The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-04 00:00:00

Ott ‘,ttit.

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4,18 Th

The S'peetator of last Saturday contained an
article entitled " Legal Anti-Corn-law Agita-
* tion," stating that it was doubted whether Par-
. liament had the power to impose taxes for any
. other purpose than that of raising a revenue for
the State ; and the tax on grain being a tax to
enrich the corporate body of the landed interest,
the Parliament in imposing it seems to have ex-
ceeded its powers for a purpose bordering on
high treason. . There has been some talk, it
was added, of freighting a vessel with grain
from the Baltie,- 'and. endeavouring to land the
cargo without paying the duty, in order that
the question as to whether the duty on imported
grain is a constitutional tax, may be argued be-
fore the Courts of Westminster. We do not re-
fer to the train of argument or to the suggestion
as a novelty, for both have previously appeared
in The Sun, but to state what is going on in men's
minds that the Tories shall have no excuse, by
pleading ignorance, for the mischief their political
quackery will bring on society.
Our argument, indeed, was not that the tax is

unconstitutional, for the Constitution is to be
gathered from practice, and it has been the prac-
tice, beyond legal memory, to levy such taxes ;
nor even that it is beyond the power of Parlia-
ment—for Parliament has done the iniquitous
act—but that it is a violation of the funda-
mental principle of society, namely, that alle-
giance is only due for protection ; that the pro-
tection of property is the principal duty of the
State ; and that the Corn-tax is a violation by
that pow er, which is constituted to prevent all such
violations, of the right of property in every per-
son who pays the Bread-tax. The suggestion
which has appeared in The Sun on the subject,
• was not to appeal to Westminster-hall, for
Westminster-hall is bound to obey and interpret
the statute law, and knows nothing of a Con-
stitution opposed to that, but to run the cargo ,
- and appeal to the people, the source and foun-
tain of all human law. They, and not the
Judges, who are
expressly. forbidden to try or
question the decisions of Parliament, must de-
cide whether the law which taxes the whole
of the consumers of bread, in order to enrich
the owners of rent, be a law which ought to be
obeyed.
We refer, however, to this subject to leave the
Tories without any excuse for bringing the ques-
tion of the duty of allegiance and the question of
obedience to the law into discussion and doubt, by
obstinately maintaining a law which, on prin-
ciples of common justice and of political society,
is untenable. Such discussions, growing out of
' the Corn-laws, have found vent in pamphlets,
and have now reached the cautious Spectator,
which tells us that it has heard such opinions,
and such, a train of argument, more or less dis-
tinctly enunciated from different quarters. Peo-
ple begin, therefore, very generally, driven by
the obstinate adherence of Parliament to a bare-
faced scheme of plunder by law, to examine the
. power, rights, and duties of Parliament itself.
For society such an investigation can have
none but beneficial effects. The more accurately
the powers and duties of Parliament are de-
fined, the more general becomes the conviction,
if correct and true, that the bounds.to its bene-
ficial exercise of power arc very narrow, the
• better must it be for' the community. But we
nre induced to think that such a course of inves-
. tigation will be perilous to Parliament, because
the practical exercise ofits functions by no means
accords with any recognized theory of govern-
ment.

We cannot suppose that the last Parliament
was more deficient in legislative capacity than its
predecessors of fifty, or a hundred, or five hun-
dred years ago; but the criticism continually
directed against its acts and character must satisfy

every man that its laws—if they should last so
long.—must be very mischievous a hundred years
hence.We do not reverence its decisions, and how
can we expect that our successors, who will have
much more knowledge than we have, should do
otherwise than overturn and laugh them to scorn?