The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE

BRADFORD R 1 FOR ASSOCIATION.

Sir,—On Monday the 3rd, something was done
towards settling a point of importance to the exer-
cise of the right of petition; which though consider-
ably cut down and maimed by past decisions, is not
without its value. On the subject being raised some
time ago in the House, it is undeniable that some-
thing very much like an impression was left, that
petitions were not to be received with more signa-
tures than could be placed en one sheet of paper; in
proof of which, I perfectly remember that the dis-
cussion was wound up by somebody asking where a
sheet of paper was to be got large enough for the
signatures it might be desired to append.
In this state of things, thirteen petitions made their
appearance yesterday from Inhabitants of Lambeth in
favour of the Zdetropolitaa Interments Bill, with
only about seventy signatures to many of them. On
inquiry why the Inhabitants of Lambeth petitioned
by such small detachments, answer was made that it
was because they had been informed they were to put
no names on a petition beyond what one sheet of
paper would hold.
The question was brought before the Speaker, with
an intimation that if no declaration to the contrary
was made from the Chair, the whole would be pro-
nounced a mistake. And none such being made, and
the Chairman with other members of the Committee
for the reception of Petitions giving their private
assu7ances to the same effect, the whole notion may
be advertised as erroneous.

Of those who ought to have been alive to the
subject, soma were remarkably impervious, and
could by no means have their attention diverted from
the fact, that the inhabitants of any given place may
send as many Petitions as they like; the question
being, whether they shall be forced to send as many
Petitions as they do not like. For example, it is not
long since a Petition was seen in the louse, reputed
to contain a million and a half of signatures. By the
rule supposed, it must have been cut up into twenty
thousand Petitions ; which at a shilling for the indi-
ting of each (not an unreasonable sum if the subject
matter is of any length) implies an expense of a
thousand pounds.
On the same evening progress was made in the Me
tropolitan Interments Bill. Ido not find that I have
the horror which some friends have, of what they call
centralization. My feeling is, that the question resolves

itself into the truism, that centralization is a good
when it is of use, and the contrary. Perhaps a fur-
ther step may be, that centralization is useful when the
things to be executed are uniform, common to all, ca-
pable of arrangement by general rules, and in addition
require to be energetically carried forward. When,
on the other hand, new questions and new circum-
stances arise at every turn, centralization is a folly,
because it is giving the decision to those who must
necessarily be ignorant, and taking it from those who
know.

At all events the early majorities appear to have de-
cided the carrying of the principle. Wise men there-
fore will attach themselves to the details; and here there
will be found a multitude of points, on which the in-
terests of religious liberty in particular appear to be
involved, and which there is nothing in the feeling
either of the Government which is the present ma-
jority, or of the House in general, to stamp as inca-
pable of satisfactory arrangement. That among the
interests at work some are actuated by feelings of in-
tolerance, may be undeniable enough ; but such in-
terests are not in the ascendant, and with judicious
treatment may be kept down.

At the same time I do not think the Dissenters or

their advocates go very clearly towards their mark.
Tney do not seem to have a distinct knowledge of
what they want, and why ; and they are continually
flying off to points extraneous to the point of present
interest. For instance, the most valuable part of
what the Established Church calls the rite of con-
secration, is generally admitted to be the security it
is made to give to the permanence of places of sepul
tune. Now that the laws of sepulture are before the
Legislature, is the Dissenter to have any portion of the.
like security, or is it to be a luxury reserved for one sect?
Mention this in the House of Commons, and you
will be met with a storm of asseverations that Dis-
senters do not care for consecration. The question
is not that, but whether they care for their bones
lying quiet, and whether they would feel aggrieved
if, on some abandonment or change of the places of
sepulture, they saw the bones of the orthodox care-
fully kept at rest, and those of their children or pro-
genitors dug up and sent to the bone-mill to make
room for beer-cellars. If a Dissenter likes this, there
is no denying his right; but if he does not, he should
look to preventing it when it is the time.
On this particular subject, a member of the Go-
vernment made some answer, intended to be satis-
factory ; but not so distinct as to be relied on. What
should be relied on, should be in the Statute.
Quare the value of anything else, twenty years hence.
O❑ Tufsday the whole of the night was consumed
on a private motion on Irish Poor Laws. A gulph
of talk, and as unlikely to lead to any result, as it
would be to paddle about the Serpentine with a view
to finding the Arctic voyagers.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
AN OLD REFORMER.
Loudon, June 5, 1850.