Bill was manifest to the supporters of it,
as the majority was of a mixed and unusual nature not to be
easily accounted for. That those who oppose Reform in Parlia-
ment should also continue their opposition to the Reforrn in Se-
lect Vestries is quite consistent, and was to be expected: we,
therefore, do not blame Sir Robert Peel, Sir H. Inglis, Mr.
Goulburn, and all their associates, who have at all times objected
to the abolition of the Select Vestries ; but that Lord Althorp,
Sir James Graham, Mr. Rice, and their friends should be found
objecting to the amendment of the Vestry Bill, and voting with
the determined supporters of all ancient and restricted institu-
tions and abuses, must be surprising to every thinking man, and
more so to a reflecting Reformer. The inspection of the list of
the majority will show the strange mixture of Anti-reformers
and Liberals—of Members of the late and the present Govern-
ment—which must really astonish the country. The history of the
Vestry Bill, and the frequent disappointment of its supporters, is
yet recent : and it cannot be forgotten that he discontent in the
metropolitan parishes, and threats to refuse the payment of
church and other rates by the parishioners, and likely to be at-
tended with very unpleasant consequences, induced the present
Ministers in the last Session of Parliament to sanction and sup-
port Sir John Hobliouse's Bill, and it consequently went through
the House of Commons, pretty well calculated to answer the ob.
ject of the petitioners—viz., " the abolition of self.elected Ves-
tries ;" at any rate the Committees of the several parishes were
satisfied to make a trial of the Bill ; but in the House of Lords
the Ministers were too weak to prevent the Duke of Wellington
and his associates from mangling it in a shocking manner, and
almost to deprive it of its efficiency. An effort was made, how.
ever, by the Ministers, and the Bill was again altered, and much
of the objectionable parts rejected, but enough remained to be,
in the opinion of the Committees of the parishes, almost as a
complete bar to their attempting to get rid of the self-elected
Vestries, and they, therefore, now came to Parliament to have
those errors corrected, and the Bill perfected. If Lord Althorp
intended to concede a boon to the wishes of the numerous
parishioners in and about London, he surely meant that the
Bill should be such as would enable the parishes to act upon it.
The parishioners, who know their own capabilities best, declare
they cannot avail themselves of the intended boon, and that the
Bill, unless altered, must be a dead letter to them. The Lords,
for example, actually prevent the parishes from acting on the
Bill until March, and when that time shall come, it is in the
power of a minority of the rate payers in the parish to prevent
its operation at all. Sir John Hobhouse stated as his reasons for
the second reading of the Bill, " that the amendments might be
considered in the Committee." That did appear to be reasonable,
to say no more of it. And it was matter of astonishment to see
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues led so er-
roneously by Mr. George Lamb, to oppose the Bill, on the plea,
as he stated, that, however absurd the Bill might be, and how-
ever inapislicable for the purposes intended, the House ought to
wait, and that a trial of the existing Bill ought first to be made.
That Mr. Lamb should oppose the Bill is no matter of surprise
to those who recollect his declared opinions, and know he injured
the existing Bill last Session by his amendments. But that Sir
James Graham and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Rice,
Lord Duncannon, and others, who had voted with Mr. Hob-
house for the Bill in former Sessions, when opposed by the
Tories, should now be so glaringly inconsistent and hostile to
their friends as to join Mr. Peel and the other Anti-reformers,
and throw out the Bill, as there were only a majority of four
against the Bill, it may be regretted that Sir John Hobhouse did
press the House to a division at that time when unprepared, as it
really does not appear possible, although the Ministers have
acted inconsistently, that a House of Commons now supporting
Reform in Parliament, could have been so inconsistent as to re-
fuse to sanction a complete, efficient, as well as speedy reform in
the self-elected nomination Vestries. We hope for the character
of the House generally, although the Ministers have shown they
pay little attention to their inconsistency, that the Bill would
have passed if there had been a full attendance.
It is lamentable to think that the crying abuses of any self.
elected vestry should be allowed to continue another year, and
the more so when those abuses must be considered to be sanc-
tioned and perpetuated by the very Ministers who are support-
ing Reform, and pressing it with praise-worthy perseverance in
the House of Commons. Let those who can account for such
proceedings—we cannot, and will not attempt it.
LIST OF THE MAJORITY OF 44, WHO VOTED AGAINST
THE SECOND REAI)ING OF THE VESTRIES' AMEND-
MENT BILL —Jan. 23.

Althorp, Vis.—Northamptonsh.
Baring, F. T.—Portsmouth
Burge, \V.—Eye

Mangles, J.—Guildford
Palmerston, Vis.—Bletchingley
Peel, Sir R.—Tamworth
l'onsonby, G.—Youghall
Porchester, Lord—Wootton

Campbell, J.—Stafford
Copeland, Alderman—Coleraine
Courtenay, T. P.—Totness
Cramptou,P.C.—MilbournePort
Duncannon, %Is. —Kilkenny Co.
Dundas, It. A.—Edinburgh
Estcourt, T. G. B.—Oxford Un.
Forbes, Sir C.—Malmesbury
Freshfield, J.W .—Penryn
Freemantle, Sir T.—Bucking.

Basset
Praed, W. M.—S. Germain
Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.—Limerick
Robinson, G. H.—Worcester
Rose, Sir G. H.—Christchurcn
Ross, C.—St. Germain
Russell, C.—Reading
Sam4on, Viscount—Liverpool
Smith, V.—Northampton
Somerset, Lord G.—Monmouth-

ham
Goulburn. H.—Cambridge Un.
Graham, Sir J. R. G.—Cumberl.
Grimston, Viscount—Newport,
Cornwall
Herbert, E. C. H.—Callington
Hodgson, Barnstaple
Holmes, W.—Haslemerc

shire
Stanley, Right Hon. E. G. S.—

j Windsor
J Stormont, Visc.—Woodstock
Wason, R.—lpswich
Willoughby, Sir H.—Yarmouth
Isle of Wight
[Yorke, Capt.—Reigate

,
Hughes, W. H.—Oxford
Jenkins, R.—Shrewsbury
Joliffe, Sir W.—Petersfield
Inglis, Sir R. H.—Oxford Un.
Lamb, G.—Dungarvon

TELLERS.
Mackinnon, W. A.—Lymington
Weyland J.—Hindon

MINORI'
Benett, J.—Wiltshire
Blamire, W.—Cumberland
Blackney, W.—Co. of Carlow
Blunt, Sir R. C.—Lewes
Bouverie, D. P.—New Sarum
Briscoe, J. I.—Surrey
Brougham, W. —Southwark
Burke, Sir J.—Co. of Galway
Carter, J. B.—Portsmouth
Calcratt, G. H.—Wareham
Calley, T.—Cricklade

CY OF 40.
Paget, T.—Leicestershire
Pendarves, E. W.—Cornwall
Phillips, Sir It. B.—Haverfordw.
Ruthven, E. S.—Downpatrick
Sanford, E. A.—Somersetshire
Spence, G.—Ripon
Strickland, G.—Yorkshire
Strutt, E.—Derby
Stuart, Lord 1). C.—Arundel
Talbot, C. IL—Glamorganshire
Thicknesse, It.— Wigan
Venables, Ald.—London
Walker, C. A.—Wexford
Warburton, H.—Bridport
Williams, W.—Monmouthshire
Wood, J.—Preston
Wilde, T.—Newark
Wyse, T., jun.—Tipperary Co.

Ellice: K —Coventry
Ewart, %V.—Liverpool
Gordon, R.—Cricklade
Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire
Hunt, Henry—Preston
Lefevre, C. S.—Hampshire
Marjoribanks, S.—Hy the
Marshall, W.—Bevur ley
Noel, Sir G.—Rutlandshire
Nugent, Lord—Aylesbury
O'Connor Don—Roscom. Co.

TELLERS.
Hume, J.—Middlesex
Hobhouse, Sir J. C.—Westmin.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER.

POPU,

,ATION.

RETURN TO AN ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY, DATED
DECEMBER 17, 1831 ;—FOR
RETURN OF THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL
COUNTIES OF ENGLAND AND WALES, SCOTLAND
AND IRELAND, AS ENUMERATED IN 1831.
WALES.
COUNTIES ENGLAND.
COUNTIES OF TOTALS. COUNTIES OF TOTALS.
Bedford 95,383 Anglesey 48,325
Berks
a 412
31144:95473,',
:95:00,
clCßMontgomery7,,
)iaareerernr(Carmartheni.libiaginnrgahe. Cardigan
hi,
Buckingham
100,655
Cambridge....
Chester
Cornwall .. .......... ... 30'2,440 Flint 60,012
Cumberland'
33,609
Derby
66,485
Devon
Durham
Dorset
Essex
.. .................. 317,233

Gloucester 386,904
Hereford
Hertford
Huntingdon 53,149
Kent
Lancaster
Leicester
Lincoln
Middlesex 1,358,541
Monmouth
Norfolk
Northampton
Northumberland 2'2.2,912
Nottingham 225,320
Oxford
Rutland 19,385
Salop
Somerset
Southampton
Stafford 410,485
Suflblk
Surrey 486,326
Sussex 272,328
Warwick
Westmoreland 55,041
Wilts
Worcester 211,356
York (East Riding) 168,646
York (City) & Ainsty 35,:2,62
York (North Riding) 190,873
York (West Riding) 976,415
SUMMARY OF G
England
Wales
Scotland ..
Army, Navy, &c

SCOTLAND.

COUNTIES OF TOTALS.
Aberdeen 177,651
Argyle 101,425
Ayr
Banff' 48,604
Berwick ...... ....... ..
Bute 14,151
Caithness 34,529
Clackmannan 14,729
Dumbarton 33,211
Dumfries 73,770
Edinburgh
Elgin 34,231
Fife
Forfar
Haddington
Inverness 94,797
Kincardine 31,431
Kinross
Kirkcudbright
Lanark 316,819
Linlithgow 23,201
Nairn
Orkney and Shetland
Peebles 10,578
Perth
Renfrew
Ross and Cromftrty
Roxburgh
Selkirk 6,833
Stirling 72,621
Sutherland
Wigtown 36,258

ItEAT BRITAIN.
13,089,338
805,236
2,365,H.07
'277,017

T0ta1....
N.B.—No Return has be
Whitehall, Jan. 19, 1832.

16,537,398
en received from Ireland.
S. M. PIIILLIPPS.

The GLORIOUS CAUSE of ANTI-REFORM.

WARWICKSHIRE ANTI-REFORM PETITION.
This praiseworthy document was sent to our public
office yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, for signatures,
and up to twelve o'clock to-day, has received only five
signatures.
Rouse yourselves borough mongers, or you will be laug ht d
to death.

Mr. SERLE, of the Coburg, has a new tra-
gedy out at Drury-lane Theatre, in which Mr.
51Amtc:ming
AnYii to perform the principal character.—Taller.

We contend that all the disgrace, all the
obloquy, which has been cast upon the city of Bristol, bas
resulted from the inefficiency of its local government,
We therefore regret, deeply regret, that his Majesty's Mi-
nisters have delayed to institute a rigid inquiry in the
right quarter. The term Bristolian has become a re-
proach, confidence has been destroyed, trade is languish-
ing, the task of patrolling by day and by night has been
imposed on or undertake❑ by the citizens, our streets teem
with military, and every thing wears the appearance of a
city requiring some extraordinary effort to restrain the
whole population from revolt ; and all this because the
timidity of those to whom we had a right to look for pro.
tectio❑ in a case of emergency gave a licence, at least in
roost eases, to a comparatively insignificant number of
wretches to revel in the work of destruction. We re-
gard such conduct as a monstrous case of public delin•
quency, and it is one to which our minds will never be
reconciled, uutil a full and impartial investigation shall
have bad the result of accumulating on the criminals that
disgrace which now would seem to rest on the heads tf
the entire population.—Bristol Mercury.