The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-08 00:00:00

Motion just disposed of.—(Hear, hear.) His •case was
simply this. He saw two vacant seats in that House
caused by the disfranchisement of Sudbury, while on
the other hand he saw four compact parishes, with a
population of 125,000 inhabitants, 18,000 of whom paid
a rental of 101. and upwards. His resolution was, that they
should, by Act of Parliament, erect Kensington, Chelsea,
Fulham, and Hammersmith, into a Parliamentary borough,
returning two Members. Lord Chatham once said that
taxation without representation was tyranny. Looking
at the electoral distribution of the country, he found 40
boroughs returning two Members each, or 80 Members
for a population, which, according to the census of 1841,
did not exceed 220,000 inhabitants. According to this
ratio, the four parishes to which his motion referred,
would return 62 Members, and yet he only asked two.
The case was precisely parallel with that of East Retford
in 1829. Mr. Huskisson proposed that the representa-
tion of that borough should be transferred to Birming-
ham. The Government, however, resisted it and with
success, but in 1830 a new Government came into power,
and the Reform Bill was the consequence, and schedule
A, under which not only East Retford, but many others
were disfranchised. He verily believed that if they re-
fused t) agree to this resolution, the result would be a
second schedule A.—(Hear.) He merely claimed
this moderate instalment of Parliamentary reform
that they might have an opportunity of showing
the people that, when amendment was really neces-
sary, they were ready to carry it out. The Hon. Mem-
ber then went into voluminous details for the purpose of
showing the unequal manner in which the representation
of the country was distributed; but the buzz of conver-
sation eff,caually prevented the Hon. Member's statistics
from reaching the gallery. He placed the claim of the
inhabitants of these four parishes upon the footing that
they paid taxes and ought to be represented. It would
be impossible for the country to go on with its present
representation, and every Member who voted against him
that night would be regarded as opposed to all reform.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving—" That in con-
sideration of the parishes of Kensington, Chelsea, Ful-
ham, and Hammersmith containing a population of about
110,000 inhabitante,residing on an area not exceeding 8000
acres, and comprising also above 18,000 houses of the an-
nual rental of 101. and upwards; and further, in considera-
tion that there is no other district in Great Britain with so
great a number of inhabitants and houses unrepresented
directly in this House; it is expedient and just to in-
corporate, by an Act of Parliament, the parishes of Ken-
sington, Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith, into a
Parliamentary borough, empowered to return two Mem-
bers to this House, to fill up the vacancies caused by the
disfranchisement of the late borough of Sudbury."
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Mr. BAUSHAW supported the prayer of the peti-
tion presented by the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Harwich (Major Beresford), and observed that a new
race of men had now sprung up at Sudbury, who, if the
House would allow that borough to resume their solemn
functions, he felt assured, would not again transgress.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, the speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Glasgow, which had evidently produced a con-
siderable impression on the House—(Laughter)—ap-
peared to proceed on the presumption that Sudbury
might be replaced in the representation by these four
parishes; but it appeared to him that the function of
such boroughs as Sudbury was to return to the House of
Commons representatives whose talents were eminently
useful to the public, but who were, nevertheless, unable
to find access to the House through the medium of larger
constituencies; and he therefore could not regard these,
four large parishes as a proper substitute for such a
borough. He wished the House to ask itself these two
questions—would the constituency be likely to improve
the character of the House of Commons?—(Great
laughter)—and, secondly, was it likely to give ex-
pression to some class of opinions that was at present
unrepresented?—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") Was it not
notorious that in Birmingham opinions prevailed which
could not find place in any other part of the empire?—
(Renewed laughter.) Was it not a fact that the opinions
enunciated by the Hon. Member for Manchester, if he
could be considered an exponent of their institutions of
King, Lords, and Commons, were opinions that at least
it would bo unfair to suppose prevailed in any other part
of the empire?—(Hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman had not yet told them what opinions these four
parishes were to represent. They certainly would not
be manufacturing constituencies. He resided in the im-
mediate neighbourhood of these districts, and had at-
tended seme of their public meetings and parochial din-
ners—(A laugh)—and he had been assured by many of
the inhabi•asts that they were unwilling to be the object
of the Hon. Gentleman's experiment—(Roars of laugh-
ter)—and that the origin of the present motion was oc-
casioned by the passions and feelings of some of the in-
habitants having been led away by a speech of the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Bolton.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought on these grounds the motion ought to be
rejected.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion, the carrying
of the Hon. Gentleman's motion would inflict a gross in-
justice on the adjoining district in which he happened to
reside.—(Hear, and laughter.) Now (said the Hon.
Gentleman with greet solemnity) the question I have
to put to the Hon. Gentleman is this—On what ground
is Knightsbridge excluded?—(Great laughter and cheer-
ing.) I assure him there is such a district, which lies
between Hyde- park-corner and Kensington—(Hear)—
and I can assure him that, in point of civilization—
(Renewed laughter)—intelligence, and capability of
ex-rcising the elective franchise, Knightsbridge is not
irfseior to any other part of her Majesty's dominions.—
(Rears of laughter, and cheers.) He thought the Let
ct Knightsbridge being excluded was an argument which
would he found adapted to the minds of many Hon.
Members.—(A laugh.) He would suggest to the Hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his resolution. If he persevered
in it, and if he succeeded in carrying away the House—
(Laughter)—e, hen:it came to the second reading,and sas
in Committee, he should move a clause to exclude the
hamlet of Knightsbridge.
Sir G. GREY observed that the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman was merely a resolution, expressive of the
opinion ( f that House, and not a motion for leave to
bring in a Bill. The question involved in it was, were
they jmt fled in disposing of the right of selecting two
representatives to that House without much fuller in-
formation than they had at present? He reminded the
House that the Hon. Member for Cork had intimated
his intention of putting forward the claim of that part of
Ireland to additional representatives. Now with regard
to the parishes in question, he apprehended that the
number of metropolitan representatives had been ma-
turely considered at the time of the passing of the Re-
form Bill, and they ought not to disturb the settlement
then made without some good grounds being laid before
that House—(Hear.) On that ground alone he was
prepared to resist the motion. He did not know upon
what information the Hon. Gentleman had founded his
statistical details of the number of houses in those parishes,
they had no official returns, at all events, on which that
could be ascertained with accuracy. He did not think they
ought to proceed with such a resolution without great
deliberation 'and irquiry.—(Hear, hear.) But he was
ready to take issue with the Hon. Gent'eman on the pro-
position he had made to the House. If Kensington and
Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham, were to be re-
presented, why should they stop there? why should they,
not take in Turnham-green—(Laughter)—and Chis-
wick? acd why should it not be proposed that Brentford
also should have a Member? He concurred with the
H ,n. Member who spoke last, in hoping that the House
would not give its assent to the resolution of the Hon
Member.

Mr. HUME said the inhabitants of those parishes
complained that the House of Commons was incomplete,
and they demanded that the number should be filled up.
Considering the numbers and wealth of these parishes,
was evident that there had been a great omission in
the Reform Bill in excluding them when Marylebone
and Finsbury' hed obtained representatives. Why,
the population of these parishes had doubled within
the last sovan or eight years. No doubt the
question of representation must shortly come
before the House, and he thought the district in ques-
tion would in that case have lit t'e difficulty in establish-
ing its prior claim on the attention of the Government.
He at?vised the lion. Get tleman not to press the question
at present, but to give notice of his intention to moN.
for 12ave to bring in a Bill. s s s s

Colonel DliNisTE hoped the claims of Ireland would
ct be overlooked; and if the Hon. Gentleman meant
to pr(s3 his motion to a division, he understood that the
Hon. Member for Cork would meet it with an ame2d-
merit. He stated that fact to show that the Irish Mem-
bers were alive to their own interests.

After a few words from Mr. MACGREGOR in reply,
the .Hon. Gentleman, yielding to the cense of the House,
withdrew his motion.
The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S

SISTER.
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to amend and alter an Act passed in the fifth and sixth
years of the reign of King William IV., so far as re-
lates to marriages within certain of the prohibited de-
grees of affinity. He would not at present enter into
any details, as it Nr al inconvenient to discuss the prin-
ciple of a Bill upon its first reading. The Bill was in
substance the same as that of last y ear ; but with the
view of meeting the objections of many of his lion.
Friends In that House, he proposed to introduce into it
two amendments, the principle of which was to confine
the measure to the actual existing evil, for which be
now sought to supply a remedy—namely, the prohibi-
tion of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. lie,
therefore, proposed not only to relieve tke clergy from
any compulsion to celebrate the marriage, but also to
protect the clergy from any proceedings that might
otherwise be taken against them in the Ecclesiastical
Court, on account of an alleged breach of the
discipline of the Church. He had felt the force of
the objections that were urged against the mea-
sure cf last session upon this ground, and having
consulted with many of his Hon. Friends, he was in-
duced to frame his measure in such a way as would
leave the discipline and rules of the Church perfectly
untouched by t-. Ile would not, therefore, inter f-re
with the law of the Church, nor with its discipline. He
would remind the House that after a lengthened debate
upon the principle of the measure last year, and three
Adjournments, it was sanctioned by a considerable LCSt-
jori ty in a "louse composed of 320 Members.
Tie SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir B. INGLIS rose to oppose the introduction of a
measure which ho felt involved the most serious con-
sequences. He could not but feel himself justified in
the course he was now taking when he recollected
the sanction which the House gave to the motion he
submitted to them, when a Noble Friend of
his askel leave to introduce a similar measure
in a former session. The House in that case
eventually rejected the request for the intro-
duction of such a Bill. It would not perhaps be
convenient on the present occasion to state all his ob-
jections to that measure. It was sufficient for him
to know that it was one which not only proposed an
alteration in the law of the land, but also an alteration
in the law of the Church, and an alteration—if man could
103Ake It—of the law of God. It was a measure which
propelled a violation of what he believed to be ocriPtitril